Christianity

[Belinda]

Alexis Jacobi wrote:

I could suggest reading up on Elizabethan psychology (what informed Shakespeare’s worldview and metaphysics). It helped me tremendously.

What informed Shakespeare's worldview was Renaissance humanism.

AI Overview:-

Renaissance humanism was a cultural movement and worldview, emerging in Italy from the study of Classical antiquity, that emphasized human potential and importance, shifting focus from medieval theology to human experience, literature, rhetoric, and moral philosophy. This approach, exemplified by figures like Petrarch and Erasmus, revived classical texts and fostered a new educational curriculum based on the liberal arts, leading to significant advancements in learning, art, and politics.

Key Aspects
Focus on Humanity:
Humanism championed the belief in human dignity and potential, a stark contrast to the more divinely focused worldview of the Middle Ages.
Revival of Classical Texts:
Scholars painstakingly rediscovered, translated, and studied ancient Greek and Roman literature, philosophy, and history, influencing art and politics.
Emphasis on the Humanities:
The movement championed rhetoric, history, poetry, and moral philosophy, which became known as the humanities.
Educational Reform:
Humanist educators developed new methods and curricula, like the studio humanatus, that aimed to create well-rounded individuals with strong moral foundations and eloquent communication skills.
Secular Values:
Humanism encouraged a focus on natural and secular values, moving beyond a solely otherworldly perspective and emphasizing human experience in this world.
Impact
Education:
The humanistic educational model had a profound and lasting impact, influencing contemporary education and shaping the disciplines we now call the humanities.
Art and Culture:
Art flourished as a result of this new focus on human form and potential, exemplified by the celebration of the nude human body and grandeur of humanity in sculptures and paintings.
Politics and Law:
Humanist ideas influenced political thought and were instrumental in shaping international law and economics through figures like Francisco de Vitoria.
Technology:
The invention of the printing press was a crucial factor in the spread of humanist ideas, making texts and knowledge more accessible to a wider audience.
Renaissance Humanism - The Origin & History
5 Oct 2022 — direction especially concerning the financial spending of 14th century popes in France the subject of another. video. no...


YouTube ·
Theology Academy - Christianity

1m
Humanism, Renaissance - Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Renaissance Humanism and the Future of the Humanities
1 Oct 2012 — In Perry's words, * [Renaissance humanism] signified the emancipation of the human faculties from the restraints of rel...
Wiley
Show all

[Alexis Jacobi]

A "master metaphysician" will understand that there were 10000 gods and they all gave people different impressions. So we can confidently start with throwing out all religious, divine subjective impressions and just look at the (beyond reasonable doubt) objective. You won't get far by simply trying to intuit the higher senses using wishful thinking, instead it's about trying to compare the mathemathical likelihoods of all possible realities that you can think of, comparing them using some system, and trying to find the most likely realities and then looking at what those could possibly mean to us. Well I did the above and I have bad news for you guys. Actually I would now advise people to stop looking for the truth.

If the topic is “What would a master metaphysician say about man’s life and awareness; about meaning & value; and about the essence of religion (in its better aspect)”, I am uncertain if your extremely limited and limiting view of what is at stake would have predominance.

This is where my critique of that position most notable among those who write here (anti-Christian, anti-religious, anti-metaphysical, to describe it generally) has its starting point. I very much agree that the topic of metaphysics is a fraught one, and the consideration of supernaturalism is an almost impossible thought to entertain given the power of a dominant reign of thought and perspective, and yet it is metaphysical ideas that make man man.

One idea that I found valuable and illustrative is what Richard Weaver wrote:

Witches on the Heath: Abandoning the Transcendentals

Like Macbeth, Western man made an evil decision, which has become the efficient and final cause of other evil decisions. Have we forgotten our encounter with the witches on the heath? It occurred in the late fourteenth century, and what the witches said to the protagonist of this drama was that man could realize himself more fully if he would only abandon his belief in the existence of transcendentals. The powers of darkness were working subtly, as always, and they couched this proposition in the seemingly innocent form of an attack upon universals. The defeat of logical realism in the great medieval debate was the crucial event in the history of Western culture; from this flowed those acts which issue now in modern decadence.

One may be accused here of oversimplifying the historical process, but I take the view that the conscious policies of men and governments are not mere rationalizations of what has been brought about by unaccountable forces. They are rather deductions from our most basic ideas of human destiny, and they have a great, though not unobstructed, power to determine our course.

For this reason I turn to William of Occam as the best representative of a change which came over man’s conception of reality at this historic juncture. It was William of Occam who propounded the fateful doctrine of nominalism, which denies that universals have a real existence. His triumph tended to leave universal terms mere names serving our convenience. The issue ultimately involved is whether there is a source of truth higher than, and independent of, man; and the answer to the question is decisive for one’s view of the nature and destiny of humankind. The practical result of nominalist philosophy is to banish the reality which is perceived by the intellect and to posit as reality that which is perceived by the senses. With this change in the affirmation of what is real, the whole orientation of culture takes a turn, and we are on the road to modern empiricism.

It is easy to be blind to the significance of a change because it is remote in time and abstract in character. Those who have not discovered that world view is the most important thing about a man, as about the men composing a culture, should consider the train of circumstances which have with perfect logic proceeded from this. The denial of universals carries with it the denial of everything transcending experience. The denial of everything transcending experience means inevitably—though ways are found to hedge on this—the denial of truth.

With the denial of objective truth there is no escape from the relativism of “man the measure of all things.” The witches spoke with the habitual equivocation of oracles when they told man that by this easy choice he might realize himself more fully, for they were actually initiating a course which cuts one off from reality. Thus began the “abomination of desolation” appearing today as a feeling of alienation from all fixed truth.

My view is that what is seen with the eye is what the ‘senses’ alone perceive as real. But what is seen through the eye is (as I endlessly repeat) everything touching on value & meaning.

Therefore I conclude: there is something defective in the way you see. Certain ideas have got their hold on you and they limit what can enter your consciousness through ‘the doors of perception’. Taken to the final end, predicated from the beginning, you destroy the intelligible. You cut off ‘the conceptual pathway’ to a realm of the real which in non-sensual. The mere “eye” cannot see it. Only the intellect (as intellectus) can and does.

Nevertheless I agree with you: the zone of what is intelligible in man — in you and me and more especially in you (who have no natural saintedness as does Alexis Jacobi in his manifestation as The Hyperborean Apollo) — has become a confusing zone of pollution of influences and distorted symbols.

This in my view turns back to an important idea about man’s imagination and that interior screen where his sense of reality is “played”.

So the ‘recovery’ of man, a man’s recovery of his own self, and the purification of perception, obviously become crucial.

None of this has or can have any meaning for you Atla and I know this. It is simply put non-intelligible to you.

[Alexis Jacobi]

The "package" here is that of the Romantic poets.

It seems to me that a description of what “the package” is requires a fuller examination. My ideas about this arose when considering the so-called ancient Rishis: seers, perceivers, organizers of thought and perception about this world, our world and the “loka” in which we find ourselves.

They definitely saw the world (“with the eye” if you will) but they also perceived and symbolized the transcendental aspect of what was there. So the Sun was seen, yes, but it was also ‘understood’ as the source and the possibility of life in this world, and therefore was divinized: made into a communicable symbol. I.e. transferred into a package. But the package is not the meaning, the sense of what it is to understand that being has a Source. It is a complex metaphysical idea that operates on numerous levels, and certainly not merely that of the physical.

Same is true of the notion of Usha (“dawn”) when the eternal sun returns again and illuminates the world. As an idea — dawning, illumination, awakening, awareness) — it stands behind all that Usha means (a goddess with specific attributes portrayed in iconography), and it really refers to something, say, transcendental to the merely perceived. The idea can be grasped through the intellect and it can become intelligible, but only if “the packaging” is deciphered or perhaps stripped away.

Personally, I think the “idea of Christ” is entirely valid and real, but the Story of Jesus Christ is a somewhat ridiculous pictorial representation of something transcendental. My ideas on this become somewhat radical but open up to a way that Christianity can be better understood. But it is crucial to transcend the packaging.

I try and I try to be just that dawning for Immanuel Can but, sadly his Doors of Perception are locked shut and he cannot, he will not. Maybe someday a Merry Prankster will come his way, who knows?

[Immanuel Can]

Actually, Rome didn't do that (not during the first coupe hundred years of Christianity). Rome was trying to economically exploit its empire. Pretty much always at war somewhere, but with economic wars, can expect both sides to be rational, weighing costs. They tried at all costs to avoid religious wars since for religion, nobody counts the cost. Laws were strict protecting "religious freedom" which is what got the early Christians "persecuted". << not for BEING Christians but doing things like "witnessing" in the middle of some other religion's ceremony -- Roman authorities dealt with that VERY harshly as they did not want the offended sect taking to the streets to get revenge on Christians >>

This was a period where there was much competition for what would become "the religion" of Rome.

The big change came with Constatine (early 300's CE). Nicea, defining the official line of Christianity was during his rule.

This is almost right, Mike, and thanks for being even-handed in pointing it out. I'm curious, though, about how "persecuted" got scare quotes, since there can be no doubt at all that the early church was badly persecuted by the Romans. Nero used hundreds as human torches in his gardens, for example. I think we can safely remove the scare quotes from a word that describes that, don't you?

You're right that most wars were not inherently religious, but were rather flavoured with religion as a further incentive to things like political, economic, territorial or resource conquest. That's always been the case: every war needs an ideological "explanation" or proffered "motivation" to "sanctify" the inexcusable. Marxism has most often supplied that, in the modern world, and it's self-declared anti-religious. But other ideologies have served that function as well: one might think of the Buddhists in Myanmar or the Anti-Colonialists in Africa. All wars need an ideological sponsor, it seems...and it's actually rarely turned out to be anything close to even merely nominal Christianity. Statistically, Islam's number 1 among the religious sponsors of wars, and Marxism's way out ahead of everybody else in the secular sphere, including all religions, by orders of magnitude.

But the early Christians were definitely persecuted by the State, and interestingly, for being "Atheists." And why would that be? Because they didn't believe in enough gods, and their disbelief was considered a slam against all the Roman ones. They only believed in one God. Rome required polytheism. So it was not that Christians were barging in and "witnessing in the middle of some other religion's ceremony" -- you won't find evidence of that. It was that they refused participation in the civic religion of Rome, which meant that they were considered inherently contrary to Rome's most passionate commitments.

However, you're right again about the big change coming with Constantine. It was at the Battle of Milvian Bridge that historians tell us Constantine either a) had a vision," or b) saw a strategic opportunity to unify his troops by melding two antithetical 'religions' into one, depending on which historian one consults -- Roman paganism uniting with nominal Christianity to form a perverse hybrid that would become known as "the Roman Church," or now, "Catholicism," which means, "the single universal, (and hence, legitimate) church." Ironically, this hybrid remains separate from another large claimant, the "Orthodox," which means "the single church that has the doctrinal truth." So both Catholicism and Orthodoxy are, essentially, slams against each other -- one claiming universality, the other claiming purity. But both are syncretistic meldings of paganism with nominal Christianity, rather than a sort of "pure stock" of Christian theology.

But of course, neither the Catholics nor the Orthodox are anything like the early church. The early church was, then, persecuted and non-institutional, a group of marginalized individuals hiding in catacombs, one that only gradually attained the kinds of numbers that would make it interesting to the State. It wasn't until the fourth century that we get the first attempt to change it into a syncretistic and political entity...and there's good evidence that a sizeable percentage of Christians never joined any such project, because the State churches found continuous cause to persecute all dissenter "sects" from then on.

The big lesson might be this: fusion with State and political power has never been a good thing for Christianity.

I suppose you refer to politicising or weaponising the rituals.

Nor than that. We don't find that the early church really had any such "rituals." In fact, their origins are well documented, by the institutional "churches" themselves. We know, for example, that the worship of Mary was introduced in precisely 431, at the so-called "Council of Ephesus." We know that the Doctrine of Purgatory was not official until the Second Council of Lyon, in 1274, though the word first appeared around 1160...and either way, was clearly a late invention, not a Biblical doctrine at all. And all we have to do in order to know many such things is to Google them or to consult Catholicism's (or Orthodoxy's) own records. It's all public information.

I don't see how the doctrines can be politicised or weaponised as the core of Jesus's teaching is that the poor, the dispossessed and the despised will inherit Heaven.

That's not quite what He said. He never suggested you get to Heaven by being poor or by being dispossessed or despised, and others cannot. Rather, He was teaching the very important principle that success as men assess it has nothing whatsoever to do with success as God assesses it, or as it ultimately turns out to be.

But in point of fact, all you -- meaning anybody, not yourself in particular -- have to do to weaponize any ideology is keep the name, claim the tradition, but change the terms. And this is exactly what apostate "churches" of all kinds have tended to do. Like the Mormons, you can add in a new "prophet" in the form of Joseph Smith, or claim a new revelation to Charles Taze Russell, like the Jehovah's Witnesses do, or just add things over long periods of time, as the Catholic have done. By whatever method, one can soon achieve public confusion as to what Jesus Christ really said or what he really meant, especially among those who revere the name, in some vague moral way, but fail to read the things He actually said. They're terribly easy to fool. And then you get to use the cachet of a highly-regarded name to do whatever dirty work you prefer.

So it actually happens rather easily. And the curative is to actually know what Jesus Himself said and did, and not to trust people who tell you things that simply aren't true.

[Belinda]

The "package" here is that of the Romantic poets.

It seems to me that a description of what “the package” is requires a fuller examination. My ideas about this arose when considering the so-called ancient Rishis: seers, perceivers, organizers of thought and perception about this world, our world and the “loka” in which we find ourselves.

They definitely saw the world (“with the eye” if you will) but they also perceived and symbolized the transcendental aspect of what was there. So the Sun was seen, yes, but it was also ‘understood’ as the source and the possibility of life in this world, and therefore was divinized: made into a communicable symbol. I.e. transferred into a package. But the package is not the meaning, the sense of what it is to understand that being has a Source. It is a complex metaphysical idea that operates on numerous levels, and certainly not merely that of the physical.

Same is true of the notion of Usha (“dawn”) when the eternal sun returns again and illuminates the world. As an idea — dawning, illumination, awakening, awareness) — it stands behind all that Usha means (a goddess with specific attributes portrayed in iconography), and it really refers to something, say, transcendental to the merely perceived. The idea can be grasped through the intellect and it can become intelligible, but only if “the packaging” is deciphered or perhaps stripped away.

Personally, I think the “idea of Christ” is entirely valid and real, but the Story of Jesus Christ is a somewhat ridiculous pictorial representation of something transcendental. My ideas on this become somewhat radical but open up to a way that Christianity can be better understood. But it is crucial to transcend the packaging.

I try and I try to be just that dawning for Immanuel Can but, sadly his Doors of Perception are locked shut and he cannot, he will not. Maybe someday a Merry Prankster will come his way, who knows?

Y

Your phrase "the package" was apropos a bit of poetry by William Blake, not Oriental seers and prophets.

Shakespeare knew nothing about "rishis" .Shakespeare got his worldview from Renaissance humanism which was a European development.

You should pay more attention to historical dates. Shakespeare knew nothing about rishis. How could he possibly?

The Romantic poets were influenced by Indian folk traditions as folk traditions but were not proper students of the Vedas.

Blake in particular focused on poverty and the evils of industrialisation in England.

I think you have something to say however it is hard work sifting meaning from the prententious -sounding dross.

[Belinda]

This is almost right, Mike, and thanks for being even-handed in pointing it out. I'm curious, though, about how "persecuted" got scare quotes, since there can be no doubt at all that the early church was badly persecuted by the Romans. Nero used hundreds as human torches in his gardens, for example. I think we can safely remove the scare quotes from a word that describes that, don't you?

You're right that most wars were not inherently religious, but were rather flavoured with religion as a further incentive to things like political, economic, territorial or resource conquest. That's always been the case: every war needs an ideological "explanation" or proffered "motivation" to "sanctify" the inexcusable. Marxism has most often supplied that, in the modern world, and it's self-declared anti-religious. But other ideologies have served that function as well: one might think of the Buddhists in Myanmar or the Anti-Colonialists in Africa. All wars need an ideological sponsor, it seems...and it's actually rarely turned out to be anything close to even merely nominal Christianity. Statistically, Islam's number 1 among the religious sponsors of wars, and Marxism's way out ahead of everybody else in the secular sphere, including all religions, by orders of magnitude.

But the early Christians were definitely persecuted by the State, and interestingly, for being "Atheists." And why would that be? Because they didn't believe in enough gods, and their disbelief was considered a slam against all the Roman ones. They only believed in one God. Rome required polytheism. So it was not that Christians were barging in and "witnessing in the middle of some other religion's ceremony" -- you won't find evidence of that. It was that they refused participation in the civic religion of Rome, which meant that they were considered inherently contrary to Rome's most passionate commitments.

However, you're right again about the big change coming with Constantine. It was at the Battle of Milvian Bridge that historians tell us Constantine either a) had a vision," or b) saw a strategic opportunity to unify his troops by melding two antithetical 'religions' into one, depending on which historian one consults -- Roman paganism uniting with nominal Christianity to form a perverse hybrid that would become known as "the Roman Church," or now, "Catholicism," which means, "the single universal, (and hence, legitimate) church." Ironically, this hybrid remains separate from another large claimant, the "Orthodox," which means "the single church that has the doctrinal truth." So both Catholicism and Orthodoxy are, essentially, slams against each other -- one claiming universality, the other claiming purity. But both are syncretistic meldings of paganism with nominal Christianity, rather than a sort of "pure stock" of Christian theology.

But of course, neither the Catholics nor the Orthodox are anything like the early church. The early church was, then, persecuted and non-institutional, a group of marginalized individuals hiding in catacombs, one that only gradually attained the kinds of numbers that would make it interesting to the State. It wasn't until the fourth century that we get the first attempt to change it into a syncretistic and political entity...and there's good evidence that a sizeable percentage of Christians never joined any such project, because the State churches found continuous cause to persecute all dissenter "sects" from then on.

The big lesson might be this: fusion with State and political power has never been a good thing for Christianity.

I suppose you refer to politicising or weaponising the rituals.

Nor than that. We don't find that the early church really had any such "rituals." In fact, their origins are well documented, by the institutional "churches" themselves. We know, for example, that the worship of Mary was introduced in precisely 431, at the so-called "Council of Ephesus." We know that the Doctrine of Purgatory was not official until the Second Council of Lyon, in 1274, though the word first appeared around 1160...and either way, was clearly a late invention, not a Biblical doctrine at all. And all we have to do in order to know many such things is to Google them or to consult Catholicism's (or Orthodoxy's) own records. It's all public information.

I don't see how the doctrines can be politicised or weaponised as the core of Jesus's teaching is that the poor, the dispossessed and the despised will inherit Heaven.

That's not quite what He said. He never suggested you get to Heaven by being poor or by being dispossessed or despised, and others cannot. Rather, He was teaching the very important principle that success as men assess it has nothing whatsoever to do with success as God assesses it, or as it ultimately turns out to be.

But in point of fact, all you -- meaning anybody, not yourself in particular -- have to do to weaponize any ideology is keep the name, claim the tradition, but change the terms. And this is exactly what apostate "churches" of all kinds have tended to do. Like the Mormons, you can add in a new "prophet" in the form of Joseph Smith, or claim a new revelation to Charles Taze Russell, like the Jehovah's Witnesses do, or just add things over long periods of time, as the Catholic have done. By whatever method, one can soon achieve public confusion as to what Jesus Christ really said or what he really meant, especially among those who revere the name, in some vague moral way, but fail to read the things He actually said. They're terribly easy to fool. And then you get to use the cachet of a highly-regarded name to do whatever dirty work you prefer.

So it actually happens rather easily. And the curative is to actually know what Jesus Himself said and did, and not to trust people who tell you things that simply aren't true.

I don't see how the doctrines can be politicised or weaponised as the core of Jesus's teaching is that the poor, the dispossessed and the despised will inherit Heaven.

That's not quite what He said.

But it is , according to Matthew

I don't see how the doctrines can be politicised or weaponised as the core of Jesus's teaching is that the poor, the dispossessed and the despised will inherit Heaven.

That's not quite what

AI overview:-
Parables: Many parables flip social expectations — e.g., Lazarus the poor beggar in Luke 16 is carried to Abraham’s side while the rich man suffers.

Ethical teaching: Jesus tells his followers to give to the poor, warns that it is hard for the rich to enter the Kingdom (Matthew 19:23–24), and associates with the marginalized (sinners, tax collectors, lepers).

The thrust is that God’s reign is radically inclusive of the poor, oppressed, and marginalized, while the rich and powerful are warned that their privileges are fleeting.

That said, the teaching is not just about economics — it’s also about humility, faith, and dependence on God. Matthew’s “poor in spirit” can be read as those who recognize their spiritual need, while Luke’s simpler “poor” stresses actual material poverty.

So yes — it is true that Jesus taught that the poor, the dispossessed, and the despised are closest to God’s kingdom. But it’s not only a social doctrine: it’s also about an inversion of values, where those who seem least valued in the world are most valued by God.

[Belinda]

I think, Immanuel, that Constantine saw that Judeo Christianity contained a myth of Christ that would serve to bind together Constantine's empire.

[Immanuel Can]

So yes — it is true that Jesus taught that the poor, the dispossessed, and the despised are closest to God’s kingdom.

"Closest," in that it was less difficult for them to enter than for a rich man, but not "in."

But it’s not only a social doctrine: it’s also about an inversion of values, where those who seem least valued in the world are most valued by God.

It's not actually a "social doctrine" at all, actually. But it is an inversion of the Pharisees' expectation. Their idea, which still persists in Judaism today, is that being wealthy was a sign of divine favour. If you were rich, it was because, in some sense, God "liked you better" and so was "blessing" you...and that if some misfortune happened to you, it was evidence that you were cursed and had sinned. Jesus Christ reverses that: He says that being "blessed" is really about "the Kingdom of God," not the kingdoms of men. (You see this very clearly in the Sermon on the Mount, for example.)

But riches are no more a sign of divine disfavour than poverty is proof of divine favour. Remember Zaccheus, the wealthy tax-collector who came enthusiastically to Christ? Or how about Johanna, the rich woman who gave generously to support the mission of Christ? Or recall the famous "Rich Young Ruler"? The text explicitly says that Christ had a love for him, even though he was going to struggle to give up his riches, and would choose to "go away sorrowful." And though, as Christ said, it was "hard for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God," it was far from impossible; if he would kneel down and divest himself of the worldly values that were keeping him from valuing Heaven, a rich man might well also enter the Kingdom.

Leviticus 19:15 -- "‘You shall not do injustice in judgment; you shall not show partiality to the poor nor give preference to the great, but you are to judge your neighbor fairly."

You see in the context that this surprised even the disciples. From their ethos, they had gleaned the idea that poverty meant being less close to God, and worldly success indicated more. However, they'd clearly forgotten about the book of Job, which is all about a good man who still suffers.

God doesn't play favourites based on worldly metrics, whether poverty or riches.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Shakespeare knew nothing about "rishis" .Shakespeare got his worldview from Renaissance humanism which was a European development.

You should pay more attention to historical dates. Shakespeare knew nothing about rishis. How could he possibly?

If you imagined that I thought Shakespeare would have knowledge of the ancient Rishis of India your chastisement would be that of Kent in King Lear. I’ll leave you to decipher!

All perception in this world must and does follow similar lines.

There is a commonality between Europe’s superseded metaphysics and that of Medieval India. But I do not think there was (much if any) cultural contact. It has been proposed that some Indian ideas filtered into Platonic thought, but nothing very conclusive.

(The Rishis far antedated the Medieval period).

The part of Shakespeare’s psychology snd metaphysics that I referred to derives more from that view of “reality” known as The Great Chain of Being. And from even older metaphysical systems.

See for example Elizabethan Psychology and Shakespeare’s Plays (Ruth Leila Anderson).

[Immanuel Can]

I think, Immanuel, that Constantine saw that Judeo Christianity contained a myth of Christ that would serve to bind together Constantine's empire.

He was an opportunist, you mean? Yes, some historians say that, and I think it's likely true. There's evidence he never had any great affection for Christianity at all, but rather did it as a cynical strategy to unify his forces...not an auspicious beginning to any "religious" project, I think you and I would agree.

But he still had a problem to overcome: and that was the irreconcilable tension between monotheism and polytheism. If he asked the pagans to give up their many gods, they would not, anymore than the Christians would denounce their allegiance to the one God; and he would simply have renewed tensions over the differences. But Constantine had a strategy: blend the two, or syncretize both religions...parallel both religions through the use of saints and Biblical figures converted into the pagan mythos of the Roman tradition, and sell everybody on the idea that no great changes were needed in order to merge.

This was done in stages, by converting Roman gods to "Christian saints" that could occupy the same affections in both the hearts of pagans and the allegiances of at least nominal "Christians." That sort of syncretistic activity was to become typical of the Catholics...as you see illustrated by their many and various "saints" declared in various cultures around the world, each intended to placate locals that their "gods" were being integrated into Catholicism. One might think of "Santa Muerte" or the various black madonnas of South and Central America, or the crazy French and aboriginal "saints" like Anne de Beaupre and Kateri Tekakwitha in Catholic Canada.

Theyr'e still doing it. They're not being Christian. They're being Christo-pagan. And such compromises simply cannot be made.

[Atla]

A "master metaphysician" will understand that there were 10000 gods and they all gave people different impressions. So we can confidently start with throwing out all religious, divine subjective impressions and just look at the (beyond reasonable doubt) objective. You won't get far by simply trying to intuit the higher senses using wishful thinking, instead it's about trying to compare the mathemathical likelihoods of all possible realities that you can think of, comparing them using some system, and trying to find the most likely realities and then looking at what those could possibly mean to us. Well I did the above and I have bad news for you guys. Actually I would now advise people to stop looking for the truth.

If the topic is “What would a master metaphysician say about man’s life and awareness; about meaning & value; and about the essence of religion (in its better aspect)”, I am uncertain if your extremely limited and limiting view of what is at stake would have predominance.

This is where my critique of that position most notable among those who write here (anti-Christian, anti-religious, anti-metaphysical, to describe it generally) has its starting point. I very much agree that the topic of metaphysics is a fraught one, and the consideration of supernaturalism is an almost impossible thought to entertain given the power of a dominant reign of thought and perspective, and yet it is metaphysical ideas that make man man.

One idea that I found valuable and illustrative is what Richard Weaver wrote:

Witches on the Heath: Abandoning the Transcendentals

Like Macbeth, Western man made an evil decision, which has become the efficient and final cause of other evil decisions. Have we forgotten our encounter with the witches on the heath? It occurred in the late fourteenth century, and what the witches said to the protagonist of this drama was that man could realize himself more fully if he would only abandon his belief in the existence of transcendentals. The powers of darkness were working subtly, as always, and they couched this proposition in the seemingly innocent form of an attack upon universals. The defeat of logical realism in the great medieval debate was the crucial event in the history of Western culture; from this flowed those acts which issue now in modern decadence.

One may be accused here of oversimplifying the historical process, but I take the view that the conscious policies of men and governments are not mere rationalizations of what has been brought about by unaccountable forces. They are rather deductions from our most basic ideas of human destiny, and they have a great, though not unobstructed, power to determine our course.

For this reason I turn to William of Occam as the best representative of a change which came over man’s conception of reality at this historic juncture. It was William of Occam who propounded the fateful doctrine of nominalism, which denies that universals have a real existence. His triumph tended to leave universal terms mere names serving our convenience. The issue ultimately involved is whether there is a source of truth higher than, and independent of, man; and the answer to the question is decisive for one’s view of the nature and destiny of humankind. The practical result of nominalist philosophy is to banish the reality which is perceived by the intellect and to posit as reality that which is perceived by the senses. With this change in the affirmation of what is real, the whole orientation of culture takes a turn, and we are on the road to modern empiricism.

It is easy to be blind to the significance of a change because it is remote in time and abstract in character. Those who have not discovered that world view is the most important thing about a man, as about the men composing a culture, should consider the train of circumstances which have with perfect logic proceeded from this. The denial of universals carries with it the denial of everything transcending experience. The denial of everything transcending experience means inevitably—though ways are found to hedge on this—the denial of truth.

With the denial of objective truth there is no escape from the relativism of “man the measure of all things.” The witches spoke with the habitual equivocation of oracles when they told man that by this easy choice he might realize himself more fully, for they were actually initiating a course which cuts one off from reality. Thus began the “abomination of desolation” appearing today as a feeling of alienation from all fixed truth.

My view is that what is seen with the eye is what the ‘senses’ alone perceive as real. But what is seen through the eye is (as I endlessly repeat) everything touching on value & meaning.

Therefore I conclude: there is something defective in the way you see. Certain ideas have got their hold on you and they limit what can enter your consciousness through ‘the doors of perception’. Taken to the final end, predicated from the beginning, you destroy the intelligible. You cut off ‘the conceptual pathway’ to a realm of the real which in non-sensual. The mere “eye” cannot see it. Only the intellect (as intellectus) can and does.

Nevertheless I agree with you: the zone of what is intelligible in man — in you and me and more especially in you (who have no natural saintedness as does Alexis Jacobi in his manifestation as The Hyperborean Apollo) — has become a confusing zone of pollution of influences and distorted symbols.

This in my view turns back to an important idea about man’s imagination and that interior screen where his sense of reality is “played”.

So the ‘recovery’ of man, a man’s recovery of his own self, and the purification of perception, obviously become crucial.

None of this has or can have any meaning for you Atla and I know this. It is simply put non-intelligible to you.

I can hardly think of something more unmanly than using the "intellect" for this self-important, delusional activity of intuiting things that aren't there.

Anyway stake is irrelevant, self-realization is irrelevant.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I can hardly think of something more unmanly than using the "intellect" for this self-important, delusional activity of intuiting things that aren't there.

Anyway stake is irrelevant, self-realization is irrelevant.

Since you can hardly think, it is fitting.

I condescend to speak down to you. I expressed clear ideas uniquely relevant to our present & future. You stopped for a second, you twitched your antennae, but intellectual cockroach that you are, you captured none of it.

Scamper away then! Infest thither.

[More truthfully: thank you. You are perfect for all of this].

[Atla]

I can hardly think of something more unmanly than using the "intellect" for this self-important, delusional activity of intuiting things that aren't there.

Anyway stake is irrelevant, self-realization is irrelevant.

Since you can hardly think, it is fitting.

I condescend to speak down to you. I expressed clear ideas uniquely relevant to our present & future. You stopped for a second, you twitched your antennae, but intellectual cockroach that you are, you captured none of it.

Scamper away then! Infest thither.

[More truthfully: thank you. You are perfect for all of this].

Your ideas hinder a possible livable future - if that's what you meant by relevant.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Your ideas hinder a possible livable future - if that's what you meant by relevant.

Oh? Demonstrate that by describing exactly why that is.

All ideals and indeed idealism is metaphysical.

Instead of lazily making bold pronouncements, fill out your ideas so they are convincing and influencing.

[Atla]

Your ideas hinder a possible livable future - if that's what you meant by relevant.

Oh? Demonstrate that by describing exactly why that is.

All ideals and indeed idealism is metaphysical.

Instead of lazily making bold pronouncements, fill out your ideas so they are convincing and influencing.

Losing ourselves in your insane metaphysical crap is the last thing humanity needs when we are facing very real dangers in the real world that threaten our continued existence, obviously. We can't afford to move towards more delusion.

It's rich btw that you ask me to demonstrate something and accuse me of lazily making bold announcments when not demonstrating anything and lazily making bold announcments is the only thing I've ever seen you do. It's what dumb schizos do who are losing their connection with reality. You actually imagine that you're being convincing, but all you're doing is looking for old texts that will agree with your psychosis. This isn't the Middle Ages where we can brainwash the peasants with any old metaphysical crap we've made up, we can't bring those times back.