They said Suleiman knew the language of birds
There is Suleiman within Suleiman
Yunus Emre
In this article, we would like to demonstrate that the conflict between those who are centered on contemporary world knowledge and those who are against contemporary world knowledge is actually based on the difference between cosmogony and cosmology by briefly discussing the issue of the world facility in terms of cosmogony and cosmology. Some of the implications of this distinction in terms of universality and location may alter the path of many discussions in science, philosophy, art, and theology.
Since contemporary world knowledge in the current period is different from the world knowledge transmitted from previous eras, the limitations that need to be taken into account in terms of the distinctions made below, and thus which world knowledge shows the characteristics of “universality” and which of “locality”, are overlooked. Today, for example, many cosmogonies or “descriptions” of the “creation of the universe” handed down from ancient societies can be dismissed as “old” or even “superficial” on the basis of current scientific developments and intellectual discourse. However, it is unfortunately overlooked that scientific developments and intellectual discourses operate on the basis of “intellectuality”, and therefore the knowledge generated in this way, for example, about the cosmos, is strictly subject to the limits of intellectuality, and therefore, contrary to popular belief, it is impossible for them to have the quality of universality that transcends intellectuality without being based on a ground that transcends intellectuality. If this were to be realized, it is unclear what sort of bigoted disasters the existing intellectual authorities would resort to.
There is also another problem: In the distinction between the “old world” and the “new world” that has become “apparent” today, the boundaries of the “new world” are also not recognized, since the knowledge of the “new world” is more extensive and detailed than the knowledge of the “old world”. Those who access new world knowledge feel a sense of “transcendence” by comparing it with old world knowledge. In fact, what is considered transcendent here are previous human beings. These previous people are, for example, prophets, sages, philosophers. Therefore, whatever was sacred and wise in the past is subjected to a sense of “transcendence” and inevitably, in the current world, previous people can be seen as “old” to say the least. Because of the sense of “trust” that this situation brings, many aspects of the world seen as the old world, that is, the human being, cannot be found in the aspects of the world seen as the “new world”, and in this new world, a conflict arises between those who belong to the world seen as the old world and these people; this conflict can often turn into a conflict in the “conundrum of righteousness”. Because on the one hand, there are the “superior” humanitarian principles, holy news and similar justifications put forward by those who belong to the world seen as old about taking the people of the old world as their guide, and on the other hand, there are the justifications of those who want to recognize the task of guidance to other identities with reference to scientific and humanitarian studies that have led to the progress of humanity. On the other hand, the “knowledge of the world” that was transmitted alongside the previous sacred news and superior humanitarian principles is now considered “outdated”, and the scientific and humanitarian endeavors that have established the new world have also led to many immoralities, carelessness and disasters; the areas of disagreement between the parties can be driven into seemingly unresolvable knots.
In our opinion, the main issue behind all these problems is the widespread misunderstanding of the fact that we should only know people in their own circles, as they have appeared in all of history, past and present. In other words, the main issue is the question of “who” is the person from whom information is transmitted. Who is the prophet? Who is the philosopher? Who is the scientist? Who is the artist? Who is the priest? Then, for example, and the same questions apply to those who are described with these qualities, what needs to be found and known is who Man has been throughout history and what he has been trying to do. Surely the “cosmos” is also related to who Man is. And of course, grounding the “cosmos” in a kind of “genesis”, grounding it in a kind of “logia” and grounding it in “creation” is similarly about “who” is doing it. Without recognizing these points, it is not possible to decide who has transcended whom and what should be done accordingly, based only on descriptive information and changes in appearance. This is because no judgment about the cosmos is independent of the identity of the person making that judgment. For, as we have already said, the cosmos as a world does not precede the human being. If it did, man would not exist.
Leaving the extensive analysis of the problems we have drawn attention to in the last point to the following articles, we will briefly touch upon the name at the forefront of this issue in order to show what kind of identity those who take the judgments about the cosmos to the denial of intellectuality (logia) are subjected to with this “choice”. Let us say only this much: The main differentiating issue to which both the old world and the new world, and human beings in the broadest sense, are subject is where the world is viewed from. By “from where” we do not mean a territorial location or an intellectual value. The question of “from where” here is the question of “with what?” Because the main distinguishing difference is whether the way of looking at the world is “mediated” or “unmediated”. For example, the view of the world from “intellectualism” is “mediated”. The view of the one who looks at the world from “Kalām” is “unmediated”.
The fact that the unmediated viewer describes the world as if he is looking at it from the earth does not constitute a valid reason to make a negative judgment that he is “unmediated”. Similarly, one who looks at the world as if from a place other than the earth, for example, on the basis of information obtained from an “observation device”, cannot therefore be said to be “unmediated” and “universal”.
Let us now address the issue of the individual and the cosmos in terms of cosmogony and cosmology. For this, let us simply define the words cosmogony and cosmology.
Cosmogony is composed of the Greek words cosmos and gonia. Cosmos means order; in common usage, it means “universe”, “realm”, “nature”. Gonia means “birth”, “creation”, “coming into being”. Cosmogony means “the birth of the universe (nature)”, “the creation of the universe (nature)”. Cosmology, on the other hand, is composed of the words “cosmos” and “logia”. “Logia” means study, research, science. In its current form, the accepted meaning of the word “cosmology” is “the science of the universe” and in this sense cosmology is a “scientific” field of research. It should be noted that “cosmogony” is currently not considered as natural knowledge. Cosmogony is a topic in which, through mythology, history, psychology and anthropology, and within the limits of these disciplines, the understanding of the universe of previous societies is revealed. These widespread assumptions unjustifiably obscure issues about the cosmos that can only be addressed in the context of cosmogonia, based on cosmologia. We expand on this point below.
The idea of the individual carries with it three basic conceptions. One of these is the individual himself as the agent that the individual assigns to his own actions. The circle in which the individual is completed as an agent with all his or her acts gives the subject. The other is the sentence of objects that the individual thinks independently of himself. The circle completed by the actions of the sentence of objects gives the realm. The other is the conception of the source that is specific to both the individual and the realm. This third conception is the description of the beginning and the end, which is completed in accordance with whatever description is specific to the movement of the individual and the realm. By movement here, we do not mean a change of spatial position. By movement we mean change in some way. A change of spatial position is also a movement in its own way, a change of mathematical value, and an investment of power inherent in psukhe is also a movement in its own way; this is what is meant.
If we call the conception called “realm” above “cosmos”, we see that the cosmos is a conception that is at the core of the idea of the individual. Therefore, to make a general judgment about the cosmos is to make a judgment about the individual; to make a judgment about the individual is similarly to make a judgment about the cosmos.
The final understanding of the first two parts of this tripartite conception depends on understanding their relation to the third part. That is to say, without understanding the source of the individual and the cosmos and the relation of the individual and the cosmos to this source, the conception of the individual is left in an enigma in terms of both the agent and the realm connections. Cosmogony is important precisely because of this point. For cosmogony is conceived to constitute the source and in this sense the “beginning” of the individual and the cosmos.
Let us remind again that what has no “beginning” and no “end” cannot be called “existent”. Every existence is limited to a beginning and an end; otherwise, neither existence nor “being” can be mentioned. Therefore, we cannot call something that “has not begun” “existent”. Without existence, we cannot talk about thinking, studying, or science. If the most fundamental right of every existent is to exist, its most fundamental duty is to find the origin of its existence; otherwise it cannot find a final right to its existence. Existence is constituted by “beginning”. Both the cosmos and the individual are “existent”. For this reason, both the cosmos and the individual must be constituted by a “beginning” for their existence. In other words, a cosmos that has not begun and an individual that has not begun do not exist. Thus, the cosmogony is based on the concept of “beginning” that is established to ensure the existence of the cosmos and the individual.
The conception of cosmogony depends on the conception of a cosmos-specific beginning. Therefore, it requires envisioning a limit and an end to the cosmos in some way. The constitution of a beginning for the cosmos is essentially in two ways: By realizing the beginning, or by imagining the beginning.
Imaginative constitution does not constitute a real beginning for the cosmos. Therefore, the imagined conception of birth is only the imaginary birth of the cosmos.
Every birth dies. The imaginary birth also dies imaginatively. But neither birth nor death is imaginary. Therefore, the imaginary beginning is not even the origin of the concept of beginning. And therefore, for the existence of the cosmos and the individual, it is necessary to find a beginning other than the imaginary beginning.
The second way of constituting a cosmos-specific beginning is the perception of beginning. Beginning formation in this sense depends on migrating to the beginning proper to the cosmos. Migration to the beginning proper to the cosmos means migration to the end of the cosmos. For this reason, in order for the beginning formation specific to the cosmos to be realized through beginning perception, the cosmos must come to an end. Otherwise, one cannot speak of constituting a beginning for the cosmos to the extent that it transcends imagination.
Leaving aside for the moment which cosmogony is imaginary and which is real, it is clear that cosmogony depends on envisioning a beginning to the cosmos in the sense of “somehow” being “born”. We have already noted above that this need for constitution is related to the question of the existence of the cosmos and the individual. Therefore, contrary to what is commonly believed in popular culture, the issue of cosmogony and the conception of a beginning is of utmost importance in terms of “individuation” and “existence”. With this reminder in mind, let us move on to the issue of the logic of the cosmos.
Here, too, we must first look at the meaning of the suffix “logy”. The most important point that distinguishes cosmology from cosmogony is, of course, the “logy” in the phrase. The -logy here, again, comes from the Greek “logia”. Logia is a term that is used today to mean study, research, science. In other words, logia is used to express the science, the study, the research of the subject into which it is put. For example, the science of “bios” meaning “living being” is “bio-logia” (biology). The science of “anthropos” meaning “human being” is “anthropo-logia” (anthropology). Examples can be multiplied by referring to the widespread information culture. “Logia” from a “lexical” point of view is the performance of “logos” from the verb “legein” meaning “to say”, “to speak”. Logos has a historical burden. Therefore, it is necessary to recognize this concept without neglecting the burden it carries. This requires touching upon some points in the historical process.
Logos was used by the Greeks to mean “word”, “meaning”, “thought”. In the historical process, “logos”, to which different meanings were attributed by Heraclitus, Socrates and essentially Plato in terms of “ground”, is one of the most interesting concepts in the chronology of “philosophy” and “science”, especially thanks to the outstanding efforts of Aristotle, which created a “strong” “influence” on the “mind” of human beings. Another event that makes this concept interesting and influential is the intensive treatment of “Jesus Christ” as “Logos”, i.e. “Word”, in Christian theology, chronologically coinciding with the post-Hellenistic period. To this must be added the contributions of the so-called “neo-Platonists” and the later “logic and philosophy” studies in Islamic philosophy.
The so-called “modern period” and “enlightenment”, which came after Cartesian metaphysics, were “developed” as a result of the narrowing of Logos to “ratio”. However, it is not clear to those who use the “logos” whether this “development” is a “progress and transcendence” in history.
In order to decide whether this is progress and transcendence or not, it is necessary to touch upon the “main issues” of the “history” formed in terms of this concept. Let us briefly touch upon them.
In order to understand what we mean by these concepts and the “main issues” of their history, let us consider another concept, psukhe, which is as decisive and interesting as logos, and which, like logos, is subjected to interesting “narrowings”, along with “logos”.
In the history of ideas, it was Plato who dealt with the issue of who human beings are in terms of the aforementioned tripartite conception within the scope of “philosophia”, and who shaped philopshia in terms of its foundations through this scope. For Plato, philosophia is a matter of psyche and cosmos. According to Plato, the psyche is created with the “genesis”, that is, the “creation” of the cosmos, and then falls into the “soma”, that is, the “body”. In terms of the fall into the “body”, the cosmos is the fallen world. Philosophia is the activity of “salvation” of the fallen psukhe through “logos”. Therefore, philosophia is also a matter of “cosmogony” and “logos”. However, this “comprehensive” approach has become completely unrecognizable in the history of “philosophia” itself, and “logia” has been used as a tool for this. Therefore, it is not easy to understand what the issue of “logia” is.
One who takes into account the concept of psukhe and understands that Plato, the founding father of philosophia, who laid the foundations of philosophia in the broadest sense, “framed” philosophia with the issues of “Cosmogonia” and “Exodus” in the center of “Psukhe” and “Logos”, and that this “frame” is the “essential issues” in terms of “Logia”, will better see how difficult it is to explain what “logia” is. Moreover, how the issue of psukhe has shifted to an ambiguous ground in terms of the forms this work has taken in the historical process can be understood from the following observations: The “Cartesian mentality”, which transformed “logos” into “ratio” for the modern period and the beginning of the Enlightenment, similarly transformed the concept of “psukhe” into the concept of “mens (mind)”. Thus, while philosophia was the activity of “liberation from captivity” of the psyche, which had fallen into captivity by its founding father, through “logos”, in the so-called “modern” period under the influence of the Cartesian mentality, it was reduced to the activity of stabilizing mens (mind) on the basis of ratio; moreover, without any understanding that this “fall” was one more “falling away” from “liberation” in terms of psyche. After the so-called Enlightenment, this “fall” reaches the disgrace of seeing “tumbling” into “language”, which is supposed to be “Logos”, as becoming wise.
In light of these observations, we have to say that the claim that the history of philosophy is a history of footnotes to Plato should be corrected as a “history of betrayal” of Plato and philosophia by joining forces with Aristotle. Without first understanding this history of betrayal, confronting Plato’s “Logos” and “Psukhe” and doing what needs to be done to them for the sake of “love of wisdom” should not even be imagined.
Let us return to the subject. Logia, in terms of the “history of philosophy”, is the “activity of reasoning”, which Plato described as the activity of “dianoia”, somehow reduced to the form of “reason”; from Aristotle to the present day. This point, which we will elaborate on in a separate article, can only be indicated with a single sign. In this sense, “logia”, in Plato’s sense, is an exercise of reasoning that is taken as a basis with the closure of the activity of “noesis”. In terms of the relation between the Idea and logos in Plato, logia is grounded by the closure of theoria. In this sense, logia is only an intellectuality; the theoria and noesis, which are closed, are partly “theoretical”.
It should be noted, however, that without a “complete” distinction between Theory and Ideas, neither Plato’s nor Aristotle’s boundaries can be seen, and a comprehensive understanding of these issues cannot be expected, but we do not have the space in this paper to discuss and analyze this “complete” distinction in detail. We refer the reader again to the works of Yalçın Koç for a comprehensive treatment of this distinction.
Let us say something clear at this point. It is now clear that in order to analyze these issues, which no philosopher and expert has ever been able to explain adequately and properly and in the most clear and lucid way, it is imperative to turn to Prof. Dr. Yalçın Koç. For example, those who read the above-mentioned problems in Article III of the book titled “Anatolian Yeast – An Examination on the Principles of Turkish Identity”, which we will address as a “commentary” in the future, in comparison with the relevant texts in the literature, will agree with our opinion on this matter. This “Author”, whom almost no one in our country knows, and almost all of those who do know, either because they do not understand the basic principles of the work or because of their hamasist intellectual positions, has completed all the work necessary to create a brand new worldwide “literature” on these “fundamental issues”. It is up to us to open up these works and apply them to their respective fields as they deserve, and in this way to transform the expertise in “philosophy”, “science” and “theology”, which in its widespread form consists of blind imitation, into unprecedented mastery with a unique stance of our own.
It is important to remember that those who do not have a grounded understanding of the objects and concepts they specialize in have no right to “teach” these objects and concepts and the things related to them.
Now, it will be useful for the integrity of our article to mention this “complete” distinction “briefly” for those who are, or will be, “familiar” with the works we refer to, so that they can better see the points relevant to our subject:
Logia is intellectuality. Theoria is theory. The basis of the distinction between Theory and Idea is the conception of the “linguistic architectonics”. The basis of the “architectonic conception of language” is “theogonia” as “the theory of genesis”; in other words, “theoretical genesis”. Theogonia constitutes the basis of the conception of “beginning” and is therefore the ground of “theologia” in the broad sense. What is meant by theologia is “the theoretical intellectuality”. “Theologia” as the theoretical intellectuality is the ground of “philosophy” and “theology” and the fields that fall within the scope of these two, for example science, for example history and for example psychology. Therefore, however the framework of “theologia” is conceived, the “boundaries” of the fields in which theologia is the ground must be “subject” to the nature of this conception.
The conception that determines the framework of theologia is the “architectonic of language”. In terms of the architectonics of language, “psukhe” constitutes “the theatron as language” through genesis. The performance of this language is “theorizing”. The “theatron as language” through genesis is “a world”. As a “world”, the theatron is divided into an inner stage and an outer stage and falls into “language”. As a result of the fall into “language”, the theoretical performance is closed and the intellectual performance is opened. From this point, that is, from the fall, the individual constitutes a simple proposition on the basis of “language” on the inner stage and perceives “movement with a definite object” on the outer stage.
From these distinctions, it is clear that the logia of the cosmos is subject to the registration of logia, that is, intellectuality. For this reason, through cosmology, one can form a judgment about the cosmos only and only within the limits of ideology. And for these reasons, it is impossible for the “intellectual” to either “personally” comprehend the “cosmos” and the “individual” and their sources in their “beginnings” or to “speak” of them without limiting them to the intellectual. Therefore, “cosmo-logia” in the broad sense can neither encompass the cosmos nor be a source of “general” judgment about “cosmo-gonia”. The only way this can be done through cosmo-logia is if the “logia” in the composition at least transcends “theoria”. The transcendence of logia to theoria, i.e. the intellectual to the theoretical, requires a highly sensitive perspective that far exceeds the scope of conventional intellectual practices.
The issue of the “mediated” view and the “unmediated” view, which we mentioned at the beginning as the real difference, is also related to these points.
Cosmology is the most common form of the “mediated” view of the cosmos. This intellectually widespread view takes its main basis from Aristotle’s logia. Therefore, it is necessary to open the subject of “cosmology” in terms of this name, which the “intellectual consciousness” keeps deeply hidden and never ceases to be subordinate to it, and to recognize the issue from this expanded framework. This broad framework will also be useful for understanding the importance of the issue of “cosmogony”.
In the Aristotelian sense, logia frames physics and metaphysics by “linking” names based on language to objects in “nature” based on “perception” through the “set of categories”. In this framework, the “cosmos” part of his teacher Plato’s “cosmogony” turns into cosmologia as the logia of nature based on perception, and the “gonia (genesis)” part turns into “bio-logia (biology)” as the “logia” of “bios”. For Aristotle, who is also considered the first biologist, “genesis”, that is, “birth”, is existence on the basis of “bios”. It should be noted here that this approach is essentially no different from today’s approaches that limit the “birth of the living being” to genetic and biological nature, and that biology did not make any real “progress” after Aristotle because the “scientific details” that emerged in this respect did not turn into a different essence in nature. This is also true for the cosmos. In terms of the Aristotelian logia, the cosmos is a “Becoming” in the circle of “formation and decomposition” on the basis of composition. This “becoming” is “definite and constant” in terms of substances and “continuous” in terms of accidents. For this reason, Aristotle’s cosmos is neither born nor dies. Aristotle’s cosmos “comes into being and decays”. The “becoming” here is the Aristotelian equivalent of the “birth” of the cosmogony in the Aristotelian “formation”; the “decay” is the equivalent of the “death” of the cosmogony. The difference comes from the fact that Aristotelian becoming does not have a genesis characteristic. What comes by birth is not subject to a prior time. Therefore, the source of the cosmos that comes through genesis is not “particular” in terms of the cosmos. In the cosmos that comes through becoming, the source of coming is “definite” in terms of the cosmos that comes. The source closes the incoming cosmos because of the predetermined becoming. Each object that is closed as cosmos “falls into bondage” as of the point at which it is closed.
The most well-known name for this bondage in Anatolia is “existence.” In other words, the cosmos is thus enslaved to a being that has no exit. But the work is not limited to this.
The fact that the source of the cosmos’ arrival in the idea of genesis is predetermined in terms of the incoming cosmos puts the conception of the “source” in a predicament. Even though the connection between the source from which it comes and the cosmos that comes from the source is “measured”, “harmonious” and “fundamental”, the “source from which it comes” behind this measured, harmonious and fundamental relationship is “self-substantial” in terms of the “cosmos that comes”. The clearest “symptom” of this self-substantiality manifests itself over and over again, for example, in the issues of “asymmetry” and “irrational number” in logia, which cause many difficult issues; in the issues of “form-formed” in art; in the issues of “representation-representation” in theology; and in issues such as “universal-tyical” in logic. The “intellectual consciousness” residing within the Aristotelian logia, on the other hand, never manages to touch upon any “essential” issue in these matters. Another important “infirmity” of this self-proclaimed being is the severing of the “strong link” between the source from which it comes and the cosmos from which it comes, as a result of which the issues of space and time become the eternal dead ends of logia, that is, of intellectuality in every aspect.
Aristotle’s cosmos is “formed” before it is born and “decays” before it dies. In this respect, it constitutes a false sphere of existence. Therefore, it is not the cosmos, but Aristotle’s stage that remains fixed and definite in the sense of not being born; this stage also shows “continuity” in the sense of “not dying”. The “intellectual consciousness” that enters this unborn and therefore immortal cosmos, that is to say, that falls on the stage, perceives “continuously”, thinks “continuously” and examines “continuously”, without finding a real beginning and end that is characteristic of the cosmos, and therefore without being born as the cosmos.
As a result, what is to be made “resistant” by keeping it “fixed” in change is not, contrary to popular belief, for example, the narrator of “cosmogony”, but rather the narrator of “cosmology”. The human and the cosmos are thus “old”.
In order for Man and the cosmos to be saved from “obsolescence”, the “cosmos” and Man must be “born”, and there must be a “force” that makes this birth possible.
As a result, the cosmos aspect of cosmogony was removed from the gates of “logia” with the establishment of the “Formation” stage beginning with Aristotle. These gates were walled up with Newtonian mechanics, which came about two thousand years later. The “genesis” aspect of cosmogony appears on the stage in the “expected” stage with Darwin. The issue of the individual’s exit from the stage without this cosmos and genesis is brought into play with the curtains drawn by priests in terms of theological practices related to “ethics” called “morality” and by “philosophers” in terms of “values thinking”. Thus, through theology, philosophy and science on the basis of “logia”, the issue of the beginning and end of the “cosmos and the individual” finds a “continuous audience” in this “continuous play”; and in a way that leaves no “curiosity” to the audience as to when the play will begin and end.
However, the fact that today’s seekers of “knowledge” and “universality” about the “cosmos” and the “individual” somehow envision a “cosmogony” when they are born to their mothers, but become interested in “cosmology” only in their adulthood, and consider all kinds of “cosmogony” issues “outdated” is related to their “contact” with the widespread culture of “intellectual consciousness”.
As a result of the above-mentioned distinctions, it should be understood that the difference between cosmogony and current cosmology is closely related to “individualization”. What is meant by individualization is the return of the trinitarian understanding to its origins. Without realizing oneself, the universe and their source, one can neither be an individual nor a society of individuals.
With love to the “Mighty” and “Powerful” Anatolian Maya and the Anatolian Maya, that is, those who kill the cosmos and those who kill and witness its “creation”…
To be continued.
