Christianity

[Belinda]

I don't expect you to agree with the idea of the demiurge but post it as food for thought for anyone concerned with the purpose of our universe and the qualities of consciousness necessary to work with its laws and bring order into chaos

As long as you don't condemn me for not agreeing with your ideas and views, I am easily able to respect your right to hold them.

Demiurge, devil, trickster, or satan serves The Good by making us think again .

Tricksters, as archetypal characters, appear in the myths of many different cultures. Lewis Hyde describes the trickster as a "boundary-crosser".[1] The trickster crosses and often breaks both physical and societal rules: Tricksters "violate principles of social and natural order, playfully disrupting normal life and then re-establishing it on a new basis."[2

[Harbal]

Demiurge, devil, trickster, or satan serves The Good by making us think again .

Tricksters, as archetypal characters, appear in the myths of many different cultures. Lewis Hyde describes the trickster as a "boundary-crosser".[1] The trickster crosses and often breaks both physical and societal rules: Tricksters "violate principles of social and natural order, playfully disrupting normal life and then re-establishing it on a new basis.

Now if I were to be part of Nick's world, that is the role I would choose for myself. I am applying for the job of Demiurge.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Guénon in his book, and in all his books, attempts to assert that we now live in times of broken-down relationships to what he describes as perennial metaphysical conceptions. He looks to the past, to what has gone before, and to what has been understood by men in former times to be true and wise, and with these notions in mind simultaneously constructs his critique of the present trends (the crisis he refers to). He does not discount that even in a descending cycle there is not evidence of advancement. However he does assert that evidence of advancement (technological and material progress for example) does not in any sense imply advance or progress in those areas he would define as wise and also intelligent (taken in his sense of intelligence).

It must be stated though, and seems true indeed, that he does not have faith in the wisdom of modern man. My assessment of his position is that if modernity is understood as a movement (a current or a tide) it does not have wisdom nor intelligence (again defined in relation to the concept intellectus) as its object. Seen in a negative light the 'modern man' he critiques is technologically adept and empowered but spiritually and also intellectually dwarfed. It is not off the mark to use the term I often use: a Walmart Culture and a Walmart Man. This sort of man is surrounded by and indeed subsumed in extraordinary material accomplishments and yet, on so many other levels, is largely uncultivated and unaccomplished in all the really important areas. Certainly *spiritually* -- that is to say in respect to his own religious matrix -- he is more often than not a sort of vulgar brute. And this is why -- in my own opinion of course -- that the Christian forms in their manifestations today are so debased.

In any case, and since I have been re-reading his book, I came across this segment which reminded my of why I launched into an investigation of Catholicism. Not in its present post-Vatican ll form, which is certainly debased, but in its original form(s). So what does this mean? I take it to mean that each of the Symbols that define traditional Catholicism are laden with levels of meaning which, if seen in the right way, expose or perhaps project is the right word, reflections of metaphysical values which, in our world, are in a process of growing dim.

This is precisely my view of the present, and also how I position myself in contrast to those I define as anti-metaphysical. But it is not, and not in any sense, that I do not understand their positions! They have a certain logic that is not hard to follow. But it is though they have pulled at the threads of an outlook to such a degree that the fabric is no longer recognizable to them, and thus the 'original principles' are not just obscured, but are no longer intelligible.

From The Crisis of the Modern World by René Guénon:

The fact of the matter is that the surviving Celtic elements were for the most part assimilated by Christianity at the time of the Middle Ages; the legend of the Holy Grail, and everything that goes with it, is a particularly significant and revealing example in this respect. Furthermore, we are of the opinion that if a Western tradition should come to be reconstituted it would be bound to partake of an outward form that was religious in the strictest sense of the term, and that this form could not but be Christian, since, on the one hand, the other possible forms have been for too long a time foreign to the Western mentality and, on the other hand, because it is in Christianity alone or, to be more precise, in Catholicism, that is to be found as much as has survived of the traditional spirit in the West today. (1)

Every “traditionalist” venture that omits to take account of this fact is inevitably doomed to failure, since it is bound to lack a proper foundation; it is self-evident that one can only build upon something that is effectively in existence and that where continuity is lacking there can only be an artificial reconstruction incapable of being lived; if it be objected that Christianity itself, in our time, is scarcely any longer understood in its deepest and truest sense, we would reply that it has at least preserved in its actual form everything necessary for providing such a foundation. The least improbable enterprise, the only one in fact that could escape running up against immediate impossibilities, would therefore be to aim at restoring something comparable to what existed in the Middle Ages, allowing for the differences demanded by modifications in the circumstances; and, in the case of elements which have been completely lost to the West, it would be necessary to draw upon those traditions that have been preserved in their entirety, as we have already pointed out, to be followed by a process of adaptation which could only be the work of a firmly established intellectual élite.

We have already gone into these various questions elsewhere; but it is advisable to draw attention to them once again on account of the wide-spread tendency at the present time to indulge in the most inconsistent fancies; moreover, it should be thoroughly under-stood that if the Eastern traditions, under their specific forms, can certainly be assimilated by an élite, which in a sense stands beyond all forms by definition, they certainly cannot be so assimilated by the mass of Western people for whom they were never intended, unless some quite unforeseen transformation were to take place. If a Western intellectual élite comes to be formed, a genuine knowledge of the Eastern doctrines will be essential to the fulfillment of its functions, for the reasons just given; but those to whose lot it will fall to reap the benefits of its labours, and who will be in the majority, can perfectly well remain unaware of these things, and the influence which they will receive, so to speak, unsuspectingly and in any case through agencies which must remain quite outside their perception, will not be any less real and efficacious on that account. We have never maintained anything different; but it appeared desirable to repeat what we had said in the clearest possible terms because, if we must expect sometimes not to be fully understood, we are nevertheless anxious to prevent people from attributing intentions to us which are far from our thoughts.

[1 By rights the other branch of traditional Christianity, the Orthodox Church, should also have been mentioned in this context, since it too largely belongs toEurope; but since this book was primarily designed for the use of Western European readers, the author did not find occasion to refer to a traditional form other than that which is specific to the West, in the more restricted sense of the word.-- Translator.]

So in my conversations with Immanuel Can, before he was finally silenced and chose to abandon participation, I felt so compelled to explain that we have no real choice but to rediscover, re-accentuate, revivify and re-empower what is foundational and fundamental to our cultures and to our civilization. The basic premise is that *acids are eating it apart*. It is dissolving, it is fracturing, and it is breaking-apart.

One thing I notice about this present thread: no one talks on any level about the present conditions in the world. Why is this? Why is it that all these references to religious modes and to the activism that take stances against those religious modes (fundamentalist in the proper sense of the word), why is it that in the course of this conversation there is no reference to what we see going on all around us?

What I am trying to point out is that there are pockets and zones and regions in all of the different cultures (nations) where people are reacting to the breakdown of forms of traditionalism, which is to say different forms of grounding, while around them vast powers and forces attempt to subsume them into a giant machinery which is ill-defined as 'globalism' or as the machinations of élite directive and managerial bureaucracies?

Why in the present conversation is there no mention of and reference to any of this at all?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Now if I were to be part of Nick's world, that is the role I would choose for myself. I am applying for the job of Demiurge.

You mean so say that you see yourself as a 'trickster' in the sense that Belinda referenced? A crazy-wisdom teacher whose anecdotes simple blow the mind of those who receive them? Who turn them upside-down, who shake them out of complacency, and set then on new paths in new ways?

Harbal -- have I failed to perceive your essence?!?

[Harbal]

Now if I were to be part of Nick's world, that is the role I would choose for myself. I am applying for the job of Demiurge.

You mean so say that you see yourself as a 'trickster' in the sense that Belinda referenced? A crazy-wisdom teacher whose anecdotes simple blow the mind of those who receive them? Who turn them upside-down, who shake them out of complacency, and set then on new paths in new ways?

Yes, I reckon I'd be good at it with a bit of training.

Harbal -- have I failed to perceive your essence?!?

I don't know. I am neither sure what my essence is, nor know what you have perceived.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Tricksters, as archetypal characters, appear in the myths of many different cultures. Lewis Hyde describes the trickster as a "boundary-crosser".[1] The trickster crosses and often breaks both physical and societal rules: Tricksters "violate principles of social and natural order, playfully disrupting normal life and then re-establishing it on a new basis."[2

Lewis Hyde's book (Trickster Makes A World) is quite good. He based a good deal of it on Marcel Detienne's

Cunning Intelliegence in Greek Culture and Society

There is both a light and a very dark side to the idea of metis (wisdom, skill, craft) (Hyde's book is in many ways an exposition on the Greek notion of metis). We live in a world in which substantial 'tricksters', in the sense of deceivers and manipulators, run the show. In such a world as this any assertion that thus-and-such is true is undercut by a contrary assertion that it is untrue and anti-true. Cunning intelligence abounds. We cannot, it seems, really even see our world since manipulating trickster-types, employing metis, obscure our ability to discern.

So it is one thing to assert that there are 'tricksters' who 'playfully' challenge our established conceptions and habits of mind, and quite another when we are made 'victims' of their machinations and their power-games (when tricksterism is seen in a darker light).

[Nick_A]

You refer to Christianity but do you know what it is?

You say "We have a thread of over 300 posts yet no one has defined the unique purpose of Christianity".

What does this highly dubious conclusion amount to. What it concludes is the ultimate in irony; that in two thousand years (compared to 300 posts) we still don't know what Christianity is in spite of it's very long deep-rooted culture in the West, its innumerable histories written by scholars in many disciplines and the endless tomes of documents and dogma archived in the Vatican and other libraries, etc.

The question being thoroughly illogical, deformed as to fact, can only result in ONE conclusion that, though all of the above are available, no answer will ever or can ever suffice...so round the merry-go-round we go once again.

Is there anything at all "real" in your philosophy which consists of nothing more than other people's views going back to Plato?

Plato describes what happens when Man doesn't have a foundation to build upon or the inner awareness of the North Star pointing the way home for the sailors. It is normal to kill each other to determine the stronger so naturally, those who know the way must reign superior. The others must perish.

Interesting! But there remains something of a quandary in this statement. Who's to sail the ship home if only those are left who reign superior! Who are these superior beings or being going to command? Not a good idea to kill off sailors just because they got a little over ambitious. I figure they all had one goal in common, the superior and the not so superior, namely, getting to the port called home with all hands on deck.

Do you have an open mind? Are you willing to admit why we don't understand Christianity or do you just believe it is illogical to question what so many scholars assert? Are those who question what we know as Socrates did when he said "I know nothing" really naive fools or just ahead of their times?

What we call Christianity are beliefs created by the exoteric level of society. This is what you believe defines Christianity. However there are a minority aware of the contradictions expressed by these experts who say one thing and do another. Their beliefs do not satisfy the needs of the heart for meaning so strive to go beyond indoctrination in their need for meaning.

If they are lucky, they find it at the esoteric level of reality. Where the goal of the exoteric level is belief, the goal of the esoteric level is understanding with the goal of reaching the transcendent level of reality where all the great traditions have their common origin and the soul finds meaning.

You prefer to argue Christendom or man made Christianity while I prefer to ponder what the purpose Christianity really is and if the transcendent level actually exists..

[Nick_A]

I don't expect you to agree with the idea of the demiurge but post it as food for thought for anyone concerned with the purpose of our universe and the qualities of consciousness necessary to work with its laws and bring order into chaos

As long as you don't condemn me for not agreeing with your ideas and views, I am easily able to respect your right to hold them.

But should they be an influence in society? We know even on philosophy forms how ideas are shouted down rather than contemplated. Consider this idea expressed by Simone Weil:

"The combination of these two facts — the longing in the depth of the heart for absolute good, and the power, though only latent, of directing attention and love to a reality beyond the world and of receiving good from it — constitutes a link which attaches every man without exception to that other reality.

Whoever recognizes that reality recognizes also that link. Because of it, he holds every human being without any exception as something sacred to which he is bound to show respect.

This is the only possible motive for universal respect towards all human beings. Whatever formulation of belief or disbelief a man may choose to make, if his heart inclines him to feel this respect, then he in fact also recognizes a reality other than this world's reality. Whoever in fact does not feel this respect is alien to that other reality also." ~ Simone Weil

Condemnation is double edged. Some feel condemned for being wary of religious indoctrination while others are condemned for asserting the mutual respect desired by secularism is impossible without an awareness of our creator.

I learned a while ago about the science of Idiotism which states that a person can reach the stage where he realizes he is an idiot. He tries to explain this to his friends who think he is an idiot for thinking this way. Now he is a complete idiot and the first step to understanding. Maybe the world needs more idiots if there is any hope for mutual respect.

[Dubious]

You refer to Christianity but do you know what it is?

You say "We have a thread of over 300 posts yet no one has defined the unique purpose of Christianity".

What does this highly dubious conclusion amount to. What it concludes is the ultimate in irony; that in two thousand years (compared to 300 posts) we still don't know what Christianity is in spite of it's very long deep-rooted culture in the West, its innumerable histories written by scholars in many disciplines and the endless tomes of documents and dogma archived in the Vatican and other libraries, etc.

The question being thoroughly illogical, deformed as to fact, can only result in ONE conclusion that, though all of the above are available, no answer will ever or can ever suffice...so round the merry-go-round we go once again.

Is there anything at all "real" in your philosophy which consists of nothing more than other people's views going back to Plato?

Plato describes what happens when Man doesn't have a foundation to build upon or the inner awareness of the North Star pointing the way home for the sailors. It is normal to kill each other to determine the stronger so naturally, those who know the way must reign superior. The others must perish.

Interesting! But there remains something of a quandary in this statement. Who's to sail the ship home if only those are left who reign superior! Who are these superior beings or being going to command? Not a good idea to kill off sailors just because they got a little over ambitious. I figure they all had one goal in common, the superior and the not so superior, namely, getting to the port called home with all hands on deck.

Do you have an open mind? Are you willing to admit why we don't understand Christianity or do you just believe it is illogical to question what so many scholars assert? Are those who question what we know as Socrates did when he said "I know nothing" really naive fools or just ahead of their times?

What we call Christianity are beliefs created by the exoteric level of society. This is what you believe defines Christianity. However there are a minority aware of the contradictions expressed by these experts who say one thing and do another. Their beliefs do not satisfy the needs of the heart for meaning so strive to go beyond indoctrination in their need for meaning.

If they are lucky, they find it at the esoteric level of reality. Where the goal of the exoteric level is belief, the goal of the esoteric level is understanding with the goal of reaching the transcendent level of reality where all the great traditions have their common origin and the soul finds meaning.

You prefer to argue Christendom or man made Christianity while I prefer to ponder what the purpose Christianity really is and if the transcendent level actually exists..

You think there is a great deal of virtue, wisdom, and insight in "knowing nothing". If that's the case you will have reached your goal a very long time ago.

Where the goal of the exoteric level is belief, the goal of the esoteric level is understanding with the goal of reaching the transcendent level of reality where all the great traditions have their common origin and the soul finds meaning.

Have you found it yet, that transcendent level of reality? Know anyone who has?

[Nick_A]

Dubious

You think there is a great deal of virtue, wisdom, and insight in "knowing nothing". If that's the case you will have reached your goal a very long time ago.

The Oracle of Delphi pronounced Socrates the wisest of Greeks; and Socrates took this as approval of his agnosticism which was the starting point of his philosophy: ‘One thing only I know’, he said, ‘and that is that I know nothing’. Philosophy begins when one begins to doubt — when one begins to question the accepted wisdom of tradition. Particularly the one’s cherished beliefs, one’s dogmas and one’s axioms.

Why did the Oracle say that Socrates was the wisest of the Greeks when he admits he knows nothing? What is wisdom when it is expressed through Christianity in its initial transcendent form?

[Dubious]

Dubious

You think there is a great deal of virtue, wisdom, and insight in "knowing nothing". If that's the case you will have reached your goal a very long time ago.

The Oracle of Delphi pronounced Socrates the wisest of Greeks; and Socrates took this as approval of his agnosticism which was the starting point of his philosophy: ‘One thing only I know’, he said, ‘and that is that I know nothing’. Philosophy begins when one begins to doubt — when one begins to question the accepted wisdom of tradition. Particularly the one’s cherished beliefs, one’s dogmas and one’s axioms.

Why did the Oracle say that Socrates was the wisest of the Greeks when he admits he knows nothing? What is wisdom when it is expressed through Christianity in its initial transcendent form?

The Pythia spoke in such a weird manner that she was barely understood - having been drugged by vapors coming through the floor, going into a trance and then uttering the words of Apollo in response to whatever question. The Oracle of Delphi was a big and very lucrative business in those days. It's also strange that Socrates in knowing nothing always sought to prove something. You can't do that by knowing nothing...that much I know!

[Walker]

You prefer to argue Christendom or man made Christianity while I prefer to ponder what the purpose Christianity really is and if the transcendent level actually exists..

Isn't the purpose personal redemption?

[Belinda]

Tricksters, as archetypal characters, appear in the myths of many different cultures. Lewis Hyde describes the trickster as a "boundary-crosser".[1] The trickster crosses and often breaks both physical and societal rules: Tricksters "violate principles of social and natural order, playfully disrupting normal life and then re-establishing it on a new basis."[2

Lewis Hyde's book (Trickster Makes A World) is quite good. He based a good deal of it on Marcel Detienne's

Cunning Intelliegence in Greek Culture and Society

There is both a light and a very dark side to the idea of metis (wisdom, skill, craft) (Hyde's book is in many ways an exposition on the Greek notion of metis). We live in a world in which substantial 'tricksters', in the sense of deceivers and manipulators, run the show. In such a world as this any assertion that thus-and-such is true is undercut by a contrary assertion that it is untrue and anti-true. Cunning intelligence abounds. We cannot, it seems, really even see our world since manipulating trickster-types, employing metis, obscure our ability to discern.

So it is one thing to assert that there are 'tricksters' who 'playfully' challenge our established conceptions and habits of mind, and quite another when we are made 'victims' of their machinations and their power-games (when tricksterism is seen in a darker light).

It's impossible for normal people to be playful about atrocities or natural calamities but, even for normal people, unforeseen and terrifying events are opportunities to learn freedom from vanity. Malevolent fortune will assuredly happen again and again. Uncertainty is a virtue. The trickster in literature and myth is our friend . The voice in the whirlwind (winds that make these rootless small bushes to blow about in the desert) is our friend insofar as we use him as an opportunity to advance our learning.

[Belinda]

Guénon in his book, and in all his books, attempts to assert that we now live in times of broken-down relationships to what he describes as perennial metaphysical conceptions. He looks to the past, to what has gone before, and to what has been understood by men in former times to be true and wise, and with these notions in mind simultaneously constructs his critique of the present trends (the crisis he refers to). He does not discount that even in a descending cycle there is not evidence of advancement. However he does assert that evidence of advancement (technological and material progress for example) does not in any sense imply advance or progress in those areas he would define as wise and also intelligent (taken in his sense of intelligence).

It must be stated though, and seems true indeed, that he does not have faith in the wisdom of modern man. My assessment of his position is that if modernity is understood as a movement (a current or a tide) it does not have wisdom nor intelligence (again defined in relation to the concept intellectus) as its object. Seen in a negative light the 'modern man' he critiques is technologically adept and empowered but spiritually and also intellectually dwarfed. It is not off the mark to use the term I often use: a Walmart Culture and a Walmart Man. This sort of man is surrounded by and indeed subsumed in extraordinary material accomplishments and yet, on so many other levels, is largely uncultivated and unaccomplished in all the really important areas. Certainly *spiritually* -- that is to say in respect to his own religious matrix -- he is more often than not a sort of vulgar brute. And this is why -- in my own opinion of course -- that the Christian forms in their manifestations today are so debased.

In any case, and since I have been re-reading his book, I came across this segment which reminded my of why I launched into an investigation of Catholicism. Not in its present post-Vatican ll form, which is certainly debased, but in its original form(s). So what does this mean? I take it to mean that each of the Symbols that define traditional Catholicism are laden with levels of meaning which, if seen in the right way, expose or perhaps project is the right word, reflections of metaphysical values which, in our world, are in a process of growing dim.

This is precisely my view of the present, and also how I position myself in contrast to those I define as anti-metaphysical. But it is not, and not in any sense, that I do not understand their positions! They have a certain logic that is not hard to follow. But it is though they have pulled at the threads of an outlook to such a degree that the fabric is no longer recognizable to them, and thus the 'original principles' are not just obscured, but are no longer intelligible.

From The Crisis of the Modern World by René Guénon:

The fact of the matter is that the surviving Celtic elements were for the most part assimilated by Christianity at the time of the Middle Ages; the legend of the Holy Grail, and everything that goes with it, is a particularly significant and revealing example in this respect. Furthermore, we are of the opinion that if a Western tradition should come to be reconstituted it would be bound to partake of an outward form that was religious in the strictest sense of the term, and that this form could not but be Christian, since, on the one hand, the other possible forms have been for too long a time foreign to the Western mentality and, on the other hand, because it is in Christianity alone or, to be more precise, in Catholicism, that is to be found as much as has survived of the traditional spirit in the West today. (1)

Every “traditionalist” venture that omits to take account of this fact is inevitably doomed to failure, since it is bound to lack a proper foundation; it is self-evident that one can only build upon something that is effectively in existence and that where continuity is lacking there can only be an artificial reconstruction incapable of being lived; if it be objected that Christianity itself, in our time, is scarcely any longer understood in its deepest and truest sense, we would reply that it has at least preserved in its actual form everything necessary for providing such a foundation. The least improbable enterprise, the only one in fact that could escape running up against immediate impossibilities, would therefore be to aim at restoring something comparable to what existed in the Middle Ages, allowing for the differences demanded by modifications in the circumstances; and, in the case of elements which have been completely lost to the West, it would be necessary to draw upon those traditions that have been preserved in their entirety, as we have already pointed out, to be followed by a process of adaptation which could only be the work of a firmly established intellectual élite.

We have already gone into these various questions elsewhere; but it is advisable to draw attention to them once again on account of the wide-spread tendency at the present time to indulge in the most inconsistent fancies; moreover, it should be thoroughly under-stood that if the Eastern traditions, under their specific forms, can certainly be assimilated by an élite, which in a sense stands beyond all forms by definition, they certainly cannot be so assimilated by the mass of Western people for whom they were never intended, unless some quite unforeseen transformation were to take place. If a Western intellectual élite comes to be formed, a genuine knowledge of the Eastern doctrines will be essential to the fulfillment of its functions, for the reasons just given; but those to whose lot it will fall to reap the benefits of its labours, and who will be in the majority, can perfectly well remain unaware of these things, and the influence which they will receive, so to speak, unsuspectingly and in any case through agencies which must remain quite outside their perception, will not be any less real and efficacious on that account. We have never maintained anything different; but it appeared desirable to repeat what we had said in the clearest possible terms because, if we must expect sometimes not to be fully understood, we are nevertheless anxious to prevent people from attributing intentions to us which are far from our thoughts.

[1 By rights the other branch of traditional Christianity, the Orthodox Church, should also have been mentioned in this context, since it too largely belongs toEurope; but since this book was primarily designed for the use of Western European readers, the author did not find occasion to refer to a traditional form other than that which is specific to the West, in the more restricted sense of the word.-- Translator.]

So in my conversations with Immanuel Can, before he was finally silenced and chose to abandon participation, I felt so compelled to explain that we have no real choice but to rediscover, re-accentuate, revivify and re-empower what is foundational and fundamental to our cultures and to our civilization. The basic premise is that *acids are eating it apart*. It is dissolving, it is fracturing, and it is breaking-apart.

One thing I notice about this present thread: no one talks on any level about the present conditions in the world. Why is this? Why is it that all these references to religious modes and to the activism that take stances against those religious modes (fundamentalist in the proper sense of the word), why is it that in the course of this conversation there is no reference to what we see going on all around us?

What I am trying to point out is that there are pockets and zones and regions in all of the different cultures (nations) where people are reacting to the breakdown of forms of traditionalism, which is to say different forms of grounding, while around them vast powers and forces attempt to subsume them into a giant machinery which is ill-defined as 'globalism' or as the machinations of élite directive and managerial bureaucracies?

Why in the present conversation is there no mention of and reference to any of this at all?

I don't claim to know what is fundamental but I do think that 'Celtic' is not as precise as 'Irish', when we are looking at the alternative to Roman Christianity

[Alexis Jacobi]

I think the answer though, to your hypothetical, is that philosophy would only be able to concern itself with the 'facts'. It would no longer have any concern for 'wisdom' (of those types of wisdom generally understood in traditional cultures). It would become entirely utilitarian, wouldn't it? a branch of mechanics: reductionist materialism. It could not concern itself with any sort of 'principle' that was thought to exist above physical phenomena.

Those are your words, not mine; your presuppositions of my views are too extreme. You seem to understand little of what I wrote and so often repeated. The way you describe it would mean the end of philosophy.

Those are my words, true, but they also indicate what in fact is happening within philosophy. My suggestion is that absent the 'anchor' in metaphysical principles, absent the recognition of their value, that philosophy could only become a branch of material science. What other alternative is there? I am not sure if you have fully traced out the consequences of the view and position that you seem to defend.

Also, these are not 'presuppositions of [your] views' but post-suppositions to explain what is going on today. You seem just to reflect, explain and also to defend them.

You seekers of truth and wisdom have a problem in attempting to reify, make factual in some way, any sort of principle imagined beyond physical realms, in effect, creating its own set of statistics as if wisdom were a science; but where is that "objective truth" that's supposed to prove its reality? Wisdom is a word for interpreting our own theories as they apply to culture, art, philosophy. If the universe didn't supply it, what or who do you think did? What would a human type of consciousness be for if it didn't? Free will, in a way, is what allows you to create your own values in a universe which doesn't have any.

The answer to that question (where is that "objective truth" that's supposed to prove its reality?) is discovered when one examines all things that are created, all things that come to be and are expressed, when metaphysical ideas are translated into our realm through human endeavor and expression. Since there cannot be presented to you that which corresponds to the *objective truth* you say you seek, all that can be presented are the evidences, the results, of its *existence*. The invisible, including an idea which cannot but be described as non-tangible and thus non-objective, can yet be understood objectively. I guess I would say that intelligent men can see and agree. I am not sure what a so-called brute is capable of in this realm. (And yes, very much, I hold to extreme hierarchies of valuation).

As I was thinking about this yesterday a scene from an old Japanese film Late Spring came to mind. Early postwar (ll) Japan. The scene involves a friendly gathering of women and the preparation of tea. All of this rehearsal, the rite itself, comes about as a result of the translation of metaphysical ideas, and also principles, into their realm of social activity. Obviously the tea ritual is an expression of a contemplative understanding or vision. This social performance, seen from our vantage today, at least by many, cannot in fact be seen -- if seeing involves understanding. In order to understand it one would have to become familiar with a range of ideas precisely of the sort I describe as metaphysical. What is not understood cannot certainly be appreciated. And what supersedes the *value* expressed in it is vulgarized and debased. I am frankly surprised that you do not seem to grasp some of this. Why must these things be laboriously explained? Shouldn't you be explaining these things to me?

So as I see things (and I am just as much of an outcome of decadent modern processes as anyone except that I am aware that something destructive was done) when we lose a sense of what 'metaphysics' actually refer to, when we lose the understanding and therefore the connection, we descend from a higher level down to a lower plane. If high or exalted forms of behavior and comportment depend on a relationship to metaphysical principles, and it is clear that they do, when these disappear or are 'erased', the vertical dimension is lost sight of or sacrificed.

It certainly could not be lost on you that all your favorite musical compositions could only have come to exist because of the translation of higher ideas and ideals, expressed in musical language, were manifested in this realm by those who had (allow me to say) metaphysical vision.

My contention is that all such 'high expressions' in various cultures, in cultures distinct and differentiated, all deal in these 'principles' in one way or another. They are distinct and different, that is true, but they are united in essential ways. That is, in the essences and principles that are communicated.

Those are your words, not mine; your presuppositions of my views are too extreme. You seem to understand little of what I wrote and so often repeated. The way you describe it would mean the end of philosophy.

Ramifications are made more visible when they are pushed forward and their effect intensified. I have no doubt at all that when the *links to the metaphysical realms* are disrupted and broken that man devolves. This is not something I feel a great need to explain or defend. It seems simply obvious. Yet I have a feeling that, in some way, you will attempt to state something else about this process, this descent. This is why what you say -- your position -- is not very comprehensible to me. Though I think I am beginning to grasp your core and defining predicate.

To put it concretely you regard what you call 'epiphenomena' as non-real. No that is not quite right. You regard it as arbitrary. You do not regard the 'principles' I allude to as having a prior existence but see them as, more or less, invented in a utilitarian manner. Whereas, in contradistinction, I see them as necessarily pre-existing and also as eternal. And what is eternal, in my lexicon, is always and can only be the *stuff* upon which truthful things, defined within mutable circumstances (our life our world), upon which real and valuable things can be constructed.

I am not completely sure what happens if all *ground* is lost or as I say cannot any longer be seen or understood. What happens to a person who has no anchor (in eternal values and ideas) of any sort? I suspect you will chafe against the word 'eternal'. The only stuff that could be eternal for you (if I read you right) is specific material phenomena. Why you discount (what you refer to as) epiphenomena and I refer to as metaphysical -- is beyond me. I simply do not get it. I do not understand how you have arrived at the position you inhabit.