However, I think you are making a mistake in assuming that our phenomenal epistemic structures bear any relation to the ontological structures of the cosmos. While we are as much a part of the universe as any stella object, it does not follow that we can read back from 'in us' to 'out there'.
Right. I understand what you're saying and I agree as far as not being able to translate or project the subjective onto the objective. Where I differ is that I think that the worldview most of us in the West are using unintentionally conflates objective phenomenon with the ontology, or gives it much more of the benefit of the doubt. I see the subjective and objective as two ends of a phenomenological continuum, which maps fairly smoothly in the middle (sensation vs perception) but is radically dimorphic at the extreme (quantum physics vs mythology).
We both agree the ontology is unknowable, and more to the point, irrelevant. It's the phenomenal politics that we disagree on. We can and do know what's in here
, and while we also know that what's out there
is very different and supervenes upon the in here
in objective matters, we also know that we don't know about what's in there
and that in our voluntary control of own Selves at least, our subjective will does supervene upon the exterior Universe.
Whether we see something as teleological or teleonomical depends upon our structure. Let us take the example of astrology. Here a mind sees purposive structure (whether it be teleological or teleonomical) in the correlation between stars and people.
No, that's a caricature of astrology. It's okay, I'm not trying to say it's something people should be expected to know about, it's just an fyi - astrology has nothing to do with stars (other than the celebrity kind). It's just about the apparent orbits of the planets. It's an illustrated analog clock with eleven hands.
It is true to say that a bit of the universe, (that bit which is the mind), contains that purposive structure.
It is only by inference that we claim that the bit of the universe which contains the stars and the people has that same purposive structure.
That's exactly what I thought was the most relevant thing about it before I looked into it and found that how it 'works' isn't really the important thing - as insane as that sounds, and I know it sounds insane, but you have to remember that this is at the intuitive - far subjective end of the spectrum. Infra-red. UHF. In that range, it's not a how, it's a who - a when and where. Animal archetypes. Stories and histories. I'm not expecting you to believe me, I'm just trying to explain it in case someone is interested.
Anyways, it 'works' not because the planets and their orbits are purposive, but because our lives are subject to changing temporal influences which can be projected, Rorschach-like onto the firmament of a massive, and massively consistent pattern like the solar system. In the micro, you have I Ching, Tarot cards, tea leaves, etc; in the meso there's graphology, palmistry, automatic writing; in the macro there's astrology, numerology, alchemy.
The problem with that inductive leap is that there is no way to substantiate it. Moreover there is historical precedent to show the danger of making such inductive leaps. Whether it be the Pythagoreans' suppression of irrational numbers; the Catholic Church's insistence upon the anthropocentric universe; or Einstein's resistance to quantum physics; it turns out that not even the phenomenal universe corresponds to our intuitions as to its structure.
I totally agree. Projecting subjective architecture onto the objective part of the universe is only useful as a starting place. To know about the exterior cosmos you must use your physical body and practical mind - build tools, use them to improve your objective knowledge, build more tools, etc.
I have no problem with that at all. Science and technology is more miraculous than religion and art ever dreamed of being (ironically). What the problem is now, is that we've been so successful at suppressing the subjective suppression of the objective that we have lost touch with it altogether. We imagine ourselves transparent vessels of pure logic uncontaminated by subjective woo. We identify with the physical universe of unconsciousness and see ourselves - our own living, breathing, thinking beings as a coincidence, an aberration. Seen from that distorted perspective, everything makes sense only when we aren't in the picture. As if every pattern we observe and every thought we have comes from some alien wonderland and not from the very same stuff that the cosmos is made of when we look at it through a microscope or a telescope.
Yes, it's important to guard our scientific worldview and to remain skeptical of applying interior subjective architectures to exterior objective realities, but you know, the Inquisition is over. The greater threat now is that the world is so divorced from it's own humanity, it's own subjective values, that it has literally transformed civilization into a kind of automated, idiot proof Hell. This is the reason that people won't let go of God - not because they are just all too stupid or lazy to think about it logically, but because they don't see the benefit of losing their own subjective significance and trading it for WalMart. The richness of the psyche can no more be addressed from the outside than RNA transcription can be predicted by the I Ching. That fact doesn't make one side of the continuum more real than the other, it just puts warm and fuzzy meaning at one end and cold hard facts at the other.
Why on earth would you suppose that the ontological does?
I don't. We agree, the ontological is something we are never likely to be acquainted with directly. If we were, we wouldn't be us anyways.