RESEARCH PROJECTS FOR COMPARATIVE STUDY AND APPRECIATION OF ULTIMATE REALITIES THROUGH THE SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES

The essay distinguishes two kinds of ultimate reality, ontological and cosmological. The ontological kind is whatever answers to the question of why there is anything determinate at all. Three great thematic answers have been developed in the world‟s philosophic/theological cultures: that the reason for things is a function of consciousness, of spontaneous emergence, or of a creator God something like a person. The cosmological kind consists of the transcendental traits of anything determinate, of which four are discussed: form, components formed, existential location, and valueidentity. Relative to form, the ultimate realities relevant to order, value, and right choice are discussed. Relative to components formed, the ultimate realities relevant to wholeness, integration, and healing are discussed. Relative to existential location, the ultimate realities relevant to engaging Others are discussed. Relative to value-identity, the ultimate realities of achieving value in oneself and in one‟s effects on others are discussed. The essay concludes with a series of proposed research topics that explore these points in more detail, emphasizing the collaboration of scientific and humanistic thinking. I. Philosophical Introduction TWO KINDS of ultimate realities exist and have been symbolized in the world‘s religious and philosophical cultures, the ontological and the cosmological . 2 *ROBERT CUMMINGS NEVILLE, Professor of Philosophy, Religion, and Theology, Boston University , Boston, MA 02215. Email: rneville@bu.edu 1 Editor's note: At the 2009 APA Eastern Division meeting in New York City, Professor Neville delivered a talk calling for innovative approaches to advance the philosophical engagement of Chinese philosophy, with the emphasis on ―addressing contemporary first-order problems. ‖ Dr. JeeLoo Liu, the president of the Association of Chinese Philosophers in America (ACPA), was inspired by his talk, and brought the idea to organize special sessions on these new projects at the 2010 APA Eastern meeting. Dr. Hyung Choi, Director of Mathematical & Physical Sciences at the John Templeton Foundation, learned about this idea and was highly supportive of it. He secured a grant for the ACPA to further develop this ―new projects‖ program. Part of the outcomes of this program was the production of six white papers that lay out future research directions for scholars interested in Chinese philosophy. Five of these papers are particularly focused on Chinese cosmology or Chinese metaphysics, as one of the aims of the John Templeton Foundation was to define the interface between science and metaphysics. Our hope is that these white papers will spark more interests in Chinese metaphysics and make Chinese metaphysics more relevant to the scientific worldview of our times. We will continue to publish the rest of these papers in our next issue for more future discussions. 124 ROBERT CUMMINGS NEVILLE I.1. Ontological ultimate realities have to do with the contingency of the world as a whole. Why is there something rather than nothing? Stephen Hawking concludes A Brief History of Time with the following remark: Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the question of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Is the unified theory so compelling that it brings about its own existence? Or does it need a creator, and, if so, does he have any other effect on the universe? And who created him? (Hawking, 1988, 174). Ontological ultimate reality (or realities) is whatever responds to the question of why there is the universe, of what its ―cause‖ is, in whatever sense of ―cause‖ might turn out to be appropriate. If it is suggested that the universe does not need a ground or cause, that it ―just is,‖ the ontological question is reformulated as why it just is rather than there be nothing at all. Reflection on ontological ultimate reality is ancient and multifarious in the diverse cultures of the world. But ontological reflection is always and inevitably subject to two contrary pressures. On the one hand is the pressure to think of ultimate reality in terms that are intimate to human life, that make sense to people. From the standpoint of human religious needs, the ultimate reality or realities are the ultimate boundary conditions of existence—matters of the meaning of life and death. The symbols that relate ontological ultimate reality to life need to be intimate and familiar. On the other hand is the pressure to think of ontological ultimate reality in transcendent terms—after all, it is supposed to be the ―account‖ or ―cause‖ of the world and everything within it. So ontological ultimate realities cannot be like the things in the world of which they are to give an account. The pressure toward transcendence, fueled by a consciousness of the dangerous seductions of idolatry, pushes concepts, language, and analogies beyond determinate limits. Philosophical/theological/cultural reflections on ontological ultimacy have thus appropriated fecund symbols and pressed them in two directions—toward intimacy and toward transcendence. Three great symbol systems have dominated the world‘s cultures: consciousness, emergence, and personhood. These are internally various and overlap in many ways, but have their own logic. Consciousness, its powers and objects, has been a powerful symbolic theme, especially in the cultures of South Asia, including those we know as Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism. Everyone can relate to 2 For purposes of this paper, ―ultimate realities‖ means the boundary conditions for the existence of the world. As ultimate, they are the last in a series of conditions without which some important aspect of existence would be missing