Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

Autism, ass-burgers, or some other disorder.

You know as well as me: this place is lousy with broken heads.

and, yeah, phil: I know it's asperger syndrome...ass-burgers is funny

Wow. We're reduced to explaining jokes now.

I feel suddenly sad.

Yeah, I know, I feel the same. It was offer a preemptive explanation or spend ten pages gettin' lectured on my bein' ignorant...I'm thinkin' I'm gonna get, we're all gonna get, those ten pages no matter what I, or any of us, say. He's hellbent on bein' a big fish. I believe I shall refrain from castin' my hook in his direction.

I can't believe a mind so unsubtle as not to perceive that speaking "like a hick" but saying intelligent things at the same time takes the ability not merely to think but to handle a persona or "character" while doing it. However, some minds are unsubtle, I guess.

[uwot]

I find it highly ironic in a truly postmodern sense that you refer to an image of Mary over your TeeVee while you simultaneously watch a tennis match and comment on a philosophy forum!

I'm living the dream.

(A review of) Gertude von le Fort's The Eternal Woman
...In the name of liberating her from the so-called tyranny of Christianity, atheism, in any form, leads to woman's enslavement.

...Like the Son's acceptance of the Cross, Mary's acceptance of her maternity symbolizes for all mankind the self-surrender to the Creator required of every human soul. Since any woman's acceptance of motherhood is likewise a yes to God, when womanhood and motherhood are properly understood and appreciated, the nature of the soul's relationship to God is revealed.

That is doublespeak. You might as well shave every woman's pubes and replace them with a tattoo of 'Arbeit macht frei'. It's nobody's fucking business how other people lead their lives, and since you clearly need reminding, women are people.

...intellectuals and those leaders of culture lose the capability of receiving and grasping those *truths* to which I refer.

Well Gus, if they were truths, they wouldn't need the asterisks.

What interests me is, as well, your incapacity to grasp what Nick is trying to communicate.

There is a difference between grasping and accepting, dontcha know?

[uwot]

Is the purpose of Christianity to make you happy or to experience meaning from a higher perspective.

I'm sure people become or remain Christians for a variety of reasons, but the original purpose was political, in my view; Roman Empire, hearts and minds, blah, blah, blah.

Do you find happiness from the eternal dualistic battle between and no?

Not really Nick_A. A sharp pair of sunglasses and a cold beer on a day like today will do the trick.

The reason is that Man is not a unified whole but rather a tripartite soul of three parts held together by imagination to make our hypocrisy tolerable for ourselves.

If you find your hypocrisy intolerable, would it not be wise to stop being a hypocrite?

[Belinda]

Yes. My advantage is that I have verified it and realize the value of what has been lost and make efforts to acquire it

Why should anyone, who isn't you, accept what you have verified and realised the value of as the product "of sustained impartial attention?"

There is no reason to. There is only one reason for seeking to escape from Plato's Cave. If a person is satisfied with living in an absurd world lacking meaning, why look for escape? If a person wants to escape, it requires first the need to escape, the will to escape, and the courage to buck the tide to sustain conscious attention. Without it conscious impartial attention is impossible. How many have this? Christianity for me offers the help of grace to make escape possible

Impartial attention sounds good to me. I don't want to follow what 'they all' do and would rather escape from that particular cave of prisoners who follow what "they" tell us to believe . Most people I know or have known would trust, not grace, but reason and scepticism, or ordinary human kindness, to see something more meaningful than the shadow play of what 'they ' say is true.

[Alexis Jacobi]

That is doublespeak. You might as well shave every woman's pubes and replace them with a tattoo of 'Arbeit macht frei'. It's nobody's fucking business how other people lead their lives, and since you clearly need reminding, women are people.

First, I am not advocating for von le Fort's admonitions, whatever they may be, in relation to woman. I am pointing out that a specific symbol carried, and still carries if it can be uncovered, a tremendous potency. Potency, relevance, meaning, etc. It is these outlines or these containers that have defined our perceptual order.

I gather by your reaction -- and I will also point out that reactive response is part-and-parcel of a type of rebellion against those encased meanings within symbols -- that you are *taking a bait* you imagine I have placed. And you are thus speaking as a manly feminist in defense of woman, and as if I am taking a position that undermines woman. But I assume that you are not grasping that along with the destruction of the sense of meaning in the old symbol, and the definition of a new outline or plan for woman, that you are also involving yourself in a specific activism. And my position is to try to see these impositions of definition in a clearer light. They are not wholly negative of course. A greater part of this flies over your head simply because no part of the concerns described register as relevant or important.

If it is not obvious I am more interested in exploring and if I can exposing the subjective differences in the varied perceptions and orientations that are expressed here. As you know I think *bickering* is far less productive than what may result when foreign perspectives are better understood.

It's nobody's fucking business how other people lead their lives.

This is actually very false -- except from a Liberal perspective or a hyper-liberal one, as the case may be. I imagine you will think I am opposing the liberal social philosophy but that is not the case. I have read a good deal of material both in pro of extensions of liberalism as well as critiques of liberal outcomes. I am interested in exploring these perspectives. Though I will not conceal that I feel that unrestrained liberalism has destructive outcomes in many different areas. What is the solution?

In any case von le Fort showed me that it would be possible to be introduced to another perspective about woman and her 'nature' (which for von le Fort is 'essence' and that a given woman could get involved in the ideas and perspectives von le Fort expresses and thus, on her own and for her own reasons, oppose aspects of what woman has been made into in the sense described:

Taking Mary, Virgin and Mother, as her model, von le Fort reflects on the significance of woman's spiritual and physical receptivity that constitutes her very essence, as well as her role in both the creation and redemption of human beings. Mary's fiat to God is the pathway to our salvation, as it is inextricably linked with the obedience unto death of Jesus her Son. Like the Son's acceptance of the Cross, Mary's acceptance of her maternity symbolizes for all mankind the self-surrender to the Creator required of every human soul. Since any woman's acceptance of motherhood is likewise a yes to God, when womanhood and motherhood are properly understood and appreciated, the nature of the soul's relationship to God is revealed.

So there is value in exploring all the different modes of possibility.

[Alexis Jacobi]

AJ writes: ...intellectuals and those leaders of culture lose the capability of receiving and grasping those *truths* to which I refer.

Well Gus, if they were truths, they wouldn't need the asterisks.

I am with you on that one. If I make reference to truth it is clear that it has to be truths that are agreed-upon. But that is of course one of my primary areas of interest: disagreement.

Various of Rieff's assertions deal on the shift from authoritative structures of agreed-upon truths that allowed a corporate cooperation, to the rise of an array of private perspectives that are determined individualistically. He wrote his book decades ago and, from where I sit, it is interesting to notice in it some prophetic content.

[Nick_A]

uwot

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Jul 11, 2022 12:29 pm
Do you find happiness from the eternal dualistic battle between yes and no?

Not really Nick_A. A sharp pair of sunglasses and a cold beer on a day like today will do the trick.

"does there exist in man a natural attraction to truth and to the struggle for truth that is stronger than the natural attraction to pleasure?" Jacob Needleman

Uwot, you are one of the majority who prefers pleasure to truth through denial. I have the highest regard for the small minority with the need for truth to reveal meaning and willing to sacrifice pleasure to experience it. I would like to be more like them.

[Belinda]

That is doublespeak. You might as well shave every woman's pubes and replace them with a tattoo of 'Arbeit macht frei'. It's nobody's fucking business how other people lead their lives, and since you clearly need reminding, women are people.

First, I am not advocating for von le Fort's admonitions, whatever they may be, in relation to woman. I am pointing out that a specific symbol carried, and still carries if it can be uncovered, a tremendous potency. Potency, relevance, meaning, etc. It is these outlines or these containers that have defined our perceptual order.

I gather by your reaction -- and I will also point out that reactive response is part-and-parcel of a type of rebellion against those encased meanings within symbols -- that you are *taking a bait* you imagine I have placed. And you are thus speaking as a manly feminist in defense of woman, and as if I am taking a position that undermines woman. But I assume that you are not grasping that along with the destruction of the sense of meaning in the old symbol, and the definition of a new outline or plan for woman, that you are also involving yourself in a specific activism. And my position is to try to see these impositions of definition in a clearer light. They are not wholly negative of course. A greater part of this flies over your head simply because no part of the concerns described register as relevant or important.

If it is not obvious I am more interested in exploring and if I can exposing the subjective differences in the varied perceptions and orientations that are expressed here. As you know I think *bickering* is far less productive than what may result when foreign perspectives are better understood.

It's nobody's fucking business how other people lead their lives.

This is actually very false -- except from a Liberal perspective or a hyper-liberal one, as the case may be. I imagine you will think I am opposing the liberal social philosophy but that is not the case. I have read a good deal of material both in pro of extensions of liberalism as well as critiques of liberal outcomes. I am interested in exploring these perspectives. Though I will not conceal that I feel that unrestrained liberalism has destructive outcomes in many different areas. What is the solution?

In any case von le Fort showed me that it would be possible to be introduced to another perspective about woman and her 'nature' (which for von le Fort is 'essence' and that a given woman could get involved in the ideas and perspectives von le Fort expresses and thus, on her own and for her own reasons, oppose aspects of what woman has been made into in the sense described:

Taking Mary, Virgin and Mother, as her model, von le Fort reflects on the significance of woman's spiritual and physical receptivity that constitutes her very essence, as well as her role in both the creation and redemption of human beings. Mary's fiat to God is the pathway to our salvation, as it is inextricably linked with the obedience unto death of Jesus her Son. Like the Son's acceptance of the Cross, Mary's acceptance of her maternity symbolizes for all mankind the self-surrender to the Creator required of every human soul. Since any woman's acceptance of motherhood is likewise a yes to God, when womanhood and motherhood are properly understood and appreciated, the nature of the soul's relationship to God is revealed.

So there is value in exploring all the different modes of possibility.

Women's nature, like human nature, is what is possible. It's impossible for a woman to breathe water or be a species of reptile. Possibility is the ground of being. I imagine the Creator dwells with possibility, and men do the creating from possibility.

For inanimate things possibility and actuality are the same. It was always determined from the beginning of time that inanimate things, that have no notion there will be a future, would do as they did. Intelligent animals look to the future and decide accordingly.

If you "surrender " to motherhood you are behaving like an inanimate thing that does what it must do. Sure pregnancy and motherhood are possibilities. It's a human responsibility to decide whether or not to actualise that possibility or not.

The fact that some of the woman's genitals are hollow organs does not imply that she must inevitably be a receptacle. Sometimes there are other receptacles for sperm, penis, or fertilised ovum. Your informant mistakes Christian symbolism for reality.

BTW instead of "exploring all the different modes of possibility" why not edit it to "exploring possibilities"?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Women's nature, like human nature, is what is possible. It's impossible for a woman to breathe water or be a species of reptile. Possibility is the ground of being. I imagine the Creator dwells with possibility, and men do the creating from possibility.

A couple of comments. First is that I agree that man can choose an infinite array of possibilities as well as *identities* (my asterisks are simply for emphasis). One can be influenced to operate with traditional notions, and one can also be influenced to operate with radical notions. And one can even be influenced to go to ultra-radical definitions such as identifying as a 'furry':

The furry fandom is a subculture interested in anthropomorphic animal characters with human personalities and characteristics. Examples of anthropomorphic attributes include exhibiting human intelligence and facial expressions, speaking, walking on two legs, and wearing clothes.

When moorings are severed, or consciously abandoned, just imagine the endless possibilities! So let me cut to the chase: it is possible for people to also 'go crazy' or go hysterical and seek identifications in the wildest of possibilities. But then someone will have to assess: Is this madness? Is this right? And what will result from it?

Who will do that?

For inanimate things possibility and actuality are the same. It was always determined from the beginning of time that inanimate things, that have no notion there will be a future, would do as they did. Intelligent animals look to the future and decide accordingly.

Yes, I surely get your point.

If you "surrender " to motherhood you are behaving like an inanimate thing that does what it must do. Sure pregnancy and motherhood are possibilities. It's a human responsibility to decide whether or not to actualise that possibility or not.

No, here I would not agree with you. I would ask questions to one who has chosen, for whatever reasons, to abandon motherhood. True, my tendency would be to ask questions based on my traditionalist sense of things. I agree with you though: one could choose not to actualize the motherhood role. But again one could do any number of different things as well. Some of them would be understood as 'sane' and others would be questioned.

Who questions? Quo warranto?

The fact that some of the woman's genitals are hollow organs does not imply that she must inevitably be a receptacle. Sometimes there are other receptacles for sperm, penis, or fertilised ovum. Your informant mistakes Christian symbolism for reality.

Well, according to nature and nature's enforced rules I think you are wrong. Young girls are driven, against their own wills, to seek mates, to realize themselves as sexually attractive, and often to give themselves to those desirable boys. It is something that is done and not thought about. Nature is a dominating power. Mother Nature a tyrannical power.

I agree that culture can intervene and can restrain the most basic and insistent drives. That is what culture is. And I agree with you that cultural rules have become flexible and challenged and that no one agrees as to what is 'right'.

BTW instead of "exploring all the different modes of possibility" why not edit it to "exploring possibilities"?

You can say that if you wish! But as I have pointed out I think we have a duty to come to definitions, to base them on sound ideas, and then to enforce them through cultural mores.

[Harry Baird]

The Church of No One Truth (NOT): A Cautionary Tale

A Play of Three Acts of Three Scenes Each

<< Act one, scene one | Act one, scene three >>

Act one, scene two

Characters:

Can Man: because Immanuel Can, so Can Man.

Bjorn aGus

Setting:

Outside the Church of No One Truth (NOT)

Can Man: Desist! The time is near!

Bjorn aGus: Yes, that's what it says on your billboard. No need to repeat it.

Can Man: You will burn for your illogic. I will repeat it as many times as necessary for you to get it.

Bjorn aGus: I have resolved the illogic, as instructed by my Pastor. I am on my way to inform her of my solution.

Can Man: Impossible!

Bjorn aGus: Nope. Very possible.

Can Man: Go on then. Prove it.

Bjorn aGus: It's simple. My Pastor's hint was all I needed: don't add; subtract.

Can Man: Go on...

Bjorn aGus: You know that our Church's Commandment as stated is: "Thou shalt have no One Truth before thee but the One Truth that there is no One Truth." Now, it SEEMS self-contradictory, but that's only because too much has been ADDED to it. If we SUBTRACT as much as we can, we discern the correct wording as, simply: "There is no One Truth".

Can Man: Alas. That is mere obscurantism. That which you have removed is anyway implied in that statement.

Bjorn aGus: Nope. See, your problem is that you're so addicted to logic that you've never even tried to solve a koan. There is no One Truth, and that affirmation cannot be One Truth itself because, as it affirms, there is no such thing in the first place.

Can Man: I am truly sorry to inform you, but substituting "affirmation" for "One Truth" doesn't fool anybody. You're simply playing semantic games.

Bjorn aGus: Not so. The idea of "One Truth" is a human construct. It is one which our Church DEconstructs.

Can Man: Oh dear. Deconstruction is so... twentieth century. Look, the existence of One Truth cannot be avoided. And it's high time you realised what it is. (Pointing to his billboard.)

Bjorn aGus: Sorry, but I prefer the Christianity you have when you're not having Christianity.

Can Man: Good luck with that. I had higher hopes for you. It seems I've been wasting my time here.

Bjorn aGus: Not necessarily. You have been preaching to all of the other parishioners.

Can Man: There are none.

Bjorn aGus: Wait, what? I'm the only member of this Church?

Can Man: 'Fraid so. Other than its Pastor.

Bjorn aGus: Right. It is time for a recruitment drive then.

Can Man: Who else do you think might join? Quirky? Wotter? Aeon? Not likely. Ring o' Linda? Maybe. But your Pastor would have better luck there.

Bjorn aGus: I guess you're right, Can Man. Hmm. In that case, can I let you in on a little secret? (Draws in close)

Can Man: Umm, OK. What's on your mind?

Bjorn aGus: I've never really been able to believe in our Church anyway. All along I was hoping there'd be something SOLID and CONCRETE. But my hopes have been dashed. Our Pastor wants to leave it all up to us.

Can Man: Now you see it, parishioner Bjorn aGus...

<< Act one, scene one | Act one, scene three >>

[Harry Baird]

Just out of curiosity how would you propose when we have ascertained thee One Truth?

Or, what would you say would be the deciding factor in KNOWING that we have finally obtained thee One Truth?

I don't know.

The answer is REALLY VERY, VERY SIMPLE. If ANY one is interested.

Go on then.

[Harry Baird]

The only way (that I can tell) to have meaningful interchange is to identify the real problem. Then to talk about it honestly.

Go ahead Harry -- start with yourself!

I would make one suggestion, direct but as always friendly: identify the problem.

As I woke up early this morning, a better response than I gave to this the first time round struck me. I'm going to take the time to share it.

The real problem, in my view, is that at root we are in a state of confusion and uncertainty when it comes to the nature of the metaphysical reality in which we are incarnated, as well as of broader metaphysical reality beyond it, and our place in all of this. (By "we" I really mean "me and people like me in this respect", although I understand it to apply broadly).

The problem which you identify - the breakdown of widespread agreement on a broadly Christian metaphysic in Western countries - throws us back to this more general problem, so far unsolved. The "patched up" solution that we have come to is pluralism, in which, none of us knowing for sure, we agree that people can generally believe what they want to believe metaphysically, even when we disagree with those beliefs, and focus on achieving secular agreements around systems of legislature, law, justice, economics, etc - on how to functionally and practically manage our pluralistic societies.

Nothwithstanding some solution to our metaphysical confusion, I am comfortable enough with this as a solution. I think that it can preserve that which is good in our heritage without demanding belief in a metaphysic that many can - as you point out - no longer believe in.

I am not sure quite what alternative solution you propose or would be comfortable with. It appears that you think that pluralistic society cannot preserve, or is not preserving that which is of value in our heritage.

In this post, you listed your critique of Christianity. You concluded with: "This present list is the *critical* one and in this sense responds to, and comments on, the recent themes in the present conversation. There is another list that would necessarily be far more supportive or -- what is the word? -- affirmative."

I would be very interested in reading a post in which you provide that affirmative list, especially in the light of the above: that which you want our now pluralistic societies to preserve or perhaps even "return to".

[uwot]

I am pointing out that a specific symbol carried, and still carries if it can be uncovered, a tremendous potency.

The swastika is a potent symbol, the hammer and sickle is a potent symbol, those red MAGA hats are a potent symbol; the world is awash with potent symbols: religion, politics, business their advertising and marketing all depend on potent symbols.

Potency, relevance, meaning, etc. It is these outlines or these containers that have defined our perceptual order.

Yes Gus, but as with drugs, the efficacy depends on a range of variables which, for the most part remain unknown or poorly understood. So for practical purposes, how people respond is idiosyncratic. Potency, relevance, meaning, etc which should include beauty, is in the eye off the beholder. For now at least.

I gather by your reaction -- and I will also point out that reactive response is part-and-parcel of a type of rebellion against those encased meanings within symbols --

I am as much a sucker for branding as any Catholic, it just happens that my brands are Levi's jeans, RayBan sunglasses and Triumph motorcycles rather than some 2000 year old virgin, or an innocent man nailed to a cross. Have you ever really thought about how fucked up a society that took those last two seriously would be? Can you honestly imagine that the world would be a better place if no one challenged those symbols?

[uwot]

If I make reference to truth it is clear that it has to be truths that are agreed-upon.

Well it is now that you have said so. I have no issue with people using language in any way they choose - it is none of my fucking business how two or more people communicate. But so you understand, my use of 'truth' assumes some correspondence with reality, regardless of how agreed-upon it might be.

But that is of course one of my primary areas of interest: disagreement.

It is essential to growth.

[Dubious]

I have the highest regard for the small minority with the need for truth to reveal meaning and willing to sacrifice pleasure to experience it. I would like to be more like them.

A main problem with all these shifting "meaning & truth" chimeras is that once denoted it becomes rigid especially so when accepted by whole societies. Anything which attempts to dissolve it, at whatever time or period, due to the advancement of knowledge is met with the utmost resistance and violence. The point being, meaning remains relative to the age however long or short that may be. One of the worst things that can happen is to root and grow meanings which require another age to disengage from before the next one pops up.