The Voyage of Unknowing, Nicholas of Cusa on Learned Ignorance, Narrated by Paul Stefano

[Music]

The voyage of unknowing Nicholas of Kuza

on learned ignorance written by David

Christopher Lane Andrea DM Lane narrated

by Paul Stfano

introduction I first encountered the

mystical logic of Nicholas of Kusa when

I read SL Frank's magnificent and

underappreciated volume, the unknowable.

I was both mesmerized and haunted by

Kuza's coanlike submission of his

philosophy when he wrote, "The

unattainable is attained by its

unattainment." As Socrates and other

mystic philosophers before him, Nicholas

of Kusa had realized through mathematics

and geometry that infinity cannot be

comprehended by that which is finite.

Thus, what is the best way to know that

which exceeds us? by being profoundly

learned in our own ignorance and

understanding that unknowingness is the

only pathway before us. This volume

contains two elemental writings from

Nicholas of Kusa, dialogue on the hidden

god and key excerpts from unlearned

ignorance. Both of these readings

deserve a very close reading since Kusa

wrote in a compacted yet deeply pregnant

fashion providing an intellectual

landscape of precious jewels of inquiry.

I have now read Nicholas of Kusa for

nearly four decades and each time I find

something new to contemplate. We have

bookended Kusa's two selections with

essays that were deeply influenced by

his thinking. The first is entitled the

mystical dimension and demonstrates that

even as science progresses over time,

there will still remain a mystery given

the limits of our cranial capacities and

given the parameters of the universe's

spatial and time-paccific dimensions.

The second essay, the cerebral mirage,

is by Professor Andrea DM and touches

upon neuroscience and evolution,

illustrating how easy it is for us to be

deceived not only by others, but also by

the very makeup of our neurology. In

this regard, we must be keenly aware not

to confuse our present brain state and

what it conveys via its filtration

system with absolute reality. Simply

put, don't confuse mapmaking with the

actual territory itself. The former is a

navigating and useful tool, but as such

can only lead so far. Nicholas of Kuza

is perhaps the most radical thinker to

remain within the Roman Catholic Church

and not get excommunicated. It is

surprising that he was not regarded as a

heretic for his revolutionary ideas. As

Gordono Bruno commented about him, had

he not been hindered by his priests

vestment, he would have been even

greater than Pythagoras.

We have also made two short movies on

Nicholas of Kuza's thought on learned

ignorance and geometric philosophy which

are available on the neural surfer

vision YouTube channel. This is but a

small appetizer of Nicholas of Kuza's

ideas and we recommend a fuller course

by reading the following suggested

books. One, Nicholas of Kusa on learned

ignorance, a translation and an

appraisal of deducta ignorantia by

Jasper Hopkins. Two, Nicholas of Kusa,

Selected Spiritual Writings, Classics of

Western Spirituality by H. Lawrence

Bond. Three, The Unknowable by SLF

Frank.

Chapter 1, Mysterium Tremendum.

There is a mystical dimension that runs

through all aspects of life. Eventually,

every human endeavor directly encounters

an impenetrable mystery where knowledge

turns into ignorance and control into

wonder. Indeed, no matter how much

science or technology may advance, the

essential mystery of life will never

change. The reason why is simple.

Reality is always greater than our

conceptions of it. Thus, contrary to our

popular notions of mysticism, genuine

spiritual practice is not concerned with

increasing knowledge per se, but rather

reconciling man with his fundamental

state of absolute ignorance. We are born

into a mystery, we live in a mystery,

and we die in a mystery.

Although we may learn about things

achieving various levels of technical

proficiency, we apparently can never

know what a single thing is. For

instance, what ultimately is matter,

what is a thought, what is a self? The

essence of everything eludes us because

our perceptions are always limited. As

the late Baba Fakir Chand, the great

sage of Hoshiarpur once told me

personally, "Nature is unfathomable. No

one has ever been able to know it

completely. No one has known it. A small

germ in a body cannot know the whole

body. Similarly, a human being is like a

small germ in a vast creation.

How can he claim to have known the

entire creation? Those who say that they

have known are wrong. No one can

describe or even know the entire

creation. It is indescribable.

Often in the philosophy classes I have

taught in undergraduate and graduate

school, I would bring up this point of

unknowingness. Pointing to a crumbled

piece of writing paper, I would ask the

class, "What is this?" Almost in unison,

the students would respond, "A piece of

paper?" Taking this as my cue to lead

into a deeper philosophical

investigation of materialism, I probed

further. "Yes, but what is that?"

Catching my drift, one student

invariably answered, "Oh, it is actually

a transformed sheet of wood." Not

wanting them to stop there, I asked,

"And wood is made of what?" "It's

comprised of molecules." The more

scientifically oriented students would

shout, "Connecting to the now forgotten

inner space ride at Disneyland, which

takes one through an imaginary voyage

inside a snowflake molecule." I queried,

"But what is a molecule made of?" By

this time, we had gotten down to the

subatomic level, and our words began to

betray our modicum of knowledge.

Electrons, protons, quarks, lucky

charms, super string. The final question

I asked was quite simple, but given the

line of investigation, it led to some

severe complications.

What is matter? Well, it should be

obvious to the reader, as it was to my

class and to myself, that there's only

one truly appropriate response. I don't

know. Now, this is exactly the response

not only of most mystics, but most

quantum physicists as well. As Sir

Arthur Edington, the noted astronomer

physicist, put it, something unknown is

doing we don't know what. To be sure,

mystics have said that the world or

better is nothing but consciousness. But

what is consciousness? Not even a sage

as enlightened as Romana Maharshi of

South India could answer that question.

To such queries, Romana would often sit

in silence. Ultimately, matter leads to

consciousness and consciousness to God

or nature with a capital N and both to

mystery. However, no matter how you

define it, slice it, categorize it,

blend it, intuit it, the fact remains

that reality is a mystery and nobody

apparently, not me, not you, not

Einstein, knows what that reality is. We

are sitting right in the middle of a

mystical dimension. Yet, instead of this

unknowable realm being the basis for

sorrow, it is in truth the foundation

for man's freedom and liberation.

Because by consciously surrendering to

the transformative process of such

native ignorance, our lives become

enlivened and informed by existence. A

crude yet perhaps accurate example of

this new kind of mysticism where science

directs religion and not vice versa can

be seen in the analogy of the ocean and

the bubble. The ocean in this

metaphorical case represents the total

reality of all that exists. Call it God

or nature or whatever. Whereas the

bubble or self or anything which is less

than the totality of what arises

exemplifies a seemingly bound existence.

Now as the bubble it has two primary

options. One surrender to the ocean

which is the creator, sustainer and

destroyer of its separate life. Or two

recoil and live in the elucary belief

that as a bubble it has a distinct

autonomous existence. While both

postures are not mutually exclusive, the

unassalable fact remains that the former

option is our necessary endgame, whereas

the latter position is to some measure

our Darwinian necessity.

It can be argued that self-realization

is when the bubble intuitits its

subservience to the ocean and that it

has no real life except in relationship

with the larger environment. However,

there is one very important catch here.

The bubble self must be prepared to

burst in the sea, nature, from which it

is manifested. The ultimate physics

which brought us into the universe are

the same physics which will draw us out

of it. The real dilemma, therefore, is

not that we will die. That is

inevitable, even if we can extend our

specific lifetimes. But how we will

choose to live in such existential

context. In what ways will we confront

the mystery? In what ways will we seek

to avoid it? Recently, there has been a

lot of discussion about how certain

leading edges of science are

rediscovering the mystical dimension. In

physics, we find the strange world of

photon entanglement. In neuroysiology,

the processes of memory and altered

states of awareness. In astronomy, the

theory of black holes, antimatter, and

inflating universes. And in biology, the

intricate code of life, DNA, and the

development of forms, morphology. But

the rediscovery of that which remains

unknown is a changing proposition and

reflects more on our own limited cranial

capacities than on what the universe or

multiverse ultimately portends. In other

words, the deep mystery we must first

confront is epistemological.

We have a tendency to conflate our

neurology for ontology and as such tend

to inflate the world around us with our

own unrecognized projections which may

or may not be accurate. And since we are

stuck to such mapmaking, we are

circumscribed by a logical syllogism

that on the surface seems intractable.

All maps by definition are less than the

territory to which they point. Because

if the map is exactly as large as the

land itself, then such a map would be

superfluous and thus have gaps. And if

all maps invariably have gaps, then all

such designs are inevitably, if only

partially mistaken. What this means, of

course, is that all the delineations we

make about the world around us are

potentially wrong because they are not

perfect transparencies.

This is why science always rediscovers

the unknowable because no matter how

sophisticated our maps may be, they will

have a gap in them which will reveal

something hitherto undiscovered. This is

also why Carl Pauper's notion of

falsifiability serves us so well when

appraising most scientific theories. We

know a priority that human speculations,

even if amazingly well-grounded in

physics or math, are always liable to

error. It is this liability which

ironically allows science to progress. A

new technological product, for instance,

isn't accepted as flawless, but is

rather closely examined by hackers and

others to reveal some unexpected flaws.

And because of this ongoing dialectic,

we have seen breathtaking changes in a

variety of objects from computers to

cars. All academic subjects have their

epistemological culde-sacs. In math, we

have goal's incompleteness theorem which

essentially says consistency of such a

system cannot be proved within the

system. In physics, we have Heisenberg's

uncertainty principle or relations which

simply states it is impossible to know

with absolute precision the momentum and

position of an electron since the more

certain you are about an electron's

position, the less certain you are about

its momentum and vice versa. In

astronomy, we have the Einstein limit of

light, which tells us that we can only

see so far with our telescopes within

the parameters of relativity, and the

list goes on. Science will undoubtedly

expand our previous limits and horizons.

But we will inevitably be stuck with our

own neural constraints from the very

beginning. And here in lays the great

human dilemma. The limits of our skull

are the limits of our understanding.

Yes, we may augment our brains with

artificial devices in the future, but

even here we will only confront a new

limit in time. If we don't know what a

single thing ultimately is, even if we

can know various things about a material

item, we are circumscribed in our

knowledge about comprehending all of its

various dimensions and interconnections.

Do we even know where we are ultimately?

Yes, I may say something such as I live

in Huntington Beach, but that is merely

a section in Southern California, which

itself is part of a state of 50 in the

United States, which is part of a

continent that is located on a planet

that orbits a sun some 93 million miles

away. However, where is that sun? It is

but part of a galaxy which is part of a

huge Milky Way, which is expanding in a

universe of untold size that some 13.8 8

billion years ago was collapsed into a

space tinier than the 12point size of

the garam type on this page. Yet is that

naked singularity located? Does it make

any sense to even use such framing

questions at this minuscule level? And

if some theoretical physicists are

correct, then this universe of ours

isn't singular at all, but part of a

multiverse of unimaginable dimensions.

Where are we has a simple answer, it

appears. We don't know.

What this means is that even if we forgo

religion and spirituality and opt for a

purely materialistic understanding of

what surrounds us, we are still touching

moment to moment a mystery that

transcends our ability to grasp it.

Which brings us to that most revealing

of queries. Who or what is living us

right now? Who or what is beating our

hearts? Who or what is firing our

neurons? Several immediate answers come

to mind, of course, ranging from Jesus

to biochemistry. But when we closely

inspect how our bodies operate, we soon

realize that our eye has very little to

do with the day-to-day functions of our

life. We don't consciously grow the hair

on our hands or digest our food. We

witness something that supersedes us

even as it literally lives us. Whatever

that is, of course, is unknowable in its

entirety.

Thus, we don't know what a single thing

is. We don't know where we are, and we

don't even know whom or what is actually

living us. We live in a mystery. Even as

we act as if nothing is mysterious. In

fact, the mystical dimension or for

example ground of being is both

absolutely imminent and transcendent

itself being without form though

assuming form without content though

manifesting content without structure

though exhibiting structure. The

mystical dimension is nothing less than

paradoxal to the conventional mind since

by definition it both subsumes and

transcends all conceptual frameworks.

Ken Wilbur describes it this way. The

absolute, the mystical dimension is both

the highest state of being and the

ground of being. It is both the goal of

evolution and the ground of evolution.

The highest stage of development and the

reality or suchness of all stages of

development, the highest of all

conditions and the condition of all

conditions, the highest rung in the

latter and the wood out of which the

latter is made. Anything less than that

paradox generates either pantheistic

reductionism on the one hand or wild and

radical transcendentalism on the other.

To face this mystery is truly an awesome

task. Imagine being set down in the

middle of the ocean at 12 midnight with

20 to 30 foot waves and having no life

raft. The infamous surf spot known as

Mavericks located north of Santa Cruz in

California comes to mind here. How would

you feel? The very idea sparks utter

fear in most of us. Yet, right at this

moment, as you read this page, the

situation is not altogether different

than that ocean. It is as if we are at

the amusement park getting strapped into

a new roller coaster ride. And right

before takeoff, we are told by the

operator that the ride ends in a ball of

fire where we all die. Who could

possibly enjoy such an attraction? Yet,

isn't this an apt description of our own

present circumstance? We are going to

end up dead no matter how much we

squiggle and squirm and resist.

Earthquakes, hurricanes, diseases,

accidents, the list is exhaustless. Even

if the final result is the exact same.

So the real mystical question as we

mentioned previously isn't that we are

going to die. That is a certainty even

if we try to pretend otherwise but how

we are going to live in this temporary

moment. That is the core of

existentialism and interestingly the

core of all scientific and religious

endeavors. The beauty of the mystical

dimension is that it cannot be

prefigured. Or as I often remarked in my

death and dying classes, if there really

is a god or truth or ultimate concern,

then he or she or it blows every

conception that we have out the door.

Yet, it is precisely this unknowableness

that constitutes our enlightenment. In

every single moment of our existence, we

are seeing, feeling, smelling, hearing

the mystery. The ultimate truth is not

simply another. Although this aspect too

cannot be denied, but he or she or it is

also this, the chair, the bed, the sky,

the toothbrush, and in the midst of it

all, we are natively ignorant. Such is

the mystical dimension. Such is human

life. Indeed, the curious irony that

awaits us is this. The more we examine

the mystical, the more physical it

seems. And the more we examine the

physical, the more mystical it appears.

It is all wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder

hath assumed a form.

Chapter 2. Dialogue on the hidden God.

Translated by William F. Wartz Jr.

Gentile says, "I see you bowed down full

of reverence, shedding not false, but

rather heartfelt tears of love. I wish

to know who are you? Christian? I am a

Christian. Gentile? Whom do you adore?

Christian? God.

G. Who is the God whom you adore? C. I

do not know. G. How can you so earnestly

adore what you do not know? C. Because I

do not know, I adore. G. I find it

astonishing that a man is affected by

something that he does not know. C. It

is even more astonishing that a man is

affected by something that he thinks he

knows. G. Why so? C. because he knows

that which he believes he knows less

than that which he knows that he does

not know. G I beseech you to explain. G

Whoever thinks he knows something

although one can know nothing seems

insane to me. G it seems to me rather

that you are entirely lacking in

rationality if you say that one can know

nothing. C I understand by knowledge

apprehension of the truth. Whoever says

that he knows says he has apprehended

the truth. G. I believe the same. C.

Then how can one apprehend the truth

except through it itself? For it is not

apprehended if the apprehending comes

first and the apprehended afterwards. G.

I do not understand why the truth cannot

be apprehended except through itself. C.

Do you believe that it can be

apprehended in another way and in

something other? G. I think so. C. You

are clearly in error. There is no truth

outside of the truth, no circle outside

of circularity, no man outside of

humanity. Therefore, truth is not found

outside of the truth, neither otherwise,

nor in something other. G. How then is

it known to me what a man is, what a

stone is, and everything else of which I

have knowledge? See, you know nothing of

these, but only believe that you have

knowledge. For if I questioned you about

the equity of that which you think you

know, you would affirm that you cannot

express the actual truth of man or the

stone, but that you know the man is not

a stone comes not from the knowledge

through which you knew the man and the

stone and their difference, but rather

from their accidents, from the diversity

of their actions and shapes upon which

when you discern them, you impose

diverse names. G. Is there one or are

there several truths? C. There is only

one for there is only one unity and

truth coincides with unity because it is

true that there is only one unity. Just

as only one unity is found in number so

only one truth is found in the many. And

thus whoever does not attain unity will

always be ignorant of number. And

whoever does not attain truth in unity

can know nothing truly. And although he

believes he truly knows, he nevertheless

easily experiences that which he

believes he knows can be known more

truly. For instance, the visible can be

seen more truly than it is seen by you.

It will indeed be more truly seen by

more acute eyes. Hence, it is not seen

by you as the visible is in truth. It is

the same with hearing and other senses.

However, since everything which is

known, but not with that knowledge with

which it can be known is not known in

truth, but rather otherwise and in

another way. However, since otherwise,

and in another way from the way which is

the truth, the truth is not known. He is

insane, who believes he knows something

in truth and is ignorant of the truth.

Is not the blind man judged to be

insane, who believes he knows the

distinctions of color when he is

ignorant of colors? G. Which man then is

knowing if one can know nothing? C one

is appraise to be knowing who knows his

ignorance and only he will revere the

truth who knows that he can apprehend

nothing without it neither being nor

living nor understanding. G perhaps it

is that which attracts you to adoration

namely the desire to be in the truth. C

exactly this which you say for I worship

God not him whom you Gentiles falsely

name and think you know but rather God

himself who is the ineffable truth

itself. G. Now since you brother worship

the God who is truth and since we do not

intend to worship a God who is not God

in truth I ask you what is the

difference between you and us? See there

are many differences but the greatest

one of these is that we worship the

absolute unmixed eternal and ineffable

truth itself. You however do not worship

it as it is absolute in itself but

rather as it is in its actions not

absolute unity but rather unity in

number and multitude and you are in

error for the truth which is God is not

communicable to another. G I ask you

brother to lead me to it so that I can

understand that which you know about

your God. Answer me, what do you know

about the God whom you adore? C I know

that everything which I know is not God

and that everything I conceive is no

compassion to him but rather he excels

it. G therefore God is nothing. C he is

not nothing for even this nothing has

the name nothing. G if he is not nothing

is he therefore something. C he is also

not something for something is not

everything. However God is not something

rather than everything. G.

Astonishingly, you affirm the God whom

you adore is neither nothing nor

something that no rationality

comprehends. C. God is above nothing and

something. The nothing obeys him so that

it becomes something. And this is his

omnipotence. Through which power he

exceeds everything which is or is not,

and that which is and that which is not

obeys him in like manner. For he causes

not being to pass over into being, and

being into not being. Therefore, he is

nothing of those things which are under

him and which his omnipotence precedes.

And since everything comes from him, one

can no more call him this than that. G.

He cannot be named at all. C. What is

named is small? He whose magnitude

cannot be conceived remains ineffable.

G. Is he therefore ineffable?

C. He is not ineffable, but rather above

everything effable, since he is the

cause of everything nameable. How could

he who gives a name to others himself

remain without a name? G. Therefore, he

is both effable and ineffable. C this

neither. For God is not the root of

contradiction, but rather he is the

simplicity prior to every root. Hence,

one also cannot say that he is effable

and ineffable. G. What then do you say

concerning him? C. that he is neither

named nor not named, nor named and not

named, but rather that everything which

can be said, disjunctive and culative in

agreement or contradiction on account of

the excellence of his infinity does not

correspond to him. He is the one origin

before any formable coitation concerning

him. G therefore God does not correspond

to being. C you speak correctly. G he is

therefore nothing. C. He is neither

nothing nor is he not, nor is he and he

is not. Rather, he is the font and the

origin of all principles of being and

not being. G is God the font of the

principles of being and not being. C.

No. G. But you have just stated this. C.

I have said the truth when I said it,

and now say the truth when I deny it.

For if there are principles of being and

not being, then God precedes them. But

not being does not have as its principle

not being but rather being. For not

being needs a principle in order to be.

Therefore being is the principle of not

being because not being does not exist

without it. G is God not truth. C no

rather he precedes all truth. G Is he

something other than truth? C. No. For

otherness does not befit him. Rather, he

is infinitely more excellent than

everything that is conceived and named

by us as truth. G. Do you not name God

God? C. We name him thus. G. Are you

speaking truly or falsely? C. Neither

the one nor both. For we do not say the

true if we say that this is his name,

and we do not say something false, for

it is not false that it is his name. And

we also do not say the truth and the

false for his simplicity precedes

everything nameable and not nameable. G.

Why do you name him God although you are

ignorant of his name? C. On account of

the similitude to perfection. G. I

beseech you to explain. C. The name God

or deuce comes from theoro which means I

see. For God is in our domain as vision

is in the domain of color. Color can

only be attained through vision. and so

that any color whatsoever could be

attained. The center of vision is

without color in the domain of color.

Therefore, vision is not found that is

without color. Hence, in regard to the

domain of color, vision is nothing

rather than something. For the domain of

color does not attain being outside its

domain, but rather asserts that

everything which is is inside its

domain. And there it does not find

vision. Vision which exists without

color is therefore unnameable in the

domain of color. Since the name of no

color corresponds to it, but vision

gives every color its name through

distinction. Hence, all denomination in

the domain of color depends on vision.

And yet we have discovered that the name

of him from whom all names exist is

nothing rather than something.

Therefore, God is to everything as sight

is to the visible. Gee, what you have

said pleases me. I understand clearly

that in the domain of all creatures

neither God nor his name is to be found

and that God escapes every conception

rather than be affirmed as something

since as something that does not possess

the condition of a creature. He cannot

be found in the domain of creatures.

Also, one does not find the not composed

in the domain of the composed and all

names which are named are names of

composition. However, the composed is

not from itself but rather from that

which precedes all composition. And

although the domain of the composed and

everything composed are through this,

that which they are, nevertheless, since

it is not composed, it is unknown in the

domain of the composed. Therefore, may

God, hidden from the eyes of all the

wise men of this world, be praised in

eternity.

Chapter 3, on learned ignorance.

One, for the naturalists state that a

certain unpleasant sensation in the

opening of the stomach precedes the

appetite, in order that having been

stimulated in this way, the nature,

which endeavors to preserve itself, will

replenish itself. By comparison, I

consider wondering on whose account

there is philosophizing, to precede the

desire for knowing, in order that the

intellect, whose understanding is its

being, will perfect itself by the study

of truth. unusual things, even if they

be monstrous, are accustomed to us. For

this reason, zero unparalleled teacher

deem, according to your kindness, that

something worthwhile lies hidden herein,

and in regard to divine matters, receive

from a German a mode of reasoning such

as the following, a mode which great

labor has rendered very pleasing to me.

Two, however, all those who make an

investigation judge the uncertain

proportionally by means of a comparison

with what is taken to be certain.

Therefore, every inquiry is comparative

and uses the means of comparative

relation. Now, when the things

investigated are able to be compared by

means of a close proportional tracing

back to what is taken to be certain, our

judgment apprehends easily. But when we

need many intermediate steps, difficulty

arises and hard work is required. These

points are recognized in mathematics

where the earlier propositions are quite

easily traced back to the first and most

evident principles. But where later

propositions are traced back with more

difficulty because they are traced back

only through the mediation of the

earlier ones. Therefore, every inquiry

proceeds by means of a comparative

relation whether an easy or a difficult

one. Hence the infinite qua infinity is

unknown for it escapes all comparative

relation. Three. But since comparative

relation indicates an agreement in some

one respect and at the same time

indicates an otherness, it cannot be

understood independently of number.

Accordingly, number encompasses all

things related comparatively. Therefore,

in number, which is a necessary

condition of comparative relation, is

present not only in quantity, but also

in all things which in any matter

whatsoever can agree or differ, either

substantially or accidentally. Perhaps

for this reason, Pythagoras deemed all

things to be constituted and understood

through the power of numbers. Both the

precise combinations in caporeal things

and the congruent relating of known to

unknown surpass human reason to such an

extent that Socrates seemed to himself

to know nothing except that he did not

know. And the very wise Solomon

maintained that all things are difficult

and inexplainable in words. Four. And a

certain other man of divine spirit says

that wisdom and the seed of

understanding are hidden from the eyes

of all the living. Even the very

profound Aristotle in his first

philosophy asserts that in things most

obvious by nature such difficulty occurs

for us as for a night owl which is

trying to look at the sun. Therefore, if

the foregoing points are true, then

since the desire in us is not in vain,

assuredly we desire to know what we do

not know. If we can fully attain unto

this knowledge of our ignorance, we will

attain unto learned ignorance. For a

man, even one very well-versed in

learning, will attain unto nothing more

perfect than to be found to be most

learned in the ignorance which is

distinctively his. The more he knows

that he is unknowing, the more learned

he will be. Unto this end I have

undertaken the task of writing a few

things about learned ignorance. Five.

Since I am going to discuss the maximum

learning of ignorance, I must deal with

the nature of maximality. Now I give the

name maximum to that than which there

cannot be anything greater. But fullness

beffits what is one. Thus oneness which

is also being coincides with maximality.

But if such oneness is altogether free

from all relation and contraction

obviously nothing is opposed to it since

it is absolute maximality. Thus the

maximum is the absolute one which is all

things and all things are in the maximum

for it is the maximum and since nothing

is opposed to it the minimum likewise

coincides with it and hence the maximum

is also in all things and because it is

absolute it is actually every possible

being. It contracts nothing from things

all of which derive from it. In the

first book, I shall strive to

investigate incomprehensibly above human

reason this maximum which the faith of

all nations indubitably believes to be

God. I shall investigate with the

guidance of him who alone dwells in

inaccessible light. Six. Secondly, just

as absolute maximality is absolute being

through which all things are that which

they are, so from absolute being there

exists a universal oneness of being

which is spoken of as a maximum deriving

from the absolute maximum existing from

it contractedly and as a universe. The

maximum's oneness is contracted in

plurality and it cannot exist without

plurality. Indeed, in its universal

oneness, this maximum encompasses all

things, so that all the things which

derive from the absolute maximum are in

this maximum, and this maximum is in all

these things. Nevertheless, it does not

exist independently of the plurality in

which it is present, for it does not

exist without contraction, from which it

cannot be freed. In the second book, I

will add a few points about this

maximum, these the universe. Thirdly, a

maximum of a third sort will thereafter

be exhibited. For since the universe

exists in plurality only contractedly,

we shall seek among the many things the

one maximum in which the universe

actually exists most greatly and most

perfectly as in its goal. Now such a

maximum is united with the absolute

maximum which is the universal end. It

is united because it is a most perfect

goal which surpasses our every

capability. However, someone who desires

to grasp the meaning must elevate his

intellect above the import of the words

rather than insisting upon the proper

significations of words which cannot be

properly adapted to such great

intellectual mysteries. Moreover, it is

necessary to use guiding illustrations

in a transcendent way and to leave

behind perceptible things so that the

reader may readily ascend onto simple

intellectuality.

I have endeavored for the purpose of

investigating this pathway to explain

matters to those of ordinary

intelligence as clearly as I could.

Avoiding all roughness of style, I show

at the outset that learned ignorance has

its basis in the fact that the precise

truth is inapprehensible.

Eight. It is self-evident that there is

no comparative relation of the infinite

to the finite. Therefore, it is most

clear that where we find comparative

degrees of greatness, we do not arrive

at the unqualifiedly maximum. For things

which are comparatively greater and

lesser are finite, but necessarily such

as maximum is infinite. Therefore, if

anything is posited which is not the

unqualifiedly maximum, it is evident

that something greater can be posited.

And since we find degrees of equality so

that one thing is more equal to a second

thing than to a third in accordance with

generic specific spatial causal and

temporal agreement and difference among

similar things. Obviously we cannot find

two or more things which are so similar

and equal that they could not be

progressively more similar at infinitum.

Hence the measure and the measured

however equal they are will always

remain different. Therefore, it is not

the case that by means of likeness.

A finite intellect can precisely attain

the truth about things. For truth is not

something more or something less, but it

is something indivisible. Nine. Whatever

is not truth cannot measure truth

precisely. By comparison, a noncircle

cannot measure a circle whose being is

something indivisible. Hence the

intellect which is not truth never

comprehends truth so precisely that

truth cannot be comprehended infinitely

more precisely for the intellect is to

truth as an inscribed polygon is to the

inscribing circle. The more angles the

inscribed polygon has the more similar

it is to the circle. However, even if

the number of its angles is increased at

infinitum, the polygon never becomes

equal to the circle unless it is

resolved into an identity with the

circle. Hence, regarding truth, it is

evident that we do not know anything

other than the following these that we

know truth not to be precisely

comprehensible as it is. For truth may

be likened unto the most absolute

necessity, which cannot be either

something more or something less than it

is, and our intellect may be likened

unto possibility.

Therefore, the quiddity of things which

is the truth of beings is unattainable

in its purity, though it is sought by

all philosophers, it is found by no one

as it is. And the more deeply we are

instructed in this ignorance, the closer

we approach to truth. 10. The absolute

maximum with which the minimum coincides

is understood incomprehensibly since the

unqualifiedly and absolutely maximum

than which there cannot be a greater is

greater than we can comprehend because

it is infinite truth. we attain unto it

in no other way than incomprehensibly.

For since it is not of the nature of

those things which can be comparatively

greater and lesser, it is beyond all

that we can conceive. For whatsoever

things are apprehended by the senses, by

reason, or by intellect, differ both

within themselves and in relation to one

another, differ in such that there is no

precise equality among them. Therefore,

maximum equality, which is neither other

than nor different from anything,

surpasses all understanding. Hence,

since the absolutely maximum is all that

which can be, it is altogether actual.

And just as there cannot be a greater,

so for the same reason there cannot be a

lesser, since it is all that which can

be. But the minimum is that then which

there cannot be a lesser. And since the

maximum is also such, it is evident that

the minimum coincides with the maximum.

The foregoing point will become clearer

to you if you contract maximum and

minimum to quantity. for maximum

quantity is maximally large and minimum

quantity is maximally small. Therefore,

if you free maximum and minimum from

quantity by mentally removing large and

small, you will see clearly that maximum

and minimum coincide. For maximum is a

superlative just as minimum is a

superlative. Therefore, it is not the

case that absolute quantity is maximum

quantity rather than minimum quantity.

For in it, the minimum is the maximum

coincidingly.

11 Therefore opposing features belong

only to those things which can be

comparatively greater and lesser. They

befit these things in different ways,

but they do not at all befitit the

absolutely maximum since it is beyond

all opposition. Therefore, because the

absolutely maximum is absolutely and

actually all things which can be and is

so free of all opposition that the

minimum coincides with it. It is beyond

both all affirmation and all negation.

And it is not as well as is all that

which is conceived to be. And it is as

well as is not all that which is

conceived not to be. But it is a given

thing in such way that it is all things

and it is all things in such way that it

is no thing and it is maximally a given

thing in such way that it is minimally.

For example, to say God who is absolute

maximality is light is to say no other

than God is maximally light in such way

that he is minimally light. For absolute

maximality could not be actually all

possible things unless it were infinite

and were the boundary of all things and

were unable to be bounded by any of

these things as by the graciousness of

God. I will explain in subsequent

sections. However, the absolutely

maximum transcends all our

understanding. For our intellect cannot

by means of reasoning combine

contradictories in their beginning since

we proceed by means of what nature makes

evident to us. Our reason falls short of

this infinite power and is unable to

connect contradictories which are

infinitely distant. Therefore, we see

incomprehensibly beyond all rational

inference that absolute maximality to

which nothing is opposed and with which

the minimum coincides is infinite. But

maximum and minimum as used in this

first book are transcendent terms of

absolute signification. So that in their

absolute simplicity they encompass

beyond all contraction to quantity of

mass or quantity of power all things.

12. From these considerations it is most

clearly evident that the absolutely

maximum is both incomprehensibly

understandable and unnameably nameable.

Anything than which a greater or a

lesser cannot be posited cannot be

named. For by the movement of our

reason, names are assigned to things,

which in terms of comparative relation

can be comparatively greater or lesser.

And since all things exist in the best

way they are able to exist, there cannot

be a plurality of beings independently

of number. For if number is removed, the

distinctness, order, comparative

relation, and harmony of things cease,

and the very plurality of beings ceases.

But if number itself were infinite in

which case it would be actually maximal

and the minimum would coincide with it

all of these would likewise cease since

to be infinite number and to be

minimally number for example not at all

to be number amount to the same thing.

Therefore if in ascending the scale of

numbers we actually arrive at a maximum

number since number is finite still we

do not come to a maximum number than

which there can be no greater number for

such a number would be infinite.

Therefore, it is evident that the

ascending number scale is actually

finite and that the arrived at maximum

number would be in potentiality relative

to another greater number. But if on the

descending scale of a similar thing held

true of number, so that for any actually

posited small number, a smaller number

were always positable by subtraction,

just as on the ascending scale, a larger

number is always possible by addition,

then the outcome would still be the

same, as in the case where number were

infinite. For there would be no

distinction of things, nor would any

order or any plurality or any degrees of

comparatively greater and lesser be

found among numbers. Indeed, there would

not be number. Therefore, in numbering,

it is necessary to come to a minimum

than which there cannot be a lesser.

These oneness, and since there cannot be

anything lesser than oneness, oneness

will be an unqualifiedly minimum, which

by virtue of the considerations just

presented coincides with the maximum.

13. However, oneness cannot be number

for number which can be comparatively

greater cannot at all be either an

unqualifiedly minimum or an

unqualifiedly maximum. Rather, oneness

is the beginning of all number because

it is the minimum and it is the end of

all number because it is the maximum.

Therefore, by comparison, absolute

oneness to which nothing is opposed is

absolute maximality which is the blessed

God. Since this oneness is maximal, it

cannot be multiple. For it is all that

which can be. Therefore, it cannot

become number. See that by means of

number we have been led to understanding

one that absolute oneness quite closely

beffits the unnameable God. And two,

that God is so one that he is actually

everything which is possible.

Accordingly, absolute oneness cannot be

comparatively greater or lesser, nor can

it be multitude. Thus, deity is infinite

oneness. Therefore, the quiddity of

things which is the truth of beings is

unattainable in its purity. Though it is

sought by all philosophers, it is found

by no one as it is. And the more deeply

we are instructed in this ignorance, the

closer we approach to truth. Nicholas of

Kusa on learned ignorance.

Chapter 4. The cerebral mirage.

If one really believes in the infinite,

one has entered into a realm of mystery

where intelligence soon becomes a

trespasser and any acceptance of

infinite mystery. A certain agnosticism

is inherent. Robert Senort. One of the

most significant discoveries of modern

science is that the world we perceive

around us is not as it appears. Rather,

neuroscience, evolutionary biology, and

quantum physics have demonstrated that

our day-to-day reality is a relative

construct built upon a scaffolding of

information bits that betray their real

origin and causation. For instance, the

other day I remarked to my oldest son

Shawn that the ocean water around

Catalina Island looked exceptionally

blue. But given his deep knowledge of

science, my son responded that such

bluess was actually not in the water at

all, but how different light waves get

absorbed and refracted. The colors we

see are due to the spectral properties

of light. The longer wavelengths of

light such as red, orange, and yellow

are more readily captured by H2O.

Whereas the shorter wavelength of light

such as blue gets refracted and thus we

see the color blue particularly if the

water is clear. But the scientific

explanation for why an ocean is blue or

a sunset is red is precisely not how we

tend to experience such at first glance.

In other words, the way we apprehend the

world around us is not necessarily how

we later comprehend it through

scientific analysis. And here in lies

the great divide, the great deception or

what early Indian resees insignificantly

called Maya. We live in a magic land

where all that manifests and appears

real and certain is anything but. Yet

the idea that the world is an illusion

is not a new insight or the exclusive

discovery of modern science, but

actually dates back to the beginning of

human civilization. Ancient seers in

India and Greece and the Middle East

wrote extensively about nature's

inherent trickery. Plato's allegory of

the cave is perhaps the most

illustrative example of how the world of

shadows conceals man's real contextual

situation. As Plato explained through

the mouthpiece of his teacher Socrates.

And now I said, let me show in a figure

how far our nature is enlightened or

unenlightened. Behold, human beings

living in an underground den which has a

mouth open towards the light and

reaching all along the den. Here they

have been from their childhood and have

legs and necks chained so that they

cannot move and can only see before

them. Being prevented by the chains from

turning around their heads. Above and

behind them a fire is blazing at a

distance and between the fire and the

prisoners there is a raised way and you

will see if you look a low wall built

along the way like the screen which

marinet players have in front of them

over which they show the puppets. And do

you see I said men passing along the

wall carrying all sorts of vessels and

statues and figures of animals made of

wood and stone and various materials

which appear over the wall. Some of them

are talking others silent. Thus the

prisoners see only shadows cast by

images of real things not even shadows

cast by real things themselves. In India

vantis particularly those of the advata

persuasion have argued that the world of

appearance is a beguiling illusion which

hides the truth of the universe's real

essence and as such it is akin to the

curtain in the movie version of the

wizard of oz where a balloonist from

Kansas plays out his antics in order to

gain power and respect which deceives by

hiding that which is behind it.

Likewise, in early schools ofnosticism,

they saw the world as the manifestation

of a demure that entraps all who succumb

to its tempting guises. The higher truth

is lost because one believes that the

image to be real, whereas it is merely a

secondary power. What early philosophers

and mystics understood, even if they

couldn't articulate it scientifically,

was that humankind was under the spell

of a cerebral mirage, one that gave a

false sense of knowledge and certainty.

Although religious thinkers of differing

persuasions drew out most of these

ancient insights, it has turned out to

be remarkably preient in light of modern

science. Interestingly, our advanced

technology provides us with a very apt

metaphor for how the world of our senses

belies what lies underneath. Take a

current smartphone such as an iPhone 7,

and almost all of us simply stay at the

level of its user interface. We tap and

swipe at the screen, opening up a vast

array of applications that lead us into

a wonderland of Angry Birds, Doodle

Buddies, Facebook, Instagram, Flipboard

at Infinitum. And in each of these

little islands of entertainment, we

become enveloped into virtual worlds,

never pausing to reflect that it is all

being engineered at a much deeper level

behind the screen by software

programmers using computer languages

such as Objective C and Koko Java. The

user interface is to invoke Plato's

allegory, our cave, and we don't even

know we are prisoners to the operating

system, which unwittingly constrains our

movements in a pre-esigned template.

Aldis Huxley prophesized in the 1930s in

a brave new world, how we would be

enslaved by a variety of amusements.

Similarly, the app entraps us by giving

us an elucorary sense of latitude. As

Zadei Smith rightly opined when

analyzing the lure of Facebook

worldwide, we enjoy the fruits of a

social network without realizing that we

are not living out our own dreams, but

we live within one engineered by a

20-year something named Mark Zuckerberg.

But even the programmers themselves are

constrained within the languages they

use, which are usually pre-given before

they employ them. I remember learning

Unix at UCSD back in 1984 and feeling a

euphoric sense of freedom since it freed

me from the mechanical boundaries of a

select electric typewriter. But then as

I became more proficient in using the

language, I confronted its own

limitations and realized and knew that I

was also bounded with another preset

coding system. Even when programming, we

sometimes forget that all we are really

doing is manipulating a binary system of

zeros and ones which is the fundamental

basis of all computation. Brilliantly

articulated by Alan Turing back in 1936

in his famous paper on computable

numbers. And binary coding is

geometrically portioned within silicon

chips guided and controlled by the

transference of electrons from one

signal point to another. What we are

witnessing interestingly is a nested

hierarchy hardware, software,

programming, user interface, etc. But

for most of us, we know little if

nothing besides the smartphone's display

screen. This is true whether we are

using Amazon's Kindle Fire, Microsoft

Surface, Google's Chromebooks, or

Apple's latest iteration of the iPad. We

are surface surfers in the techno world

and we remain dutifully oblivious of all

the subterranean caverns that lurk

within. Analogously our brain has

several layers of parallel processing

systems. However, we tend only to be

aware of our own surface level

consciousness and such oscillate between

Gerald Edelman's first and second nature

extended present moment sentience or

self-reflective or self-conscious

awareness. We remain almost completely

incognizant of unconscious processes

that take place moment to moment within

our own neuroanatomies. Whether it is

the circulation of blood and our pumping

hearts or the firing of neurons within

our cerebral cortex, we are in essence

strangers to our own genetic

programming. In this way, it can be

argued that we are predominantly

occupied with the human user interface,

what we commonly call the waking state.

The nine orifases of our body receive

incoming data streams and we react

accordingly depending on the waves and

intensity of information that impacts

us. But for the most part, we are not

aware even for seconds about how these

data streams get appropriately

channeled. We are witnesses to an

ongoing process that seldom requires our

deepest attention. And even when our

body demands our immediate and undivided

attention, we are often helpless to do

anything since the operating system of

being human o is beyond our conscious

reach. This is why there has been a

history of missteps in medicine

throughout the centuries and why in turn

we have yet to solve even the most

mundane of illnesses such as the common

cold. Back in the 1980s as an

undergraduate student at UCSD,

I conducted a research study on behalf

of my then mentor VS Ramachandran who

has become famous worldwide for his

pioneering work on the brain and visual

perception. He was curious about how the

brain could produce a singular

impression of an object when in fact

distinct channels within the visual

cortex were processing the information

related to it. We conducted a number of

fairly simple but nevertheless

sophisticated experiments to better

pinpoint how the brain uses

impressionistic and filling in

procedures so as to best compute color

and motion and synchronize them as a

whole even though processed by different

channels. As Ramachandran concluded in

his August 1987 paper published in

nature, this strategy allows economy of

information processing and also ensures

perceptual synchronization of form and

color as the object moves. But most

tellingly, our sense of a unified field

of awareness remains oblivious of all

the machinations and shorthand tricks

that go on behind the scenes. We are

ignorant of the unconscious programs, so

to say, and are only dutifully conscious

of the elucory but highly beneficial

result. Emerson elaborated on the

varietals of illusions we confront in

our lifetime. There are deceptions of

the senses, deceptions of the passions

and the structural beneficial illusions

of sentiment and of the intellect. There

is the illusion of love which attributes

to the beloved person all which that

person shares with his or her family,

sex, age or condition. Nay, with the

human mind itself. It is these which the

lover loves, and Anamatilda gets the

credit of them. as if one shut up always

in a tower with one window through which

the face of heaven and earth could be

seen should fancy that all the marvels

be beheld belong to that window. There

is the illusion of time which is very

deep who has disposed of it or come to

the conviction that what seems a

succession of thought is only the

distribution of holes into casual

series. The intellect sees that every

atom carries the whole of nature, that

the mind opens to omnipotence, that in

the endless striving and a sense, the

metamorphosis is entire, so that the

soul doth not know itself in its own act

when that act is perfected. There is

illusion that shall deceive even the

performer of the miracle. Though he make

his body, he denies that he makes it.

Though the world exists from thought,

thought is daunted in presence of the

world. One after the other we accept the

mental laws, still resisting those which

follow, which however must be accepted.

But all our concessions only compel us

to new profusion. And what avails it

that science has come to treat space and

time as simply forms of thought and the

material world as hypothetical, and

wither our pretension of property, and

even of selfhood are fading with the

rest. If at last even our thoughts are

not finalities, but the incessant

flowing and ascension reach these also,

and each thought which yesterday was a

finality, today is yielding to a larger

generalization. We live on the outer

perimeter of our own bodies and thus

still remain aliens to our own home. No

wonder the human species is a jumbled

morass of confusion. To echo the words

of Nichi, the world suffers from

paracisms of madness, and it only

because of this that life becomes

somewhat understandable. Socrates may

have been considered wise to admonish us

to know thyself. But how can we know

ourself when the greatest part of who we

are remains hidden from view? Our

consciousness is merely the topography

of a vast ocean, something that Freud

understood all too well. But

psychoanalysis notwithstanding, the

greatest difficulty we confront is that

we have evolved not necessarily to

understand how the universe works, but

to find ways and means to survive within

it. In this way, much of our unraveling

of the human condition will be

counterintuitive, and what we may assume

to be true and evidential on the surface

may on deeper inspection turn out to be

something quite different. This may

partially explain why such movies as The

Matrix have become philosophically

popular worldwide, since they touch upon

a universal idea that we live in a

veiled cosmos and that our body brain

complex perennially tricks us. Right

now, in this very room, there are

innumerable channels of potential

knowledge, but we only access a minute

portion of them. Depending on the limits

of our receiving set, in our case, the

triune brain, we can only tune in to a

certain set of frequencies. And from

this limited data set, we extrapolate

and pontificate about the world and its

ultimate meaning and purpose. Yet, we

would immediately recognize the

absurdity of our quest if we look at any

other animal and imagine how they would

ultimately interpret reality. Do we

really think that a cow, a dog, or a

dolphin, given their respective cranial

limits, can deduce how and why they

behave or think as they do? Or do we

immediately cognize that the limits of

their skull are to some measures the

limits of their respective worlds? This

is not suggest of course that an

external reality apart from our bodies

doesn't exist or that we are consciously

creating our own many realities, but

only that our filtering mechanisms are

not uber clear transparencies for how

things are. Rather, our brains developed

from a biological sense as ecoadaptors

to ek out a living within the Rather,

our brains developed from a biological

sense as ecoadaptors to ek out a living

within the local environment so as to

best navigate its relative survival at

least long enough to produce viable

offspring. Therefore, any deep

understanding of human cognition must

first understand the historical context

from which it initially arose over time.

Simply put, a theory of human

consciousness necessitates a deep

understanding of biological evolution

and natural selection since it is the

guiding mechanism for why certain

species flourish and others decay into

extinction. Consciousness, therefore, is

a contextual medium as well as a

communicative one. Hence, one's

awareness is invariably related to

keeping one's body along. Hence, one's

awareness is invariably related to

keeping one's body alive long enough so

as to ensure progeny. Self-reflective

awareness, in other words, doesn't arise

within a sterile vacuum, but is a result

of a long history of survival successes.

Since those who didn't withstand

nature's cruel and unrelenting

competitive game are no longer genetic

contenders, all this serves as a

necessary prelude to understand the

inherent difficulties in developing a

robust science of mysticism. All too

often, the mystic quest wants to bracket

away the physics of awareness,

neglecting how and why consciousness

emerged as a virtual simulator to better

map out future competitive strategies

and thereby increase its survival rate.

More importantly, the inner journey

isn't a pure and unadulterated glimpse

into higher realities as such since what

we experience within is also bounded by

a whole series of poorly understood

pathways. If our brains evolved to

neurally trick us so as to better help

us make immediate judgments and future

predictions in order to live an extra

day, then we should be doubly cautious

with what magnificent tricks it has in

store for us when we penetrate into

different realms of awareness. Ralph

Waldo Emerson in a section of the

conduct of life circa 1860 captures this

human dilemma quite well when he wrote

society does not love its unmaskers. It

was wittily if somewhat bitterly said by

Dalamar.

I find men victims of illusion in all

parts of life. Children, youths, adults,

and old men are all led by one bobble or

another. Yoganidra, the goddess of

illusion, Proteius or Momus, or Guily's

mocking, for the power has many names,

is stronger than the Titans, stronger

than Apollo. Few have overheard the gods

or surprised their secret. Life is a

succession of lessons which must be

lived to be understood. All is riddle

and the key to a riddle is another

riddle. There are as many pillows of

illusion as flakes in a snowstorm. We

wake from one dream into another dream.

The toys, to be sure, are various and

are graduated in refinement to the

quality of the dupe. The intellectual

man requires a fine bait. The sats are

easily amused, but everybody is drugged

with his own frenzy, and the pageant

marches at all hours with music and

banner and badge. What all this

portends, and the wise council it

engenders, is that each one of us is on

open quest, whether we be mystics or

scientists, and whatever discoveries we

make on the way, we must be cautious not

to be dogmatic in our pronouncements,

knowing too well how limited our

understanding may be at any particular

point in time, and how easy nature can

trick us in her multifarious fashions.

Nicholas of Kuza writing in Latin called

this proglamina on learned ignorance and

famously quipped paradoxically as it may

at first sound that the unattainable was

attained by its unattainment. We are

better educated in other words when we

realize how little we know or as

Nicholas of Kuza himself penned for a

man even one very well-versed in

learning will attain unto nothing more

perfect than to be found to be most

learned in the ignorance which is

distinctively his. The more he knows

that he is unknowing, the more learned

he will be. The warning shot for would

be mystics is that we are under the

spell of a cerebral mirage. And to

understand what consciousness is, we

must first come to grips with its

beguiling and deceptive nature. As a

child, I was fascinated by a set of

Chinese boxes which contains smaller

boxes hidden within it. However, I

couldn't access all the boxes at once

since each were locked by a secret panel

that I had to discover and then unlatch.

Recently there has been much pointed if

controversial discussion in astrophysics

about how our universe may be a subset

of something much grander but which is

clouded from view. Razier Porasan Nay

Fordi and Robert B man in a recent paper

published in the journal of cosmology

and astroparticle physics theorized that

our three-dimensional universe emerged

as a consequence of the formation of a

black hole in a higher dimensional

universe but which is cloaked by

something similar to an event horizon.

In a more popularized version of their

thesis, the black hole at the beginning

of time, in the August issue of

Scientific American, the authors

proposed that the Big Bang is a cosmic

mirage. Our picture would cloak the

singularity at the Big Bang just as an

event horizon cloak the singularity at

the heart of a black hole. In this

sense, we are living in a

three-dimensional holographic image of a

four-dimensional parent universe. We

are, and not just metaphorically, the

descendants of a cosmic beginning for

which we have no direct access. The

reishes of old had long felt that

something was deeply a miss about our

understanding of reality and that a

deeper truth remained obscured from

view. Today, scientists from almost all

different fields have come to a similar

conclusion, albeit with a whole array of

supporting evidences to back up their

claims. It looks as if we are indeed

lost in an almost infinite labyrinth as

envisioned by Jorge Boures. We live in a

set of Chinese boxes, falsely presuming

that we have reached the limit of such

encasements. That which we know is a

little thing. That which we do not know

is immense. Pierre Simon de la place.

Chapter 5. Nicholas of Kusa. Nicholas of

Kusa. Nicholas of Kusa or Kuz latinized

as Kusa was the second of four children

of Yan Krebs or Kvitz and Katherina

Rmmer. His father was a prosperous boat

owner and fairyman. He entered the

University of H Highleberg in 1416 as a

cleric of the Dascese of Trayair

studying the liberal arts. He then

received his doctorate in canon law from

the University of Padawa in 1423.

Afterwards, he entered the University of

Cologne in 1425 as a doctor of canon

law, which it appears he both taught and

practiced there. Following this brief

period in Cologne, he became secretary

to Otto Ozenheim, the Archbishop of

Triier, and represented him in Rome in

1427. After the death of Otto during the

period when the archbishop Rick of Trier

was contested by opposing parties he

attended the council of Basil 1431 to49

representing Olrich van Manderne one of

the claimments. While present at the

council Nicholas wrote deordantia

Catholica a synthesis of ideas on church

and empire balancing hierarchy with

consent. This work remained useful to

critics of the papacy long after

Nicholas left Basil. Nicholas was close

to Cardinal Giuliano Cesarini who had

tried to reconcile pope and council

combining reform and hierarchic order.

Nicholas supported transfer of the

council to Italy to meet with the Greeks

who needed aid against the Ottoman

Turks. He supported Pope Eugenius IVth

in his effort to bring the Eastern

churches into union with the Western at

such a council of union. While returning

from a mission to Constantinople to

persuade the Greeks to attend the

Council of Florence, Nicholas had a

shipboard experience that led to his

writing thereafter on metaphysical

topics. Nicholas then represented the

Pope in Germany, becoming known as the

Hercules of the Eugeneian cause. After a

successful career as a papal envoy, he

was made a theologian by Pope Nicholas I

in 1448 or 1449 and was named bishop of

Brixen in 1450. His role as paple legate

to the German lands included wide

travels. His local councils enacted

reforms, many of which were not

successful. Pope Nicholas canceled some

of Nicholas's decrees and the effort to

discourage pilgrimages to venerate the

bleeding hosts of Wilseneck, the

so-called holy blood of Wilnneck, was

unsuccessful. Pope Nicholas canceled

some of Nicholas's decrees and the

effort to discourage pilgrimages to

venerate the bleeding host of Vilneck,

the so-called holy blood of Vilneck, was

unsuccessful. His work as bishop trying

to impose reforms and reclaim lost

diosin revenues was opposed by Duke

Sigismund of Austria. The Duke

imprisoned Nicholas in 1460 for which

Pope Pius II excommunicated Sigismund

and laid an interdict on his lands.

Nicholas of Kuza was never able to

return to his bishop Rick. However,

Sigman's capitulation in 1464 came a few

days after Nicholas's death at Toadi in

Umbria. Upon his death, his body was

interred in the church of San Pedro in

Benoli in Rome, but was later lost. His

monument with a sculpted image of the

cardinal remains. In accordance with his

wishes, his heart rests within the

chapel altar at the Kusana stiff in

Kuis. To this charitable institution

that he founded, he bequeethed his

entire inheritance. It still stands and

serves the purpose Nicholas intended for

it as a home for the aged. The Kusana

sift houses also many of his

manuscripts.

[Music]

[Music]

[Music]