Abstract

The two main arguments concern(1) the presence of an “enlightened complementarity” between philosophic (including scientific) and religious (not including mystic) thought, and(2) the necessity to postulate a “threefold relationship” whenever one is to gain knowledge of any kind. They are both inspired by physics (from Bohr's “strict complementarity”, resp. from Newton's fundamental postulate).God's perfection resides at least in Symmetry in a generalized (not restrictively spatial) sense. Yet, as the argument goes, Space does not “exist” as a thing. Consequently, the Great Geometer (God) cannot dwell within a World He creates, and it is wrong to speak about His (God's) ‘existence’; for, existence is bound to the temporal, and Time is, together with the World, part of God's creation. Thus the only possible creation consists in God separating World and Time from Himself: This is the paradigm of Symmetry-breaking.Polytheistic mythologies all assume such and such imperfection of their deities; hence perfection is meaningful for monotheism only. A relationship of a threefold (‘trinitary’) nature must then obtain between God, World, and Time; this is analogous to Newton's postulate relating force, momentum and time. Just as the latter and its specific generalizations must be “found true” by verification, the said threefold relationship must also be found true: within philosophic thoughtmore geometrico (in a generalized sense), within religious thoughtmore “hymnometrico”. Yet the complementarity (called “enlightened”) arising between the two kinds of thought is of a higher nature than Bohr's “strict” complementarity. While it can be understood from the role assumed by language itself, it can however only be disposed of within mystic contemplation.