Christianity

[Lacewing]

So when I read what you write I can say, yes, I certain grasp what you are saying. And in a sense you are right indeed. It is possible to entertain, think about, experience, come under the influence of, live in, live out of, a nearly infinite number of different possibilities. You could (I could, we could) leave our own culture and take up residence in a completely unfamiliar place, with completely different traditions, and yes, we could ‘be inspired and transformed’ by them.

Yet what you propose operates in this discussion, in a sense, like an abstraction. It is true except that in reality, and in general, no person or people live in relation to an infinite array of possibilities. They usually live within the limits and parameters of specific views.

It does not seem abstract to me, to point out that there are endless possibilities, in response to anyone claiming or pondering 'how it is'. My point is that 'it' can be many ways... and that it evolves. Nothing in life is static, is it? But human beings may like to imagine that their ideas (and/or what they prescribe to) are solid and forever or divinely true.

It may be that what separates our points-of-view is that, in my case, I have decided on a particular area of focus. That is why I refer all the time to *Occidental Paideia*. The issue then becomes one of valuation, no? The assigning of values but also the assigning, or the recognition, of hierarchies. If I say to you that one thing (some one thing) is better or superior to another I assume you will question the assertion. It might be a suspicious assertion given your orientation.

So if push came to shove (as the popular saying goes) I would not say that one tradition is ‘superior’ or ‘better’ than another, but rather that I can only work with the one that has (as I say) made me me. I guess I would say that I prefer to focus within that one. But it is also true that I do not have those other abstract options (because they are abstractions).

The value I see in acknowledging (and recognizing) that there is always more potential is that it ALLOWS there to always be more to work with. How fearful and insecure would we be if we imagined that our preferred beliefs were all that kept us relevant and stable, while further potential might send us drifting aimlessly? When we have/recognize more tools to work with, are we somehow destroyed by them... or do we typically learn how to expand what we're capable of while retaining the quality of our being?

Yes, we all choose what works for us... what 'resonates' or proves true or better for us... and that's great! The issue I focus on is the incorrectness and agenda in claiming that any view is the only valid view... or the 'only correct' path. How could that even be possible? Why would anyone claim such a thing? For what purpose? And what results from such thinking?

If we consider that there is (very likely and naturally) vast potential in every direction we look, what more might become apparent and possible for us? Like ancient man staring at a small section of the ground and seeing the reflected glow of the moon, or raising his head and gazing into the immense sky. Would that invalidate him somehow -- or would it simply expand his thinking and his potential? Why wouldn't human beings want that? And once they gaze into the night sky, why would they then think that's all there is?

Why does man fear being invalidated or incapacitated by more information? If we consider that there is always more than what we may think in any given moment, what further potential does that open up for us? Are we only interested in what we think we can own and control?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Take, for example, popular beliefs in ancient Greece of anthropomorphic gods. Yes, these beliefs were popular with the vast majority of the people. It was a successful faith.

I was attracted to what you wrote here because, as part of my own research, I read Walter F. Otto’s The Homeric Gods: The Spiritual Significance of Greek Religion. I think (if I had the opportunity) that I would amend what you have written here significantly. The Greek Gods, the pantheon, are embodiments and pictorial representations of processes of nature and of phenomena that are very intimately part-and-parcel of the world. Here is a quote from the introduction to Otto’s book:

In ancient Greek worship there is revealed to us one of hu-
manity's greatest religious ideas-we make bold to say the reli-
gious idea of the European spirit. It is very different from the
religious idea of other civilizations, and particularly of those
which customarily supply our religious scholarship and philoso-
phy with examples for the origin of religion. But it is essentially
related to all genuine thoughts and creations of Hellenism, and
is conceived in the same spirit. Like other eternal achievements of
the Greeks it stands before humanity large and imperishable. The
faculty which in other religions is constantly being thwarted and
inhibited here flowers forth with the admirable assurance of
genius-the faculty of seeing the world in the light of the divine,
not a world yearned for, aspired to, or mystically present in rare
ecstatic experiences, but the world into which we were born,part
of which we are, interwoven with it through our senses and,
through our minds, obligated to it for all its abundance and
vitality.And the figures in which this world was divinely revealed
to the Greeks-do they not demonstrate their truth by the fact
that they are still alive today, that we still encounter them when
we raise ourselves out of petty constraints to an enlarged vision?
Zeus,Apollo,Athena,Artemis,Dionysus, Aphrodite-wherever
the ideas of the Greek spirit are honored,there we must never
forget that these were its greatest ideas, indeed in a sense the
totality of its ideas in general; and they will endure as long as the
European spirit, which in them has attained its most significant
objectivation, is not wholly subjugated to the spirit of the Orient
or to that of utilitarian rationality.

Note especially what looks like an admonition: Not to become subject wholly to the spirit of the Orient.

You and others reading might ask “Why bring this up in the context of a discussion about Christian belief?” and my answer, certainly related to my own *project*, is that I am interested in and I hope deeply involved in the project I define as *recovery of Europe*. So when Otto speaks of there *great ideas* and also *European spirit* and obligation to it “ for all its abundance and vitality*, I discern something important.

But at the same time, there was a philosopher Aristotle in Ancient Greece, who argued that God is One and incorporeal. Aristotle's worldview was "unsuccessful", he had to flee so that he would not be executed by the adherents of the popular faith.

And on whose side is truth, on the side of a popular and successful faith, or more on the side of the lonely Aristotle? But at the same time, the masters who sculpted gods from marble, created great works of art, and of course, they were not stupid.

And in our time, the time of total populism, if the music does not indulge low tastes, it will not gain likes and doesn't come close to the mass of likes, the one that will indulge, so Beethoven has to step aside, and Mozart is generally for the elite. And you can't say that they are idiots, those who popularize perversions, because the more perverted, the more popular today.

Aristotle wrote that if the majority are abnormal, then the normal in this majority will be considered abnormal. And now, perversion is considered the norm. And those who do not regard perversion as the norm, with those as with Aristotle, are driven away.

There is a great deal I’d like to comment on here. But one idea I did come across, and it interested me, is that when one considers what we call *pagan* views and understandings, and I do refer here to the Indo-European religions, one is not really referencing a *religion* in the sense that we define it today: articulated ideology presented to us through the philosophical discursive form.

The popular religions, the Indo-European religions, specifically the Greek and the Homeric, are more like endemic ideas or sub-intellectual notions. It is only when an imposing idea-structure (*Aristotle*) imposes itself within such culture, and *sees* it with a penetrating, even a glaring eye, that it becomes self-conscious of itself and begins to see itself.

Hitherto it had no reason to *see* itself, nor analyze itself. What it represented — the mythologies of the gods — was simply taken as ‘the way things are’.

A quote from Otto on Athena:

“What Athena shows man, what she desires of him, and what she inspires him to, is boldness, will to victory, courage. But all of this is nothing without directing reason and illuminating clarity. These are the true fountainheads of worthy deeds, and it is they which complete the nature of the goddess of victory. This light of hers illumines not alone the warrior in battle: wherever in a life of action and heroism great things must be wrought, perfected and struggled for, there Athena is present. Broad indeed is the spirit of a battle-loving people when it recognizes the same perfection wherever a clear and intelligent glance shows the path to achievement, and when no mere maid of battle can be adequate.”

[Immanuel Can]

I have heard anti-Semites say similar things about Jews. But such railery, whenever it appears, usually hides a bad conscience. Its very extremity gives away the degree of exertion being brought to the task of trying not to think clearly.

Anti-Semites say many things. And anti-Semitism is a ‘real thing’ that should be understood. But it would be a mistake on your part to interpret what I relay — descriptions about how Orthodox Jews interpret Christianity in relation to Jewish history and the role of Judaism — as a sign of that anti-Semitism.

I beg your pardon for the misunderstanding -- I was not.

I was pointing, instead, to the irrational tendency of all men, Jew and Gentile alike, to become irrational and spiteful in the face of a serious challenge to their worldview. Just as there have been plenty of Gentiles who were irrationally anti-Jewish, we can find exactly the same psychology, rhetoric and reactions among Jews when they are faced with a serious challenge to their religiosity. And Messiah has always presented such a challenge: it is not for nothing that the prophet Isaiah (8:25) calls Him "a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense, a snare and a trap to the inhabitants of Jerusalem." But it's just human nature: when somebody "trips up" one's feet, when one has been happily walking down a particular path, the most natural reaction is anger. And if that stumbling is serious enough, fear, abuse and defiance are likely to follow immediately. Human beings all do what human beings do.

As Solomon so truly said, "There is no new thing under the Sun."

[Alexis Jacobi]

.

The reason these things interest and concern me is because of my wider interest in cultural matters. I am interested in the movements, mostly in Europe and to a more muddled degree in America (I can’t say much about Canada) that involve Christian renewal. The basic picture seems to be that people and factions within various nations have become dissatisfied with distorted forms of liberalism (my term is hyper-liberalism) and, in reaction (and it really is reaction) they seek forms or involvements through which renovation and renewal might take place — on a personal plane but also on a wider than personal plane.

Yes, I think that's true. Lots of people, particularly conservatives, are looking to a kind of return to cultural pseudo-Christianity as a means of addressing our many present social ills. Recognizing that Christian influence has actually been very good for society, historically, they long to return to the days when a stronger Judeo-Christian morality ruled society.

But culturally, these people also want to achieve the benefits of Judeo-Christian morality without having to be either Jewish or Christian. They want Christmas decorations and presents without Christ. Or to put it another way, they want dreidels and hammantaschen, but want no part of Yom Kippur.

And they want to draw on those traditions only selectively -- not having to take the hard parts, like the 613 commandments or the bit about "loving one's enemies" or "blessed are the peacemakers," but rather picking out the bits they like, and leaving the rest. They want to reap the benefits of acting "Christianly" without having to do the uncomfortable business of having also to be born again.

And above all, they don't want to have to go through the Door to get it all.

I guess we'll see how that works out for them, won't we?

The reason why I have quoted this part of a long post of yours is because of the *foreboding note* in the last line.

I assume, though this may not be as clear as I assume it is or should be, that I make my own position clear: I am interested in, and I have been *studying* if I can put it in a somewhat pretentious way (though it is true) many people who are involved, today, in ideas that confront what I call Decadent Liberalism. Or ‘Liberal Rot’. And a condition within Europe and within Europeans generally that is described as ‘fracture’; coming undone, coming apart at the seams. These are not my own terms, these are observations and perceptions of other people.

Now it is obvious, I hope (!) that I see Christianity as vital to Europe. I would make a reference to Nietzsche’s predictions about what will happen in that Great Night that follows the Long Dusk of The Twilight of the Gods. That is one aspect of the psycho-social situation in which Europe finds itself. The product of this? Nihilism — unless of course I am not seeing correctly. Nihilism is a disease, is it not? A psycho-spiritual disease. (Belinda referred to ‘anomie’).

So for this reason I do not think it at all irrelevant that Christianity is discussed and seriously considered, though when one begins to think through the infinite number of sectarian views, and tries to sort through them, it is *crazy-making* and one almost wants to abandon the entire belief-structure.

(Anyway, I am trying to give some clear indications as to why all of this interests me and why, to a degree, it captures my interest. These are vital issues).

[Alexis Jacobi]

It does not seem abstract to me, to point out that there are endless possibilities, in response to anyone claiming or pondering 'how it is'. My point is that 'it' can be many ways ... and that it evolves. Nothing in life is static, is it? But human beings may like to imagine that their ideas (and/or what they prescribe to) are solid and forever or divinely true.

I believe that I understand the core ideas that motivate you. So, these I try to translate into terms in such a way that I can work with them. So what I would say is that in your philosophical endeavor you seem to be working with the fact, and it is a fact, that after one — someone — has established a ‘definition’ or has isolated something like a *set* of elements that comprise a structured view (for example that which I refer to as European Paideia) that you notice that there always exists something more.

So I get the impression that you resist and react against the limitation imposed. This idea (which is also a feeling, a sense of being constrained) makes a great deal of sense to me.

So let me know if I have correctly understood what looks to be your *core preoccupation* (to use conventional philosophical terms).

[Immanuel Can]

Most people have read the Gospels.

Actually, statistically, most have not. Even among those who call themselves "Christians," reading the Bible is comparatively rare. American Conservative Protestants are the most likely to have read the Bible; but even among them, the rate does not exceed 11% allegedly. I suspect that many others from less Bible-centered types of religiosity have never read the Bible at all, and rely entirely on what their priest, pastor, minister, teacher or other such official tells them about it. As for those who do not believe the Bible, I would guess the rate would be very, very low indeed.

Nevertheless, almost everyone has an opinion about it. How well-informed that opinion is likely to be, I can leave you to judge.

They may have read them superficially but they have read them. I can’t say that my readings have been extremely in-depth. But I have certainly made an effort. I just reread Luke and most of yesterday and today I have been mulling over 1 John (Epistle).

If you've read any gospel at all, I have to congratulate you. I think that reading other people's religious texts is a good activity to do; even if one does not believe what one is reading, I think it's important to know what people actually think, and why they think it. So I've read a bunch of stuff -- the Koran, the Gita, the Dhammapada, the Tao...and a whole ton of Atheist and agnostic writings, too. And, of course, I can't help but read Torah frequently.

But 1 John is a very interesting read. Let me know what you think, if you want.

I believe that I can understand why you choose to describe Jesus as an ‘exemplary Jew’. But I cannot but notice that this is a choice you have made. My retort to that is to mention that no Orthodox Jew, at no point in history, ever, has said nor could say such a thing. So ‘the Jews’ themselves stand in contradiction to your assertion.

Absolutely. They said as much in His lifetime, actually. Why would they say less now?

The prophet Zecharaiah says it will not always be so: “And I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and of pleading, so that they will look at Me whom they pierced; and they will mourn for Him, like one mourning for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn." (12:10)

But we will see what Hashem says. After all, final judgment is with Him.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, except the Messianic Jews, who do not.

A Messianic Jew is . . . a Christian.

Indeed he is. But he is also a Jew. And whether or not he is a good Jew, we shall let Hashem decide, I think. For the pronouncements of rabbis and community leaders is in no way determinative of truth in that matter.

Prager

Dennis Prager is a fine person. I admire his work, his honesty and his integrity very much. No wonder the Lefties hate him to death; he's everything they're not.

[Immanuel Can]

Orthodox Judaism does not have a favorable picture of Christians and Christianity.

That is very true. And with some warrant: for there have been many who called themselves "Christians" and did truly awful things. And because the Jewish self-identification is not problematic, since a "Jew" can mean biology, culture or creed, or any combo thereof. But Christian self-identification is highly problematic as a criterion, because its strictly credal, and because so many people have taken the name without any real warrant. The number of false "Christians" vastly exceeds the number of real ones...and I can say that, viewing things from an "insider" position: how much harder is it likely to be to detect the difference for "outsiders"? It actually takes a careful sifting of a person's belief in the gospel to detect the difference between a true believer and a false one. It's very possible, but it's not obvious from the outside at all.

I would say that those Jews that understand Christians see them as, at best, a sort of handy ally against anti-Semitism, but one that cannot really be trusted not to prostelytize. Those who do not understand them hate them viscerally. Either way, there's not a strong affinity there, I confess.

However, the real animosity is on one side, not two. Real Christians understand their debt to Judaism, in acting as custodians of Torah and the nationality of Messiah. They also know the Biblical instruction on that, and thus would not dare despise Israel...not because every Jew is bound to be intrinsically special, or somebody who deserves exaltation, (you and I can both think of Jews who have been very far from admirable people: Marx would be an example) but because of their national association with the name of the one true God.

That's why conservative Christians end up over in Israel on tour, or planting trees in the desert: it's because of Israel's association with the Name.

[Immanuel Can]

.

The reason these things interest and concern me is because of my wider interest in cultural matters. I am interested in the movements, mostly in Europe and to a more muddled degree in America (I can’t say much about Canada) that involve Christian renewal. The basic picture seems to be that people and factions within various nations have become dissatisfied with distorted forms of liberalism (my term is hyper-liberalism) and, in reaction (and it really is reaction) they seek forms or involvements through which renovation and renewal might take place — on a personal plane but also on a wider than personal plane.

Yes, I think that's true. Lots of people, particularly conservatives, are looking to a kind of return to cultural pseudo-Christianity as a means of addressing our many present social ills. Recognizing that Christian influence has actually been very good for society, historically, they long to return to the days when a stronger Judeo-Christian morality ruled society.

But culturally, these people also want to achieve the benefits of Judeo-Christian morality without having to be either Jewish or Christian. They want Christmas decorations and presents without Christ. Or to put it another way, they want dreidels and hammantaschen, but want no part of Yom Kippur.

And they want to draw on those traditions only selectively -- not having to take the hard parts, like the 613 commandments or the bit about "loving one's enemies" or "blessed are the peacemakers," but rather picking out the bits they like, and leaving the rest. They want to reap the benefits of acting "Christianly" without having to do the uncomfortable business of having also to be born again.

And above all, they don't want to have to go through the Door to get it all.

I guess we'll see how that works out for them, won't we?

The reason why I have quoted this part of a long post of yours is because of the *foreboding note* in the last line.

Indeed. It is deliberate.

It's not merely that I am more than contemptuous of nominal Christianity, and of the alleged "Occidental Paideia," though I am. It's that I realize there is no prospect at all that the Almighty will suffer their plans to succeed. Hashem will make His Name clear. Of that, I am absolutely convinced. And men who think they can take that Name casually, carelessly, insultingly will be first to answer. On that, we can count.

I assume, though this may not be as clear as I assume it is or should be, that I make my own position clear: I am interested in, and I have been *studying* if I can put it in a somewhat pretentious way (though it is true) many people who are involved, today, in ideas that confront what I call Decadent Liberalism. Or ‘Liberal Rot’. And a condition within Europe and within Europeans generally that is described as ‘fracture’; coming undone, coming apart at the seams. These are not my own terms, these are observations and perceptions of other people.

Well, those are concerns you and I share.

Now it is obvious, I hope (!) that I see Christianity as vital to Europe. I would make a reference to Nietzsche’s predictions about what will happen in that Great Night that follows the Long Dusk of The Twilight of the Gods. That is one aspect of the psycho-social situation in which Europe finds itself. The product of this? Nihilism — unless of course I am not seeing correctly. Nihilism is a disease, is it not? A psycho-spiritual disease. (Belinda referred to ‘anomie’).

"Anomie," as you may know, actually means "lawlessness." The "nomos" is the law, and preeminently, the Law, if you catch my meaning. To be in "anomie" is to be in a state with no safety rails, no guidelines, no compass points, no place to start, drifting like a bewildered astronaut in an infinite void.

It's the state that follows when there are "no laws" or rules for anything. And it's truly terrifying, even to the most Liberal or Nihilistic mind, because it means an absolute loss of such orientation points. People will do almost anything to avoid "anomie" as a state: they will surrender to the most complete arbitrary totalitarianism in order to escape their fear of unconditioned freedom.

Jacques Ellul has made this case quite brilliantly in his book, The Ethics of Freedom. Ellul writes, "man is deceiving himself when he pretends he wants freedom and loves it. In fact, he does not really know what it is... {=[in fact, man] "fears freedom more than he desisres it." Now, that requires some explaining. He goes on: "In freedom, we have to enter into what is not immediate or assured in advance. We have to pioneer the impossible and impermissible ways. This is freedom. But man is afraid of leaving the ways of what is possible, immediate and reasonable...it also entails responsibility...the man who is liberated is given responsibility for all his decisions in the presence of God."

In anomie, the vertiginous loss of orientation points occasions fear and pain: man will do anything to escape that situation. Need we remind ourselves that the moral degradation, confusion and collapse of the Weimar Republic was what set the stage for Adolph Hitler? When men are feeling lost, confused, corrupted and disoriented, they will often cling to any form of certainty, no matter how unreasonable or totalitarian. What Hitler was able to offer the people of Germany -- his biggest asset, in fact -- was his air of definiteness, of certitude, of reorientation to solid and undoubtable "facts." He gave the people escape from anomie, from freedom itself. And it was what they most longed for.

And so you see its affinity with Nihilism. First, people lose their orientation points, and start to experience anomie. They have no answers, no direction, no values they can ground, no truths they can believe in -- nothing -- Nihilism -- at the root of their assumptions. And they are lost and fearful, in the deepest possible way. And so they surrender to authority, be it ever so arbitrary, unreasonable and foolish; for they cannot stand to remain in the state of anomie. Thus, the irrational pursuit of unrestricted freedom precipitates totalitarianism.

So for this reason I do not think it at all irrelevant that Christianity is discussed and seriously considered, though when one begins to think through the infinite number of sectarian views, and tries to sort through them, it is *crazy-making* and one almost wants to abandon the entire belief-structure.

Yes, it is "crazy-making." And that, I think is both deliberate and sinister. You are supposed not to be able to find out the real facts, and rather to loose your way by dint of the sheer volume of counterfeits on every side. But I commend you on your courage in persevering, because at the end of the day, the counterfeits melt away.

(Anyway, I am trying to give some clear indications as to why all of this interests me and why, to a degree, it captures my interest. These are vital issues).

I agree. Completely.

[Immanuel Can]

I know where my debts lie.

You have a debt to some ethnic group?

Of course. And to various ones, for various things.

You do, too. You may not want to recognize your debts to anything, but that doesn't make you a non-debtor. Refusing to recognize debts just makes one ungrateful, not virtuous.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Jacques Ellul has made this case quite brilliantly in his book, The Ethics of Freedom.

This is a side-note to your post which I do not have the time to comment on.

It is hard for me to imagine that your Christian views and those of Jacques Ellul could coincide (I only have read part of his study of fascism, but long ago and not thoroughly). Yet Jacques Ellul is a Christian, and also a Christian activist within European affairs. Based on a superficial glance at some of his -- quite radical, quite confrontative -- ideas, I would ask you: How could you ever partner with him? (Perhaps you feel that your views and his views coincide, I don't know).

My larger point is that there are dozens of strains of Christians, and there are also those who, perhaps similarly to myself, value and even highlight *Occidental Paideia* (the understructure of Occidental knowledge) (the term I prefer is Greco-Christianity) as a valid and life-giving fount even if those who get involved with it, in the sense of involvement with ideas, ideals and values, might not think, see and act as you believe they should. They might hold to different doctrinal views. So I would tie this back to a prospect that I mentioned earlier: the possibility for a renovation, a reconnection, a reanimation within the social body I refer to as Europe.

Yet you seem to state, and repeatedly, that there is only one way possible. (The way you define). But I do not think that is true.

My view is that to even define this as a possibility (cultural renewal, revitalization), and even more surely to hope to work toward it, one will have to agree to cooperate with people with viewpoints that do not coincide in all areas. I recognize, and respect, that you feel it right & proper to defend the views that you have -- it should not be any other way! -- but in this world, and on this plane of existence, it will not occur that all people share, precisely, the same views.

Views are views, they involve interpretations, and interpretations always vary.

[Immanuel Can]

It is hard for me to imagine that your Christian views and those of Jacques Ellul could coincide

Well, that's interesting. It makes me really wonder what you've been "imagining" me to believe.

Now, if we believe that quoting a man means you must agree with every word he ever says anytime, anywhere, then there are no two people who can ever agree. And we can quote nobody. For there is nobody who agrees with anyone else on every single issue.

I do have points of difference with Ellul, it's true: but not the ideas I quoted. And just as I feel free to allow you and I to disagree about some issues and still agree on others, I feel quite free to approve Ellul's beliefs in all matters in which he's right -- why wouldn't I? In general, then, I really enjoy Ellul. He and I share far more in common than the few matters on which we differ.

My larger point is that there are dozens of strains of Christians, and there are also those who, perhaps similarly to myself, value and even highlight *Occidental Paideia* (the understructure of Occidental knowledge) (the term I prefer is Greco-Christianity) as a valid and life-giving fount even if those who get involved with it, in the sense of involvement with ideas, ideals and values, might not think, see and act as you believe they should. They might hold to different doctrinal views. So I would tie this back to a prospect that I mentioned earlier: the possibility for a renovation, a reconnection, a reanimation within the social body I refer to as Europe.

I think that if you look to the "Occidental Paideia," then what you're looking to is the same variation of alleged "Christianity" that allowed Hitler to bring institutional religious and moral elements into his program....namely, a soulless religiosity devoid of the life of God. And no, I don't suppose this will "renovate" Europe or anywhere else, though I have no doubt it will promise it will.

Yet you seem to state, and repeatedly, that there is only one way possible. (

Shema, Yisrael. There is one Hashem. His way is the only way possible.

one will have to agree to cooperate with people with viewpoints that do not coincide in all areas.

Remarkable!

Above, you asked how I could make partnership with Ellul. Here, you tell me that "cooperating with people with viewpoints that do not coincide in all areas" is critical to "renewal."

Which position would you rather take? I'm happy to address either.

[Lacewing]

It does not seem abstract to me, to point out that there are endless possibilities, in response to anyone claiming or pondering 'how it is'. My point is that 'it' can be many ways ... and that it evolves. Nothing in life is static, is it? But human beings may like to imagine that their ideas (and/or what they prescribe to) are solid and forever or divinely true.

I believe that I understand the core ideas that motivate you. So, these I try to translate into terms in such a way that I can work with them.

Okay.

So what I would say is that in your philosophical endeavor you seem to be working with the fact, and it is a fact, that after one — someone — has established a ‘definition’ or has isolated something like a *set* of elements that comprise a structured view (for example that which I refer to as European Paideia) that you notice that there always exists something more.

I might say so if someone's definition or 'set' of elements point to a restriction in potential. For example, if someone was telling me how they loved Jesus, and how much they gained from their idea of him, I would think that was wonderful... and I would likely not talk about any other potential, unless they began insisting that they could not live without him, or if they insisted that I (or anyone else) should know him and think like they do. Then I might think it was valuable to point out other potentials.

So I get the impression that you resist and react against the limitation imposed. This idea (which is also a feeling, a sense of being constrained) makes a great deal of sense to me.

I don't know why you frame it as a feeling -- are you attempting to minimalize it somehow? I think it's logical to consider that there's always more. Do you disagree? I think life demonstrates that to us continually, does it not? It is we, ourselves, who try to stop our understanding/awareness/beliefs/ideas on a certain point, and then define that isolated point as a pinnacle of some sort, from which we then define everything else. Logically, how complete and truthful is that?

So let me know if I have correctly understood what looks to be your *core preoccupation* (to use conventional philosophical terms).

Hmm... well, it doesn't seem like a preoccupation to me. Rather, it's like standing in a room with someone, and they're captivated by one item in the room, exclaiming "This is it! This is what everything springs from and depends upon." So, then I exclaim, in response, "What about everything else?" I do not enter into discussions with people with some kind of agenda of my own to disrupt their belief system. It is their claims that elicit a response from me. I'm a bit baffled that they aren't acknowledging anything ELSE. Surely they've seen it for themselves. Have they lost sight of it? Are they intoxicated? Are they ignoring it? WHY?

[Alexis Jacobi]

I don't know why you frame it as a feeling -- are you attempting to minimalize it somehow? I think it's logical to consider that there's always more. Do you disagree? I think life demonstrates that to us continually, does it not? It is we, ourselves, who try to stop our understanding/awareness/beliefs/ideas on a certain point, and then define that isolated point as a pinnacle of some sort, from which we then define everything else. Logically, how complete and truthful is that?

The reason I frame it (to quote your term) as also a feeling is simply because that is what restraining and limiting ideas provoke: a feeling, a sense, a sensation, of being constrained and restrained.

It is certainly logical to sense that there is 'more'.

Where I differ -- apparently -- is that I am interested in defining limitations and boundaries, not in expanding parameters into indefiniteness.

[RCSaunders]

I know where my debts lie.

You have a debt to some ethnic group?

Of course. And to various ones, for various things.

You do, too. You may not want to recognize your debts to anything, but that doesn't make you a non-debtor. Refusing to recognize debts just makes one ungrateful, not virtuous.

Well, I'm not surprised you see things in those racist terms. There is not a book in the world that promotes and teaches more racism than the Bible.

Nobody is ever better or worse in any way because of some class or category they or someone else puts them into. Just provide one example of how someone is more valuable or important to the world because they are Chinese, or Greek, or Jewish, or Lithuanian, and why they couldn't be just as valuable or important if they were a different nationality. Attributing either benefit or detriment to anyone based on race or ethnicity is an irrational prejudice--racism on stilts.