Belinda wrote:This world is relative and temporal. This world may be contrasted with eternity which is absolute and timeless. We live and die and can't be compared with eternity 'where' there is no living or dying. I am a little surprised at you as I thought you as a rather studious RC would have a very good idea about this world and its relation to eternity.
Well, there are a few things I can clarify and I do so 'in the spirit of interesting philosophical exchange'. I think that the exchange of philosophical, religious and existential perspectives in such interesting, and strange, times as ours can and should be 'fun'.
1) I consider myself a not very good Christian, nor a very good RC Christian.
2) I have 'heretical tendencies' insofar as I do not have any other option, given the way my mind is structured, but to see that all Story conceals, or 'shrouds' might be the word, what I refer to as 'metaphysical truth'. A metaphysical truth is a truth that functions outside and beyond 'manifestation'. The visible makes a reference to the invisible, is the only way I know how to express it. I understand 'metaphysical truths' to determine everything that happens (appears, takes place) within 'the world': this place where we are manifest. As far as I am aware one cannot find these sorts of descriptions in Catholic theological tracts! But that may not be completely true: Catholicism is -- it really is -- a restatement of a good deal of Platonism. I have a 'Platonic mind'.
3) I am also (I think I must say this) heretical in other senses, and this brings me back to why I began this thread on its specific note. I think this came out in my exchanges with Immanuel Can. I am more
interested in Christianity in its militant and immanent aspect. Essentially I am oriented this-worldly. When I refer to transcendent ideas or ideals, it is most often a point of reference: because I think that it is (ultimately) metaphysics that drives man. I say man specifically as it is only man (as far as I know) that could ever conceive of or hold to a transcendental or a metaphysical idea. Now, we are here in this thread, in my opinion and as I conceive it, discussing (and also disputing) this issue. The issue then has to do with 'directing metaphysics'. I hope that my terms do not confuse.
3a) I am interested in a developing anti-liberal movement now developing in Europe. We are (IMHO) at the beginning of a large social and cultural struggle. I define as important the renovation of Europe. This is a wide-ranging idea and assertion on my part. I have made efforts here to explain myself. In my view, the most important part of this is: an internal, spiritual renovation of a given person's relation to the large 'metaphysical questions'. One either has an 'answer' (if you will) here, or one does not. I conceive of 'answers'. That means that I believe that there are answers. I also do believe that in the essences of Christian revelation -- in the internal parts -- the better 'answers' are offered. Therefore, I state my position openly. However, I have just as many problems as anyone -- even including some atheists! -- in defending Christian beliefs (gardens, Falls, arks, resurrected dead: the structure of Story) as anyone else. I have conceptual problems, or better put I suffer from the problem of conception and description. I need to know: What is this World! What does 'world' mean?
4) Fellow contributor -1- asserts that -- at least to one of my statements -- that I am being deceptive or participating in a deception. And I think I understand his larger position: any declaration about 'metaphysical truths' as they are imagined impinging on our life and this world, is essentially folly: misperception at best, lie at worst. And one could inquire of him (or her, I am unsure) and then he (I will stick with this) would fill out his reasoning as to what atheism means and why he is one. It would make sense. I mean, it would follow a line of reasoning. Therefore, in this respect, I see 'idea wars' going on in our cultures. These idea-battles extend into all areas! These have to do with essential metaphysical predicates, or, perhaps, the lack of them. I desire to get down to the 'bare bones' or arguments and see what is there. Expose the skeleton of the argument so that it can, at least, be seen in its bare, open form.
5) I notice -- and I say this with complete respect and only to stimulate exchange -- that your description of 'the world' is quite vague. Yes, I do understand it, I mean, I can entertain it in my imagination. But it is very open-ended. How did our world of Being come to be for us?
Is there a purpose that was structured into the created world? Or, is it up to us to invent purpose? Do we merely 'invent purpose'? When you speak of 'eternity, do you mean an eternal state of being? Will we eventually live in an eternal state of being? Is this a a possibility for us? Is there a Directing Intelligence that operates in this 'world' (kosmos
is perhaps a better word). Is there a Directing Intelligence that is, let us say, especially or particularly concerned for us, that is we human beings? What is the nature of that being? Is communication possible? Do we communicate with it, does it communicate with us? What does 'communication' mean if such exists? Therefore, what is the purpose of 'worship'? If one examines all the religious modalities, which of them gets closer to answering the larger, fuller, most important and relevant questions? And what actions, non-actions, are recommended? (I could I think go on and on and on with lists of questions).
I asked for your description of The World. It is really a large question, this I know, and I hope that by better stating how I conceive it, that you might be able to say a bit more of how you view things. And this goes for all participants here! Speak! Reveal! Declare! Assert!