Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Mar 28, 2023 3:02 amI see desperate mortals hoping the universe will cut them a break. But I see a universe where them getting a break has more to do with random chance than with anything coming out of kneeling in prayer. I see them in a Church originally founded by the priestly caste of what was a brutal empire in its day. I see the main principles of that church emphasizing servitude and obedience. I see those principles as primarily serving the needs of the emperors of that empire. I see a cross bearing the likeness of a human who was slain for little more reason than annoying the clergy of his day, who called upon the soldiers of that brutal empire to carry out that merciless act on their behalf.
I wish I could see something truly magical or miraculous in it. But I mostly see ugliness, manipulation, and greed on the part of those doing the manipulating.
Am I wrong?
One of the terms I often refer to is *angle of view* -- the angle from which something is viewed. If I have learned anything over the years, and perhaps more in the last years, it is that the description of something is a formulation that arises to express a narrative function which encapsulates ideological predicates. When I was at that particular church yesterday I had forgotten that beside the main church (Iglesia de San Francisco) there is that devotional chamber the walls of which are blackened with candle smoke from generations of worship. The image is surprisingly successful (speaking from a photographer's perspective) and at the same time I find it ironic that at the upper left there is a surveillance camera! The lighting of course makes the shot -- nearly perfect chiaroscuro!
I would say that you cannot be wrong in your analysis, and you are certainly right, but as always there are other perspectives which modify the harshness of your view which is also not a little "Marxian" if it is fair to put it like that. But it needs to be said that on this forum there is a strong tendency to deal in reductionist and binary narratives so that one team takes up one side of a critical argument in an idea-war against their dread adversaries. And from where I sit that sort of argumentative conflict does not lead to interesting outcomes. Yet what I will say, and I say this as a non-Catholic and indeed non-Christian Northerner who resides in a Catholic country (which is falling away from a soundly grounded devotion in ways that are starkly, and absurdly, postmodern) that I cannot help but see how disempowering is the metaphysical structure those worshippers are enthralled by. So I see broken down people, insufficiently educated, certainly impoverished and bound to economies of poverty (often through their mental attitude) who are, indeed, putting all their hopes in an otherworld solution. Frankly there is something pathetic in the poor, impoverished Catholic true-believer.
Protestantism has to some degree surmounted the Catholic trap through a re-conception of Jesus and the Holy Spirit as active agents in a constructive life and this opposed with what has been noted of Catholic attitude and iconography: a fixation on death and an after-life. A
postponement because the conditions of life are intolerable. The Catholic tends to apathetically accept corruption and rot, breakdown and ruin, and to get along with it. It is a strange observation to make but the breakdown of impoverished Catholics is manifest in their bodies, physically. It has occurred to me that after many generations the physical product is a weakened, sickly creature who though pathetic and even *useless* demands to be humanly loved and respected.
One of the trends that I have noted, the observation of which has played a part in my own discourse in this thread, is what I have termed 'the return to life' and the 'return to the body' that resulted from the rejection of both Catholicism and Christianity generally. I noticed it quite strongly when reading André Gide's novels. They are complex manifestations of the rejection of an entire metaphysical attitude. On one hand I recognize the good sense of this. We actually have no choice in the matter since we are all, to one degree or another, involved in that current of return to life and, necessarily, to the body (physical, incarnated life on this sole plane of manifestation). I must acknowledge that I have interpreted Dubious through this lens and he seems a particularly good example of the rejection of *debilitating metaphysics*.
It simply had to come about: the Death of God, though this is really a complex metaphor, meant that inevitably one could do nought else but return to the only real evidentiary plane: this world and ourselves in it. When one snapped out of the phantasy and the dream, even when one did not realize one had done that, one turned back to manifest life as the sole platform for the living of it.
Otherworlds disappeared. Both Heaven and Hell were boarded up. Or they went *poof!*
To say that God had died is to admit that all that
overworld, and
upperworld, and
underworld, would no longer be conceived as real and important. What matters is this world
and you in it. Then, instead of an existential ideology of escapism, there opened up the entire domain, indeed the possibility, of living a fulsome life in a healthy body, enjoying all that life had to offer, which means of course sensual life in all its dimensions.
For this reason -- these reasons -- I think it relevant to try to locate and explain why, for example, the strange fanatic apologetic obsessions of our own Immanuel Can simply cannot
convince people anymore. True, that people are still linked or sometimes "bound" (or enthralled) to the former metaphysical
imago, but what is the most interesting is that as one metaphysics collapses that the breakdown is both absurd and tragic. If one loses one's 'metaphysical certainty' one is in a world that one can no longer describe. If one cannot describe existence one is, really, subsumed in it and perhaps 'lost' in it. If you are lost you are adrift -- floating about on the surface of existential water in a vessel impulsed by non-intelligible forces. Let's be frank: most people, and even perhaps we ourselves, cannot exist and cannot adequately carry on without a defining mythos.
But we all know this: If there is no longer any explanation for Life there is no Order. Or if there is no Order there is no explanation possible. What then?