Christianity

[Lacewing]

Responding to both, Nick and Alexis...

Can you imagine trying to explain this to an atheist who is yet to feel the reality of the Great Chain of Being? The men in the white coats will be called to take you away.

It is awe inspiring. I believe I have an elementary understanding of the depth of esoteric Christianity but when I think of what I don't understand and even knowing what it means to understand esoteric Christianity as opposed to secularized Christendom, the difference is incredible

I've experienced the incredible difference between having been on the path of theism and then seeing/experiencing/being much more than that -- and yes, that too is very awe-inspiring and very difficult to explain to those who cannot fathom it unless they experience it for themselves.

I think it's important and helpful, as well as more realistic and truthful, to try to understand and accept that there is always more to see than what can be seen from any single position at any given moment. Not only can there be more depths and layers to explore where one stands, but there can be so much more than that position entirely. One can suddenly see something in a moment, that they didn't see ever before. It's fantastic! And it's worth embracing, not fearing.

I guess metaphysical view defines and divides people. It is like two tribes of people who will never be able to *see* the same world.

Surely, our human metaphysical views have such a vast range... as vast as individual perspectives. I think this divides people when particular views are turned into an overarching story and belief that attempts to govern all. It is important to understand that a single view (even if popular) is not the only nor the 'highest/broadest' view that many other people might have. So, naturally there could be great resistance to the limitations and distortions of that single view, while people who believe that single view represents the boundaries/framework/foundation of the Universe might not be able to accept or fathom why there is such resistance -- and they may create self-serving stories to justify/explain why.

We humans establish and perpetuate what serves us, yes? Some claim it is actually of a god, yes? Why? Can we not see and embrace all the diversity and potential that actually and beautifully exists? Where does the 'need' to be 'metaphysically right' come from?

who can think in these terms when the Machine of Seduction is so prevalent, so powerful.

Many view Christianity as a Machine of Seduction. It really depends on where one stands, as to what they see and how they might frame it. Although I understand that Christians may feel that they and their beliefs are attacked, I think they are failing to recognize and acknowledge how much they and their beliefs are an attack on others -- and on humankind's potential progress -- through the overwhelming and relentless imposing of their specific beliefs. There is so much more than those beliefs, and many could ask why Christians are not being more responsible and aware to recognize/consider/respect that?

Personally, I think everything is spiritual. The manifestation of all is of the same. It does not make sense that there are divisions or agendas except those imagined and created by humans. We humans torture ourselves with our own creations. We create things to be glorified... as well as things to condemn. We create rules. And then we deny that we're doing all of that. We claim it's just 'the truth'. We may claim that we're following a god's orders. It's ridiculous, really. Our creations need not be so limited and imposing. There is MUCH to find harmony with... and much to find inspiration in... and much to continually see anew.

Perhaps it takes a different kind of love to allow and celebrate that there is much more to everything and to all of us than any single view might see. And we can live vibrantly without pinning it all down in convoluted stories. It might seem terrifying or worse than death to say/acknowledge that we 'didn't know' how much more there was than what we believed earlier. But that would be like a child never advancing from one grade/level to the next in school because he built all his view/belief on the level he's at. Why would we think we somehow know 'divine truth' now? Acknowledging that there is always more to see/realize on all levels is an honesty and openness that is wonderful and admirable! It is not rudderless... we are powering our boat on an endless ocean of possibility.

[Nick_A]

How many in the West can respect the difference between the corrupton of animal EMOTION arising from the earth and FEELINGS descending from above? Can anyone understand Christianity without having felt this distinction between emotion and feelings? Yet the conflict between the left and right is the result of emotional corruption.

You bring up an interesting issue and one that I have tried to think about. Put into the terms I am familiar with you allude to a conflict between feeling and intellect, or the sensuous experience and a directing intelligence. Traditional Catholicism refers to 'intellectus' and I gather that at that point, as Nietzsche expressed it, Christianity (Catholicism) is infused with Platonic categories.

So the way that I have thought about all of this, and in relation to our *modern culture*, is to consider the notion of seduction as, let's say, a primary enemy. And we certainly live in a culture that has developed, through PR and the psychology of advertising, into a seduction-machine. This is, of course, pretty basic Conservative theory.

Despite its many flaws the intellectualism of the Schoolmen (Scholasticism) has been described as profound intellectualism and as I read through (parts) of the Dictionary I referenced, I quickly saw how seriously the tenets of Christian belief were taken. To 'take the Christian cure' (to submit oneself to the process of becoming a Christian) was a serious affair and the conversion-process took months if not years. And in relation to what you are saying the conversion was not measured nor expressed by emotional declaration but in relation to the depth of one's commitment to the core tenets.

I wonder how the conflict between the Right and the Left can fairly and accurately be described? On one level it seems fairly obvious that the contrast between feelings and intellectual decisiveness could be one major area. I admit I do not have this one worked out very well . . .

The intellectual means dualistic thought to me. I was really referring to the distinction bet2ee morality and feelings. Morality is a human interpretation and varies between cultures. Feelings refers to objective conscience or the emotional experience of what always was. Here are the four levels of cognitive thought according to Plato:

From highest to lowest, these are:
noesis (immediate intuition, apprehension, or mental 'seeing' of principles)
dianoia (discursive thought)
pistis (belief or confidence)
eikasia (delusion or sheer conjecture)

The aim of Christian prayer is opening to the experience of conscience (feelings) as opposed to struggling with dianoia. Dianoia is good for debate between people while noesis is the personal immediate experience of reality from a higher conscience perspective. Yet the duality of dianoia can produce a contradiction allowing reconciliation by a third force above the level of the contradiction inviting the experience of noesis. Simone Weil's intro the the Iliad posted before is a good example. She describes a quality of consciousness which looks down at the combat from above and sees its futility while experiencing it through conscience (feelings) rather than morality.

[Nick_A]

Can you imagine trying to explain this to an atheist who is yet to feel the reality of the Great Chain of Being? The men in the white coats will be called to take you away.

This is another topic, or problem, that interests me a great deal. When one examines The Great Chain of Being -- I mean as a system of organizing perception and understanding -- one of the first things one realizes is the degree to which all of our language is infused and intertwined with ideas that derive from it. Just the contrast between the celestial world and the lower, terrestrial world -- guiding star, imprisoning earth -- reveals a profound metaphysical picture.

Simply put, in former times, *reality* was understood to be a gradation between the absolutely spiritual and the lowest orders of manifestation, and it is in the Earth where the lowest and the densest congregate. There is of course even another level and that is the (also invisible) hell-realm. And Man was the territory, as it were, in a conflict between the demands of the Lower World and those of the Higher World, existing in Middle Earth. The conflict being, essentially, one between heavenly and celestial being and earth-bound terrestrial being.

The old Catholic Mass is infused with this idea: "Then will I go unto the altar of God, unto God my exceeding joy: yea, upon the harp will I praise thee, O God my God". It is all about ascent and going up, step by step.

It does seem to be true, and it is true, that more and more it appears that certain metaphysical ideas are being seen as signs of pathology which require a counter-cure and a form of social and cultural intervention. The reduction of the Idea of God to that of a Flying Spaghetti Monster expresses the unavoidable contrast between the former metaphysics and the New Anti-metaphysics.

It has always occurred to me that if this project is successful -- to remove all metaphysical concept from the way we see -- it will in fact undermine all sense of the possibility of meaning. Because when meaning is examined it is pretty easy to see that the perception of meaning, the assigning of meaning, is completely metaphysical. It requires a metaphysical mind to perceive and conceive meaning.

Though I can say that I understand why the New Anti-metaphysicians are committed to their *categories*, time and again I have seen that trying to reason with them (I mean those strongly committed) results in impasse. Why? Ultimately I guess metaphysical view defines and divides people. It is like two tribes of people who will never be able to *see* the same world.

In contrast to Ascent is the idea of Assent and giving assent to certain ideas, which are, of course, metaphysical. Cardinal Newman deals on this in the Grammar of Assent. How can we give assent to what cannot be seen in the same way as an object? It is an entire processes of cultivation of intellectus. But who can think in these terms when the Machine of Seduction is so prevalent, so powerful.

Uwot, what do you think?

Daily life and analysis only requires dianoia (dualistic thinking) Objective meaning requires the vertical experience of noesis (top down) the great chain of being refers to. But who contemplates it now when the powers of seduction are so great? Is it any wonder why the young being deprived of meaning turn to drugs?

[Nick_A]

Despite its many flaws the intellectualism of the Schoolmen (Scholasticism) has been described as profound intellectualism and as I read through (parts) of the Dictionary I referenced, I quickly saw how seriously the tenets of Christian belief were taken. To 'take the Christian cure' (to submit oneself to the process of becoming a Christian) was a serious affair and the conversion-process took months if not years. And in relation to what you are saying the conversion was not measured nor expressed by emotional declaration but in relation to the depth of one's commitment to the core tenets.

So one of the things, those assertions of IC, I have certain doubts about is just this: the conversion-process. IC has stated that the Christian conversion is something utterly simple and immediate -- such that a child or a very simple person could declare her or himself a convert and, mystically, come under the salvific protection of the Supreme Divinity. Conversion, I gathered, takes place in a mere moment. And that salvation does not depend on any action or external activity. Perhaps no further internal activity if, as they say, salvation is instant.

But this has never seemed right to me. I understand the concept however.

I believe IC is right here. Remember the song "Amazing Grace"

Amazing grace
How sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me
I once was lost, but now I'm found
Was blind, but now I see

Blindness has a psychological meaning in the Bible. When a person experiences metanoia they inwardly turn towards the light with the whole of themselves and away from the shadows. This is instantaneous and reveals the inner path to freedom from Plato's cave.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I think it's important and helpful, as well as more realistic and truthful, to try to understand and accept that there is always more to see than what can be seen from any single position at any given moment. Not only can there be more depths and layers to explore where one stands, but there can be so much more than that position entirely. One can suddenly see something in a moment, that they didn't see ever before. It's fantastic! And it's worth embracing, not fearing.

I believe that I have understood what you mean here. You are, I think, stating a truism (of a sort). If I were to say "Our galaxy is the limit of all that is" you could fairly respond "No, in fact there are billions of galaxies", and you would be right. Then, someone could present the idea of *manifestations* and propose that any number of different *manifestations* are theoretically possible.

My point is that though I think your idea is sound (how could there not always be *something more*?) your idea must have an ideological underpinning. You mean something quite specific I gather but what you mean is not stated. So in this sense you are making an ideological declaration but what is the desired effect of this position? If there is always *something more* than (I gather) what we now work with is somehow invalidated? or questioned? or seen as incomplete?

So it seems to me that in order for your declaration to be meaningful, or perhaps effective is the word, you would have to introduce those findings of yours and move them from the theoretical plane to the plane of actuality.

What I notice is that your ideological assertion indeed has a function. One part of it is that you want to convince, or to demonstrate compellingly, that the definition of a Christian and thus the definition of Christianity that IC holds and presents, should be seen as incomplete and I think perhaps also *wrong* in some sense. But more than that destructive. For this reason I think you will need to identify and clearly express your ideological position.

Many view Christianity as a Machine of Seduction. It really depends on where one stands, as to what they see and how they might frame it. Although I understand that Christians may feel that they and their beliefs are attacked, I think they are failing to recognize and acknowledge how much they and their beliefs are an attack on others -- and on humankind's potential progress -- through the overwhelming and relentless imposing of their specific beliefs. There is so much more than those beliefs, and many could ask why Christians are not being more responsible and aware to recognize/consider/respect that?

While I gather that you have read enough of what I write and think to know that I can entertain the idea of a Story that is not the *reality* it alludes to, nevertheless the foundation of Christian belief involves specific statements and declarations about the nature of existence. It is deeply involved in the idea, and the fact, of the moral, and this notion and view is bound up with the idea of an *immortal soul* that must assume responsibility for its choices here in this plane of existence.

You could say that this is a seductive idea except that, usually, a Christian praxis involves many different sorts of self-abnegation, self-control, self-domination, and often accepting the more difficult over what is more easy. Therefore I am uncertain if the term *seduction* applies in quite the same way as that of the seduction I refer to.

Seduction (in the sense I use the word) means a seduction away from difficult truth. It means a surrender to immediate desire, a preference for the immediate please let's say. It is (as it is classically defined) the seduction of the mutable and contingent over the eternal and unchanging.

Still I cannot but agree with you that there are forms of Christianity (take for example Benny Hinn and his entire show) that certainly can be described as seductions.

So I think you will have to fill out more what you mean by seduction (and Machine of Seduction).

A great deal of early Christianity (see the Dictionary and its definition of terms) had to do with reigning in certain desires and tendencies. Often Christianity took a strong stand against excesses prevalent in pagan societies. It had much to do with *moral work* and required a sacrifice, a personal sacrifice, and a great deal of work and also resistance and self-control.

So I am not sure if I could see it as a 'seduction'.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Personally, I think everything is spiritual. The manifestation of all is of the same. It does not make sense that there are divisions or agendas except those imagined and created by humans. We humans torture ourselves with our own creations. We create things to be glorified... as well as things to condemn. We create rules. And then we deny that we're doing all of that. We claim it's just 'the truth'. We may claim that we're following a god's orders. It's ridiculous, really. Our creations need not be so limited and imposing. There is MUCH to find harmony with... and much to find inspiration in... and much to continually see anew.

Again I underdstand, I believe, what you are saying. But what I wonder is Could this group of assertions you are making withstand a full-on confrontation, for example, with Cardinal Newman's Grammar of Assent?

Were you to undertake this the group of ideas you assert would be challenged. It would be hard work, hard mental and intellectual work, and one of the points that I make is that *most people* do not have the energy or the inclination to submit themselves to the rigorous and to the difficult.

I am familiar enough with the categories that Newman involves himself with enough to counter-declare that *everything is spiritual*. It is an assertion that is simply not true.

Also that 'the divisions and agendas' are part-and-parcel of intellectual work. No matter what system you can mention, except perhaps some of the Zen Buddhist *systems* which are designed, ideologically, to operate as counter-propositions to those they see as too invested in idea-solidities, one has no choice but to define hierarchies of valuation. You could say that *in the end* a shard of glass is *equal* to a 500 caret diamond, and in some way you would be right, but in another very very wrong.

Note that the Great Chain of Being is a system of perception where valuation and designation is paramount.

I hope that you will not mind it is I say that the declarations that you have made, just above, are really far too easy. You could take this position in regard to all strived-for hierarchies.

What is the purpose of your declaration -- that is my question.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Blindness has a psychological meaning in the Bible. When a person experiences metanoia they inwardly turn towards the light with the whole of themselves and away from the shadows. This is instantaneous and reveals the inner path to freedom from Plato's cave.

Amazing grace! How sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me!
I once was lost, but now am found;
Was blind, but now I see.

’Twas grace that taught my heart to fear,
And grace my fears relieved;
How precious did that grace appear
The hour I first believed.

Through many dangers, toils, and snares,
I have already come;
’Tis grace hath brought me safe thus far,
And grace will lead me home.

The Lord has promised good to me,
His Word my hope secures;
He will my Shield and Portion be,
As long as life endures.

Yea, when this flesh and heart shall fail,
And mortal life shall cease,
I shall possess, within the veil,
A life of joy and peace.

The earth shall soon dissolve like snow,
The sun forbear to shine;
But God, who called me here below,
Will be forever mine.

When we’ve been there ten thousand years,
Bright shining as the sun,
We’ve no less days to sing God’s praise
Than when we’d first begun.

Personally, I differ in a significant way from IC. I do not believe in *instant conversion* and I would hold myself in suspicion if I said I was instantaneously transformed from one moment to the next. The other thing I'd say, though I think the lyric is beautiful and meaningful, is that everything said here is actually *lofty idea* and not mere sentiment, but the emotionalism in Amazing Grace does not move me much. Because it is emotionalism, not intellectualism (in the sense of intellectus).

So though (I just read) Amazing Grace reflects some Biblical ideas:

Psalm 66:16 "Come and hear, all ye that fear God, and I will declare what he hath done for my soul."

John 9:25 "He answered and said, Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see."

Romans 5:15 "But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many."

These realizations, ultimately, are not emotional and sentimental but intellectual. If they are not integrated intellectually their emotionalist manifestation does not mean a great deal.

But when the ideas are really effected, then they have real power.

[Nick_A]

Alexis

These realizations, ultimately, are not emotional and sentimental but intellectual. If they are not integrated intellectually their emotionalist manifestation does not mean a great deal.

But when the ideas are really effected, then they have real power.

Where expressions of corrupt animal emotions and sentimentality are related to morality and have the world as its origin, I was referring to objective conscience (feelings) which is a positive emotion that always existed and has a universal origin arising from above. When a person experiences conscience it is a powerful experience and not intellectual though the intellect is used to explain it.

[Lacewing]

Personally, I think everything is spiritual. The manifestation of all is of the same. It does not make sense that there are divisions or agendas except those imagined and created by humans. We humans torture ourselves with our own creations. We create things to be glorified... as well as things to condemn. We create rules. And then we deny that we're doing all of that. We claim it's just 'the truth'. We may claim that we're following a god's orders. It's ridiculous, really. Our creations need not be so limited and imposing. There is MUCH to find harmony with... and much to find inspiration in... and much to continually see anew.

Were you to undertake this the group of ideas you assert would be challenged. It would be hard work, hard mental and intellectual work, and one of the points that I make is that *most people* do not have the energy or the inclination to submit themselves to the rigorous and to the difficult.

How much difference is there between things at the molecular level? Everything is made of the same stuff, but magically visual and animated in a vast variety. Why would we think everything is NOT made up of the same?

What is the purpose of your declaration -- that is my question.

To confront the idea of some kind of divine separateness -- an idea that is mis-used by humans in destructive ways.

[Lacewing]

I think it's important and helpful, as well as more realistic and truthful, to try to understand and accept that there is always more to see than what can be seen from any single position at any given moment. Not only can there be more depths and layers to explore where one stands, but there can be so much more than that position entirely. One can suddenly see something in a moment, that they didn't see ever before. It's fantastic! And it's worth embracing, not fearing.

I believe that I have understood what you mean here. You are, I think, stating a truism (of a sort). If I were to say "Our galaxy is the limit of all that is" you could fairly respond "No, in fact there are billions of galaxies", and you would be right. Then, someone could present the idea of *manifestations* and propose that any number of different *manifestations* are theoretically possible.

My point is that though I think your idea is sound (how could there not always be *something more*?) your idea must have an ideological underpinning. You mean something quite specific I gather but what you mean is not stated. So in this sense you are making an ideological declaration but what is the desired effect of this position? If there is always *something more* than (I gather) what we now work with is somehow invalidated? or questioned? or seen as incomplete?

Whatever someone is presenting as 'all that there is', is NOT. So, from that false position, there is distortion, deception, manipulation, blindness... etc. Why wouldn't we question that? It's such an obvious false position, and yet it is carried on and on as if it makes any sense and as if it's true. It's nonsense and it's destructive.

It would be quite a different thing to focus on all of the good Christian insights and inspiration that could appeal to and apply to anyone. Values that do not require or depend upon theism -- that's the truth. But the Christian story/agenda that claims to know and be aligned with one true divine god/reality that rejects all others -- is a lie.

What I notice is that your ideological assertion indeed has a function. One part of it is that you want to convince, or to demonstrate compellingly, that the definition of a Christian and thus the definition of Christianity that IC holds and presents, should be seen as incomplete and I think perhaps also *wrong* in some sense. But more than that destructive. For this reason I think you will need to identify and clearly express your ideological position.

Okay, so, what are the kinds of things that people do when they lie about being associated with a one and only god that rejects all else/others?

> They spread and perpetuate that distortion/deception.
> They reject and condemn others.
> They falsely claim that they are doing a god's work.
> They falsely claim that their beliefs are true, and that all else is a lie.
> They divide people and life into ideas 'of god' vs. 'not of god'.
> They distort the young minds and naturally-beautiful-spirits of children with nonsense.
> They slow the progress of humankind with their superstitions and stories.

Aren't such things destructive?

You could say that this is a seductive idea except that, usually, a Christian praxis involves many different sorts of self-abnegation, self-control, self-domination, and often accepting the more difficult over what is more easy. Therefore I am uncertain if the term *seduction* applies in quite the same way as that of the seduction I refer to.

It is seductive in its claim/belief of being right and true and saved. It is also seductive in its group intoxication and dynamics that continually reaffirm those claims.

Seduction (in the sense I use the word) means a seduction away from difficult truth.

Isn't it a 'difficult truth' to NOT have the ultimate answer? Wouldn't this be a difficult truth that theists try to avoid?

It means a surrender to immediate desire, a preference for the immediate please let's say.

There are many kinds of immediate desires, even for theists... such as the desire to feel right and true and saved and superior in their alignment with a god.

It is (as it is classically defined) the seduction of the mutable and contingent over the eternal and unchanging.

What is eternal and unchanging... truly?

[Belinda]

Climate change may deal the death blow to Christianity, myth and morality. If civilisation goes so will go Xianity .

[Alexis Jacobi]

How much difference is there between things at the molecular level? Everything is made of the same stuff, but magically visual and animated in a vast variety. Why would we think everything is NOT made up of the same?

To confront the idea of some kind of divine separateness -- an idea that is mis-used by humans in destructive ways.

So, first the preamble.

The ideas that you present are ideas that I have been, fair to say, deeply involved with for quite a number of years now. So what I say about these ideas, and what I say about this specific conversation, and what I say about our present situation of profound ideological conflict in which the agreements that were formerly solid enough to allow for reasonable co-existence, these agreements are now coming undone at the seams. We have to situate what we are discussing here, now, within a larger context. We must also note that though we are persons, and that persons have personal commitments, the ideas that we work with, or that work in us, are not personal. So I do think it possible to avoid personal conflicts if, to the degree possible, one stick to the ideas.

Another statement of preamble, from my side, is to recognize (as I indicated with a reference to Heidegger and his essay on Plato's Cave) that every declaration, every statement about truth, every attempt to state and clarify truth, has a visible, direct and perceptible side or facet; but simultaneously has an unrevealed, undisclosed and also perhaps an *unconscious* side or facet. I say this in response to what you write, and of course as directly as possible, so that we can get to the heart and the root and the core of things. The ideas that you work with, I assert (I propose if you wish) are deeply ideological and also deeply consequential. The ideas that you work with might be, and certainly can be, ideas that are part of activist programs. In this sense I allude to social activism, political activism, and activism that seeks to alter or modify 'established ideas' as part of activist projects.

So with this said, and please note that I have on a few occasions referenced Robert Bork's book Slouching Toward Gomorra and Richard Weaver's Ideas Have Consequences as cultural, sociological and philosophical studies that have influenced the way I see and understand Our Present. I cannot see a way around having reference-points within the larger world of ideas.

If I were to directly to the core -- to go right to the grain as the popular saying goes -- I would mention that the ideas that you are presently working with did not arise out of a vacuum, and they did not arise *yesterday*, and they are not your own ideas, though you may embody them and work with them; they are ideas that you have received in one way or another. So saying this I would like to know more about your sources. What are they?

Both Weaver (as accomplished philosopher) and Bork (as a sort-of philosopher but as a doctor of law and one deeply involved in cultural realities and indeed deeply involved in Conservative ideas) outline in different ways a causal history in what they describe as processes of decadence. Both Weaver and Bork regard the evolutions visible in the present (what you might call 'progress'? and indeed you used this word to define, I gather, what you see yourself involved with: an idea-progression that will lead to *progress*) as devolutions, as decadence, as breakdown, and as descent. Especially Bork outlines the destructive processes of the Sixties and the general *rebellion* against established hierarchies. Here are a few samples:

“Liberalism moves, therefore, toward radical individualism and the corruption of standards that movement entails. “By destroying traditional social habits of the people, by dissolving their natural collective consciousness into individual constituents, by licensing the opinions of the most foolish, by substituting instruction for education, by encouraging cleverness rather than wisdom, the upstart rather than the qualified … Liberalism can prepare the way for that which is its own negation: the artificial, mechanised or brutalised control which is a desperate remedy for its chaos.”

“The enemy within is modern liberalism, a corrosive agent carrying a very different mood and agenda than that of classical or traditional liberalism. That the modern variety is intellectually bankrupt diminishes neither its vitality nor the danger it poses.”

“Surely a number of such people want to do the right thing, are well-intentioned, but just as surely some do not act from creditable intentions. Some of our elites…professors, journalists, makers of motion pictures and television entertainment, et al.…delight in nihilism and destruction as much as do the random killers in our cities. Their weapons are just different.”

So what I wish to point out, as politely as possible, but also as directly as is possible, that I honestly believe that it is fair and reasonable to say that the ideas that you (seem) to work with are not, not necessarily, benign nor are they necessarily *good*. Let me put it this way: in the hands of impulsive individuals, guided not by wisdom and precaution but by impetuousness, radical ideas act as *acid* against established hierarchies, and the acid can get out of the control of those who use it and can, I venture to say, infect sensitive people who do not take the time, and cannot take the time, to really understand the full ramifications of what they get involved with and, again, why they get involved with this (this *project*). Here I allude to what is not stated, not revealed, not clear, not direct. The allusion of to 'hidden ideological implications'.

So with this said -- this is really just preamble! -- I have to reveal that I am, in fact, deeply opposed to the ideas you work with, to the ideas that seem to motivate you quite completely. I am far more interested in respecting established hierarchies and working within them, and working with them, to accommodate novelty. I am far more interested in going back over the processes that led to the establishment of hierarchy on all the different levels, and understanding the idea-core in them, than I am in (I would say *recklessly*) tearing them down. I am far more interested in trying to understand the psychology, overt and covert (ie hidden, unrevealed) that animates many of those who simply wish to use their power to tear-down or break-down or to dissolve those hierarchies that seem, now, to *irk* them.

So this gives you, I hope, a better sense of where I come from in what I think is, and can continue to be, a good, productive conversational exchange between all parties here.

[Nick_A]

Alexis

Both Weaver (as accomplished philosopher) and Bork (as a sort-of philosopher but as a doctor of law and one deeply involved in cultural realities and indeed deeply involved in Conservative ideas) outline in different ways a causal history in what they describe as processes of decadence. Both Weaver and Bork regard the evolutions visible in the present (what you might call 'progress'? and indeed you used this word to define, I gather, what you see yourself involved with: an idea-progression that will lead to *progress*) as devolutions, as decadence, as breakdown, and as descent. Especially Bork outlines the destructive processes of the Sixties and the general *rebellion* against established hierarchies. Here are a few samples:

“Liberalism moves, therefore, toward radical individualism and the corruption of standards that movement entails. “By destroying traditional social habits of the people, by dissolving their natural collective consciousness into individual constituents, by licensing the opinions of the most foolish, by substituting instruction for education, by encouraging cleverness rather than wisdom, the upstart rather than the qualified … Liberalism can prepare the way for that which is its own negation: the artificial, mechanised or brutalised control which is a desperate remedy for its chaos.”

“The enemy within is modern liberalism, a corrosive agent carrying a very different mood and agenda than that of classical or traditional liberalism. That the modern variety is intellectually bankrupt diminishes neither its vitality nor the danger it poses.”
“Surely a number of such people want to do the right thing, are well-intentioned, but just as surely some do not act from creditable intentions. Some of our elites…professors, journalists, makers of motion pictures and television entertainment, et al.…delight in nihilism and destruction as much as do the random killers in our cities. Their weapons are just different.”

“Nothing can have as its destination anything other than its origin. The contrary idea, the idea of progress, is poison.” — Simone Weil.

Just to let you know you are not alone in your questioning of progress. My gg granduncle was an archbishop in the Armenian Church. He was part of the Mekhitarist Congregation in Venice. As you can see their concern was for preserving the Armenian language from modernism which destroys its meaning

The Mekhitarists are a monastic order of the Armenian Catholic Church founded in 1700 by Abbot Mekhitar of Sebaste. They are best known for their series of scholarly publications of ancient Armenian versions of otherwise lost ancient Greek texts and their research on classical and modern Armenian language. Wikipedia

If original Christianity (not modern man made Christendom) was part of the perennial tradition, it always was. So certain people sensitive to this truism seek to "remember" what has been forgotten. Of course they are scorned by the modern world which glorifies fragmentation but it is the way it is now. You seem to be the only one here who is aware of the dangers of the modern conception of progress; away from the source.

A real Christian would be one who has remembered the past and is able to put the goals of modern technology into the forgotten Christian perspective. In this way machines serve Man and its goal of universal progress as opposed to Man serving machines and its goal of self satisfaction.

“We all want progress. But progress means getting nearer to the place where you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turning then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you are on the wrong road progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man. There is nothing progressive about being pig-headed and refusing to admit a mistake. And I think if you look at the present state of the world it's pretty plain that humanity has been making some big mistake. We're on the wrong road. And if that is so we must go back. Going back is the quickest way on.” ~ C.S. Lewis, The Case for Christianity

Can our species ever realize that as a whole we have taken the wrong road and turn back? I don't believe so. We seem destined to experience the horrors of hitting bottom. Not a pleasant perspective.

[Lacewing]

How much difference is there between things at the molecular level? Everything is made of the same stuff, but magically visual and animated in a vast variety. Why would we think everything is NOT made up of the same?

To confront the idea of some kind of divine separateness -- an idea that is mis-used by humans in destructive ways.

So, first the preamble.

The ideas that you present are ideas that I have been, fair to say, deeply involved with for quite a number of years now. So what I say about these ideas, and what I say about this specific conversation, and what I say about our present situation of profound ideological conflict in which the agreements that were formerly solid enough to allow for reasonable co-existence, these agreements are now coming undone at the seams. We have to situate what we are discussing here, now, within a larger context. We must also note that though we are persons, and that persons have personal commitments, the ideas that we work with, or that work in us, are not personal. So I do think it possible to avoid personal conflicts if, to the degree possible, one stick to the ideas.

I enjoyed reading what you wrote even though we have different perspectives. And although you seem to misjudge or misinterpret where I am coming from, and in some instances insult that which you imagine/see, I can appreciate your exceptional communication as well as the value of what you choose to focus on. It is indeed interesting and valuable to understand the reasoning and purpose of structures. Perhaps I'm most interested in what I perceive as the 'forces', including those generated by structures? I've never quite thought about it like that before, but it has a ring of truth for me.

I am willing to continue with this line of discussion at the moment, but I will point out that you have not answered my questions above.

The ideas that you work with, I assert (I propose if you wish) are deeply ideological and also deeply consequential. The ideas that you work with might be, and certainly can be, ideas that are part of activist programs. In this sense I allude to social activism, political activism, and activism that seeks to alter or modify 'established ideas' as part of activist projects.

I don't see myself as an activist. I do not participate in, nor subscribe to, any activist 'programs' or typical positions. I also do not typically seek to tear down 'established ideas'. I think it is important, and it will be most true, if you do not cast me in such a role. My questions and my challenges come from a very honest desire to make sense out of senselessness -- and I've had this desire my whole life -- yet, I have adapted to live in this world of conventions, and I've done very well at it. Perhaps part of the reason for that is because I do not automatically accept and settle into conventional boundaries. I am not destructive with conventional boundaries (which would not be successful) -- I work with them and help expand them. People have always appreciated this about me, and they have expressed that they trust me and are inspired by the things I say and do.

If I were to directly to the core -- to go right to the grain as the popular saying goes -- I would mention that the ideas that you are presently working with did not arise out of a vacuum, and they did not arise *yesterday*, and they are not your own ideas, though you may embody them and work with them; they are ideas that you have received in one way or another. So saying this I would like to know more about your sources. What are they?

My sources... ...sorry, that makes me laugh. Of course I agree that we are all products of the world we are in, but do we not also offer more than that? How does one come into this world having certain extraordinary ability or perception that reaches beyond the expected? Surely most or many of us have such capabilities... and we don't know where they come from. They certainly don't have to come from sources of this world -- rather, the world offers the opportunity to explore and expand them.

I have written before of my unusual(?) perceptions as a child. I saw behind the facades of my parents -- and I wanted to comfort them. I also recognized the brilliance in some people. I was always thoughtful, and as I grew, I wanted to move faster than people seemed to be moving. But I knew that meant that I wouldn't have friends. I felt faced with a choice, slow my pace or move ahead alone. I'm social and enjoy connecting with people, so I moderated myself. This forum (believe it or not) has provided a place for me (like never before) to be as bold and direct as I feel inspired to be, without concern for convention or feelings. It's quite a rush!

Both Weaver (as accomplished philosopher) and Bork (as a sort-of philosopher but as a doctor of law and one deeply involved in cultural realities and indeed deeply involved in Conservative ideas) outline in different ways a causal history in what they describe as processes of decadence. Both Weaver and Bork regard the evolutions visible in the present (what you might call 'progress'? and indeed you used this word to define, I gather, what you see yourself involved with: an idea-progression that will lead to *progress*) as devolutions, as decadence, as breakdown, and as descent. Especially Bork outlines the destructive processes of the Sixties and the general *rebellion* against established hierarchies.

Okay, so, I can appreciate the free-spirited nature of the Sixties, but I am not a child of the Sixties (that was before my time), and -- like every era in history -- I can see the destructiveness that occurred from those ideals.

Excess and extremes do not offer clarity -- and that applies to anything: it doesn't matter how romantic or idealistic or sacred the notion may appear to be. We become intoxicated by excess and extremes, and then do and justify thoughtless, senseless things. I think it's important to notice that, and not give favoritism to, nor be in denial about, anything.

Look at all of it on an even playing field and don't make up stories!

Or if one WANTS to believe in stories, try to maintain some awareness that it's a chosen story!

You can strike out against liberal and progressive ideas, but that's not a complete picture -- because that fails to recognize and acknowledge the value and necessity found within those ideals, and also fails to equally recognize and acknowledge the faults and danger of that which is favored. Warring 'sides' feed themselves in an intoxicated way -- and validate their existence by perpetuating it. Stepping into the 'middle' is perhaps not as thrilling for the ego. The whole thing is a big SHOW... and human beings love perfecting their rationalization for intoxication it seems. Greater and further... to the point of absolute drunken delusion. Claiming such madness is 'of a god' is just too much for me not to make fun of.

So what I wish to point out, as politely as possible, but also as directly as is possible, that I honestly believe that it is fair and reasonable to say that the ideas that you (seem) to work with are not, not necessarily, benign nor are they necessarily *good*. Let me put it this way: in the hands of impulsive individuals, guided not by wisdom and precaution but by impetuousness, radical ideas act as *acid* against established hierarchies, and the acid can get out of the control of those who use it and can, I venture to say, infect sensitive people who do not take the time, and cannot take the time, to really understand the full ramifications of what they get involved with and, again, why they get involved with this (this *project*). Here I allude to what is not stated, not revealed, not clear, not direct. The allusion of to 'hidden ideological implications'.

So, considering that your characterization and impression of me are incorrect (as I've explained above), are you able to accept the truth about me, or do you need me to be in a certain role to justify your position and ideas? If you still cannot see me as different than how you've cast me, then that answers the question.

I have to reveal that I am, in fact, deeply opposed to the ideas you work with, to the ideas that seem to motivate you quite completely.

So, I suggest that you are deeply opposed to what you are imagining. Which presents an opportunity to explore what brought you to imagine certain things while failing to recognize quite different truths? No offense. It's interesting for us all to consider: how different is the truth from what we imagine? Do we care? Or are we intent on creating our own world which we can be the master of?

I am far more interested in respecting established hierarchies and working within them, and working with them, to accommodate novelty. I am far more interested in going back over the processes that led to the establishment of hierarchy on all the different levels, and understanding the idea-core in them

Well, that's all very interesting for sure. But it appears that you're 'polishing the castle' rather than stepping outside its gates. There are several ways to look at this and play with it. The castle doesn't need to be torn down... but stepping beyond its gates may make it less compelling than when you're within them.

Are we able to utilize the value of MANY diverse perspectives to create/experience something greater than that constructed from (and in service to) any particular perspective?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Okay, so, what are the kinds of things that people do when they lie about being associated with a one and only god that rejects all else/others?

> They spread and perpetuate that distortion/deception.
> They reject and condemn others.
> They falsely claim that they are doing a god's work.
> They falsely claim that their beliefs are true, and that all else is a lie.
> They divide people and life into ideas 'of god' vs. 'not of god'.
> They distort the young minds and naturally-beautiful-spirits of children with nonsense.
> They slow the progress of humankind with their superstitions and stories.

Aren't such things destructive?

Isn't it a 'difficult truth' to NOT have the ultimate answer? Wouldn't this be a difficult truth that theists try to avoid?

What is eternal and unchanging... truly?

I think these are the questions that you posed and would like me to essay answers to?

And although you seem to misjudge or misinterpret where I am coming from, and in some instances insult that which you imagine/see

.
I am not aware of insulting -- and I think personal insults should be avoided -- so if you have noticed an insult point it out because I do not know what you refer to.

What I would suggest will help you, in receiving and considering what I think, is to understand that speaking in general terms to generalities is unavoidable. Generalizations are a bane, and yet we have no choice but to engage in them.

As to 'misunderstanding' you please note that if you examine again what I write I am not critiquing a person, or a personality, and certainly not you-singular, I am always trying to locate ideas within larger contexts, and then to trace out their causal history.

I want to also make a quick but necessary statement about *activism*. I believe that you misunderstood to a degree what I mean. I think all ideas are 'activist', and I often remember that Richard Weaver wrote an essay to explain why speech (the notions and ideas that we articulate) is 'sermonic'. Any time you or I make a declaration -- a precise statement about something, an assertion of value, a critique, and so on and so forth -- we are engaging in discourse that has the purpose of stimulating and also of convincing the listener. He uses the term *sermonic* because, I gather, of his basic relationship to philosophy generally and to his Platonism specifically. Teaching, instructing, educating are for him (and for many) essentially religious tasks, if religion is taken as revealing a relationship to life, an existentialism.

What I try to point out -- for many I think this is quite clear -- we live in a juncture in American history certainly where *activism* of specific sorts is highly visible, and also *consequential*.

The larger idea that I work with, as I tried to explain, is that ideas like yours take aim at hierarchical structures in all areas. And one can trace a good portion of this back to Sixties activism though it certainly did not originate there.

I do not seek to judge you, nor to pigeonhole you, but as I say, and I use my own lexicon of expressions, I have no choice but to try to understand the ideas you express especially as they connect to larger social, cultural and ideological trends. This is my area of interest. I do not mean to imply that your ideas are irrelevant to me but that my larger concern is far beyond any personal considerations, if that makes sense.

I used the term *preamble* because I feel that a great deal of preamble is needed to establish what one means and where and how one is oriented.

Finally, I do not have unlimited time and energy. So like all of us I may skip certain things to concentrate on what I can or what seems most important. I will try to *answer* your questions, yet I actually do try to generally answer the over-arching questions without turning to specific ones.