Mystery, Polemic, and Truth

I want to take a bit of time to think about how these three things relate with each other.  In one of my classes somewhere, it was said by someone, "the closer something is to being true, the less it needs to be argued for."  The assumption here seems to be that when we actually descend to the level of polemic, of arguing for or against a particular something, we are only arguing for a part of that which is true.  To turn that assumption around, and look at it from another angle, we can sort of view things on a spectrum.  One one side of the spectrum are many many many words, and not a lot of truth.  On the other side of the spectrum, one has few words, or complete silence and a good deal of truth.  The thought is that as one observes the movement from many words to few words, one also observes a corresponding movement in the amount of truth that is being referred to by those words.

What does that mean though, and how does it apply to reconciliation?  Well, to answer that question, let's briefly explore the words Mystery and Truth.

Hans urs von Balthasar describes Truth as a relationship between the thing or person doing the knowing, and  thing or person being known.  He says that when such a relationship exists, there are two markers that make it's existence obvious.  One of the markers is an increase in knowledge.  The other marker is an increase in mystery.  If both of these markers are there, than the relationship is said to be a "true" relationship, "truth" is said to be "taking place" inside of that relationship, the knowledge about the person or thing that is gained is "true".

These two things -- knowledge and mystery -- increase together.  Yet, they are opposite.  How can this be?  How does it even begin to make sense to say that if I am beginning to know something in a way that is true, then I also begin to precisely not know that very object?  I think it is because the way we approach anything -- a person, a subject, an idea, a different culture -- is done in such a way that we use much more than our minds.

My mind (and yours) has the ability to link similar things with similar things and separate non similar things from non similar things.  That is what our minds do... they combine and separate.  And, in as much as we do this about a thing, our knowledge of it increases.  We know more what is it similar to, and we know more what it is dissimilar to.

But that is not all, is it?  The more we do this knowing about a thing, the more we realize that there is always an aspect about it that is already beyond any similarities between the thing and our context that we can determine.  We also realize that there is also always an aspect about it that is already beyond any dissimilarities between the thing and our context.  We find that the things which we know are partially knowable, and partially beyond our ability to know them.  Thus mystery and knowledge increase together.

Who would argue against this?  Who would say that the subject they know most about is not also the subject that is most mysterious to them?  Who would say that the one they love and know the best of all is not also the most full of mystery?  Who would say that the one thing in life about which they can rightfully be considered an expert, is not also the one thing in life that continues to contain the most mystery for them?

And so when both of these increase together, knowledge and mystery, we say that that increase is truth.  Truth has taken place, it has happened.   If knowledge increases with no mystery, whatever is known is not known in a true way.  Similarly, if mystery increases and no knowledge accompanies it, then the mystery has not been known in a true way.

To sum up, we can now start to see a distance emerge between arguing for something and describing the knowledge and mystery of a thing.  Polemic may actually be beneficial, but it is not able to accomplish (on its own) the very thing it claims to be able to achieve.

All of what we have just said is very true of things within this world.  It describes in limited fashion how it is (to my mind anyway) that we come to know things in a way that is true.  How much more when we attempt to approach divine revelation?