Philosophy Now Forum

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2024 9:29 am Crickets?

I was eating lunch, FART SMELLER!

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2024 9:39 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2024 9:29 am Crickets?

I was eating lunch, FART SMELLER!

OK. You've had your giggle. You're welcome.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2024 8:28 am

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2024 8:27 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2024 7:58 amIt's OK. I'm sure you can be tolerated as well as homosexuals can. What other choice do I have?

I don't care about Tolerance. I'm not a Liberal.

I saw your other thread, Gary. Man up. Peace is for women and children. Men should be in a perpetual state of war and chaos. Men *ARE* in such a state. The only peace you should covet in life, is after hard-won battles, when your body and brain can move no further.

Well, I'll still tolerate you, even though you're a blockhead. .

Since we cannot expect any kind of Intellect or Philosophy from the likes of Hairball, here's another addition to your thread Alexis:
(https://rumble.com/v4omtt8-tucker-vs-israel.html)

In this analysis, Nick Fuentes reviews the recent interview by Tucker Carlsen of a Palestinian Christian, about the attacks and murders of Christian Palestinians since Oct. 7th, which are swept under the rug by Western Media, and Apologized from American "Protestants". Obviously, Protestantism is barely "Christian" at all, and these types of interviews signal what the actual 'Christian' core is. The interview mentions that American Evangelicals are barred and illegalized, American Protestants cannot enter Israel and evangelize their religion.

Meanwhile, American Protestants bend-over backward for their Jewish and Israeli masters.

Imagine being so spineless, that Jews are murdering your Christian brethren, and Western "Christians" apologize, bend, kneel, roll over on their backs...for Israel and Zionism.


It demonstrates the power that Israel has over America, Protestants, the British, and the West in general.

Just another 'Central' aspect of the issues of Christian Civilization.

It's obvious that Protestantism cannot withstand Postmodernity in USA or Britain. The British, the weak-willed, Hairballs are already being invaded and converted to Islam. English culture is being destroyed, while Hairball stands idly by, ignorant, foolish, unable to respond or present any meaningful critiques. England is finished; it will not survive the Moslem incursion.

USA still has spiritual strength though; it just needs a centralization of the Christian Faith. And no more Protestant Heresy....

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2024 10:37 am USA still has spiritual strength though; it just needs a centralization of the Christian Faith. And no more Protestant Heresy....

So, what would that first part look like? The centralization of Christian Faith. Are we talking about just at the individual level? Would government and the private sector be involved? if so, how? This is something I have been trying to get clear about in relation to AJ's position and/or the people he is quoting.

I understand that your view would be yours and not necessarily AJ's, so I'm not expecting your answer to be for anyone else, but how would the US look after a centralization of the Christian Faith? What would be different? And concrete examples would help.

Given that you consider Protestantism a heresy, this centralization of the Christian Faith would presumably be Catholic. What would happen in relation to the Protestantism and other religions? Would there be changes in relation to Church and State and so on?

Religious affiliation in the United States, per Gallup, Inc. (2022)[1]

Protestantism (34%)
Catholicism (23%)
Non-specific Christian (11%)
Mormonism (2%)
Judaism (2%)
Other religions (6%)
Unaffiliated with organized forms of religion (21%)
No answer (1%)

Note the above is statistics related to number of active believers of the various religions.

I just don't know how to even interpret Wiz's posts. They almost look like irony or a reductio ad absurdum.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2024 6:08 am Any clarification for how you see the CC being central would give better context for me of the thread topic. Are we thinking just that the idea is that the core metaphysical idea that you think is key should be widely adopted, however it comes to people, perhaps through Hinduism or Sufism, perhaps through the CC? Or must it come through the CC? Are we thinking that the CC and thus the Vatican becomes central in Western nations and in what sense? Many people join the church and it becomes the dominant religion? Is it connected to the state?

I realize that you may mostly be looking at what is lacking now and you think we need, and your focus in own your own sense you or we need to reconnect to something as individuals - some of what you wrote in the OP. On the other hand the thread says Christian civilization and the people you tend to quote seem to have a society wide focus and how we can restore society. I'm unclear about what is being proposed/hoped for here.

The Dawson quote, and his book (written I should add in 1960), speaks of Christianity and the metaphysical traditions of Christianity as holding the transforming potential he favors and believes in. His book is an analysis of the phases of Christian civilizion and as well the Christianization of Europe as a process -- indeed one on-going. The crux of his position is there: Europe is a Christian civilization even if it is in a phase of rejection of it or of the obscurement of what in reality it really is.

Since it is not a book of theology and of recommended practices I have made some effort to describe what I think the *essence* of the solution is -- since I do accept Dawson's assertions -- yet to speak of solutions requires an outline of what the problems are. And none of this is easy, and all of it is controversial in the present atmosphere of contempt for Christianity -- as it is played out on this forum and where exponents of modern philosophical positions explain why they hate it and why they can believe in none of its metaphysics. I have participated in this, and during the last phase of my appearance here (a year and a half?) I have engaged in an internal process of grappling with the gist of the problem. That is to say spiritually. We must take into consideration all pertaining to The Culture Wars since what we are speaking about has immediate relevancy to what is going on immediately around us. When I use the pronoun *we* to refer to our general problem, our situation, and to we as outcomes of historical and cultural processes, I am speaking of course to a generality, an historical person. And *we* are very much in the struggles that revolve around the core problem.

Certainly I have made it clear that I believe that it is crucial that we understand what is the very basis of our civilization. That is because my own background is in the liberal arts education tradition -- you know, the Great Books. I am not less convinced but more convinced that if I am going to define *renovation* at a personal and cultural level that it is education that must be at the core. And it is my view that it is also crucial to understand the Christianization of Europe and what I refer to as Greco-Christianity. Am I merely describing what I have been through myself? and my own conclusions and choices? Yes, certainly. But I also think it is fair for me to say that I have zeroed in on something essential.

And that is why I did describe to you one of the essences: the need, the requirement I suppose, of understanding the conceptual notion of a *higher metaphysics* as something real and as a realness. I start with the conceptual because we are beings who think intellectually. But there is, obviously, that other dimension which has to do with more than mere concept but with the realness of a being -- here I introduce God -- that is understood (within Christianity) to be the Father of all created beings. That is, the being from which all souls have their birth. Now Christianity zeroes in on this with varying degrees of absolutism, right? You can believe in that being in a general sense sort of as a Grand Idea ... or you actually become a devotee and a disciple of that being in a very real sense. The sense of faith-relationship.

So I begin with a declaration: to the degree that we separate ourselves from the concept of a metaphysical reality and the notion of higher metaphysics and higher values; and the degree to which we separate ourselves from a realness of relationship to God, is the degree to which we fall into The Problem which I attempt to identify. Have I arrived at this conclusion because I noted what happened to me as an outcome of those processes I define as California Radicalism? Well, that is certainly true. But here is an added bit of information: the process that I have gone through, and what it has led me to, is a process that many millions are confronting and going through: it is a cultural and it is a civilizational process. And if there is now a manifestation of a will to -- what is the right metaphor? -- cut through the miasma and get to the real core of both problem and solution, it is that cultural process that I align myself with. But all of that -- how it is conceived -- is a knotty mess.

So we must see that socially and culturally one of the core questions, maybe the most salient, has to do with how to restore health to society that is understood by some (by many) as *careening out of control*. And you are certainly aware, aren't you? that we have recently been discussing what a faction (the faction I identify with) sees as social sickness that results from spiritual sickness.

I realize that you may mostly be looking at what is lacking now and you think we need, and your focus in own your own sense you or we need to reconnect to something as individuals -- some of what you wrote in the OP. On the other hand the thread says Christian civilization and the people you tend to quote seem to have a society wide focus and how we can restore society. I'm unclear about what is being proposed/hoped for here.

What I made an effort to point out and present was expressed in Dawson's ideas about the Sixth Phase of European Christianity. That is, the one that we are now in. Do you think that I am here as a theological apologist with specific recommendations for an individual? No, that cannot be right. And neither can it be said that I fully understand *what is needed* except that I have a strong intuited sense and, obviously, a good deal of backgrounding in my own research and reading. Is this insufficient as *an answer* to your question and to The Question -- it might well be. But at the very least I have expressed what I consider to be the central issue, the core issue.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2024 6:08 amIt is relevant. It goes back to your saying that any organization will have the kinds of problems I was pointing out. But this is a different kind of organization, making very different kinds of claims about its role, nature and members.

Let's identify one of the main problems: the abuse by some priests of their authority (their supposed alignment with God and as God's representatives) to manipulate kids and to abuse them sexually.

But if this abuse of authority exists (which is extremely pernicious and the abusers should have been hung or should have hung themselves) it is clear that it could extend to other areas, and certainly it does. But this has not been an area of my research though I have heard of it (the Vatican Bank corruption issue for example). I also am aware that there are issues around the demands of a celibate clergy on the individual. Does that in itself create a sickness that is expressed in abuse of children? Would there be no problem, or less of one, if priest did marry and have families? Perhaps.

But the concept of one who weds themselves to a supernatural power, and serves that power, is the idea behind it, as well as the shunning of these earthly attachments which, early on, were associated with the apostles -- at the least the concept must be understood. I know the Orthodox Church deals differently with the issue.

In any case, there are nuances to the entire issue. See here.

Once you have an organizing whose metaphysics includes the presentation of that organization to its members and the rest of the public in that way, this affects potential problems having that organization be central in society. Some this includes that its members will not consider it open to criticism in the same ways other organizations are open to criticism. That such criticism are per se false and worse, potentially evil just for challenging that organizations and those in certain roles in that organization. Should such an organization become central in power, such problems might be extreme as they have been in earlier periods in that organizations history. Given the topic this is all relevant. And even if you disagree, this is how many people will view the idea of the CC becoming central again, which was one of the issues you thought was important. Why would there be/is there resistance.

The specific issue of corruption in the Church has not been an area of focus for me. I am aware of it though. I am aware as well that it is a large concern for those who consider themselves traditional Catholics and who are critical, often scathingly, of the institutional failure to address these issues.

My focus has been on the soundness of the metaphysics, if I can put it that way, and the soundness of the practice of Catholicism for an individual. Frankly, it is an extremely demanding spiritual path when one examines the traditional materials. I mean pre-Vatican ll material. I have been reading the Baltimore Catechism and I have to say that, at points, I react against its authoritative absolutism. But it is, and Christianity is, a religion based in absolutist concepts.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2024 6:08 amIt is relevant. It goes back to your saying that any organization will have the kinds of problems I was pointing out. But this is a different kind of organization, making very different kinds of claims about its role, nature and members.

Let's identify one of the main problems: the abuse by some priests of their authority (their supposed alignment with God and as God's representatives) to manipulate kids and to abuse them sexually.

But if this abuse of authority exists (which is extremely pernicious and the abusers should have been hung or should have hung themselves) it is clear that it could extend to other areas, and certainly it does. But this has not been an area of my research though I have heard of it (the Vatican Bank corruption issue for example). I also am aware that there are issues around the demands of a celibate clergy on the individual. Does that in itself create a sickness that is expressed in abuse of children? Would there be no problem, or less of one, if priest did marry and have families? Perhaps.

But the concept of one who weds themselves to a supernatural power, and serves that power, is the idea behind it, as well as the shunning of these earthly attachments which, early on, were associated with the apostles -- at the least the concept must be understood. I know the Orthodox Church deals differently with the issue.

In any case, there are nuances to the entire issue. See here.

Once you have an organizing whose metaphysics includes the presentation of that organization to its members and the rest of the public in that way, this affects potential problems having that organization be central in society. Some this includes that its members will not consider it open to criticism in the same ways other organizations are open to criticism. That such criticism are per se false and worse, potentially evil just for challenging that organizations and those in certain roles in that organization. Should such an organization become central in power, such problems might be extreme as they have been in earlier periods in that organizations history. Given the topic this is all relevant. And even if you disagree, this is how many people will view the idea of the CC becoming central again, which was one of the issues you thought was important. Why would there be/is there resistance.

The specific issue of corruption in the Church has not been an area of focus for me. I am aware of it though. I am aware as well that it is a large concern for those who consider themselves traditional Catholics and who are critical, often scathingly, of the institutional failure to address these issues.

My focus has been on the soundness of the metaphysics, if I can put it that way, and the soundness of the practice of Catholicism for an individual. Frankly, it is an extremely demanding spiritual path when one examines the traditional materials. I mean pre-Vatican ll material. I have been reading the Baltimore Catechism and I have to say that, at points, I react against its authoritative absolutism. But it is, and Christianity is, a religion based in absolutist concepts.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2024 12:41 pm I just don't know how to even interpret Wiz's posts. They almost look like irony or a reductio ad absurdum.

Well he's a complete idiot, if that gives you a perspective from which to make your interpretation.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2024 12:30 pmSo, what would that first part look like? The centralization of Christian Faith. Are we talking about just at the individual level? Would government and the private sector be involved? if so, how? This is something I have been trying to get clear about in relation to AJ's position and/or the people he is quoting.

Because Anglo-Protestants are hung-up and resentful of Catholics and Catholicism, the US will almost certainly continue into widescale debauchery, decay, social disorder, chaos, strife, paranoia, hysteria, and a general break-down of Western Civilization. This will force a religious reckoning and centering. It might come from a Protestant sect most similar to Catholicism, like Mormons who have a powerful stronghold in Utah and deep inside the Rocky Mountains. They control their own politicians. So something like Mormonism might be the one in position to takeover when things fall apart. Catholicism is dominant among the Latin Americans.

I don't know exactly what form this 'Centralized' religion and Church would take, in the New World, but there are many reasons and causes that it must follow in the footsteps of the rise of the Catholic Church, faith, and tradition, when the Roman Empire rose to its Apex, and fell into social decay.

History is repeating almost verbatim to 2000 years ago, at this point. Empires seem to rise and fall in the same, or very similar ways.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2024 12:30 pmI understand that your view would be yours and not necessarily AJ's, so I'm not expecting your answer to be for anyone else, but how would the US look after a centralization of the Christian Faith? What would be different? And concrete examples would help.

Given that you consider Protestantism a heresy, this centralization of the Christian Faith would presumably be Catholic. What would happen in relation to the Protestantism and other religions? Would there be changes in relation to Church and State and so on?

Yes, I think the US Constitution would be altered, or destroyed, as it is now alluded to by rumors and speculation of "civil war". The separation of Church and State would end. Because the State would fail in such a way unable to compete with the rise of a new, powerful, centralized religion, in the US. And this would rise, because of the failures of the State to protect Patrilineal families and heredity.

The State (US) cannot protect American families and children—just the opposite, as the "Liberal World Order" openly promotes what I've repeated: child genital mutilation, human sacrifice, castrations, homosexual marriages, transexual marriages, promotion of pedophilia, etc.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 10:10 am I don't know exactly what form this 'Centralized' religion and Church would take, in the New World, but there are many reasons and causes that it must follow in the footsteps of the rise of the Catholic Church, faith, and tradition, when the Roman Empire rose to its Apex, and fell into social decay.

If my memory is correct, you're not a theist. You respect the church, the CC at least, but you're not a believer. You respect the moral traditions and see these as necessary, but the mythology, rituals, God are not part of your beliefs. Correct me if I'm wrong. So, I wonder why there can't be a secular solution, that leads to people respecting those values you do, without the addition of the Church itself as an organization in the center.

Now my guess is something like this (and you may have said things that lead me to this guess): you think that most people need those supernatural beliefs for the values to take hold and be adhered to, while you don't. But as long as we are thinking about remaking society from the bottom up (or top down), why not think of educating people in such a way that they don't need those aspects of the belief system?

This is an openended question and if I misrepresented you, let me know. I'm not against those kinds of beliefs, per se, it's more in the context of your disbelief that I ask about them.

Yes, I think the US Constitution would be altered, or destroyed, as it is now alluded to by rumors and speculation of "civil war". The separation of Church and State would end. Because the State would fail in such a way unable to compete with the rise of a new, powerful, centralized religion, in the US. And this would rise, because of the failures of the State to protect Patrilineal families and heredity.

The State (US) cannot protect American families and children—just the opposite, as the "Liberal World Order" openly promotes what I've repeated: child genital mutilation, human sacrifice, castrations, homosexual marriages, transexual marriages, promotion of pedophilia, etc.

How would the various religions manage to accept whatever religion rises to the top? Mormons make up a small and regional percentage of religious people. Protestants are the largest subgroup. How does this get worked out and given the extreme views that the different religious people have about each other (and even a history of wars over this). They view each other often as heretics. Not so much with liberal religious people, but with conservative religious people, the differences are not trivial but are central. How does this get resolve?

And then how are we protected from former abuses of power by dominant religious organizations. Long before the current woke situation, people rebelled against church power, even strongly religious people. Secular society developed out of a rejection of the kind of power the church had (any of them) long before most of the issues you complain about. How do you get secular and religious people to accept a turning back of the clock?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 11:00 amIf my memory is correct, you're not a theist. You respect the church, the CC at least, but you're not a believer. You respect the moral traditions and see these as necessary, but the mythology, rituals, God are not part of your beliefs. Correct me if I'm wrong. So, I wonder why there can't be a secular solution, that leads to people respecting those values you do, without the addition of the Church itself as an organization in the center.

Now my guess is something like this (and you may have said things that lead me to this guess): you think that most people need those supernatural beliefs for the values to take hold and be adhered to, while you don't. But as long as we are thinking about remaking society from the bottom up (or top down), why not think of educating people in such a way that they don't need those aspects of the belief system?

This is an openended question and if I misrepresented you, let me know. I'm not against those kinds of beliefs, per se, it's more in the context of your disbelief that I ask about them.

There are aspects about 'God' that I do agree with the CC about though, namely that 'He' represents the Fatherly-Father type of Patronage, the Family of Families, the top of all social hierarchies. Furthermore, God is transcendent of time, and therefore not constricted to mere-politics of the modern time and place. Thus, God is Transcendental, Past Present and Future.

There are aspects of religion which cannot be secularized, particularly, the requirement for Blind-Faith. It's not up to the masses to be 'logically and rationally' compelled and persuaded into the Catholic faith and orthodoxy. You are also presuming a great deal of IQ to the masses, that they simply do not have. If you want a cow to join the flock, do you read to it from a book, or do you perform simple magic tricks and music that its simplicity can understand? There are many degrees of Dogma and Mysticism which are necessary, and why religions are so pervasive and all-encompassing in the first place.

Understanding is not a high priority. Mysticism works because it moves the masses in ways that "The Science" or "Enlightened Rationality" never could...and still does not, to this day. How do Atheists compel a nation to move? Threat of force? Whips? Brutal torture and killing? At gunpoint? ...never through "Love" or anything positive, surely? So why do religions, namely Christianity, have a monopoly on "Love"?

Education ought to be, and already is, reserved for the philosophers and intellectuals: Plato's Academy.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 11:00 amHow would the various religions manage to accept whatever religion rises to the top? Mormons make up a small and regional percentage of religious people. Protestants are the largest subgroup. How does this get worked out and given the extreme views that the different religious people have about each other (and even a history of wars over this). They view each other often as heretics. Not so much with liberal religious people, but with conservative religious people, the differences are not trivial but are central. How does this get resolve?

They have to fight it out, obviously. I think that religious, conservative, traditional institutions, which provide the best security and defense, against the Religious-Left, will win out over time. All they need is time, really, and their Churches will win out demographically from their birth rates alone.

Moslems and Islam do this in Europe, right now. They are winning-out demographically, and will eventually become Democratic majorities, in European countries (like England and France).

What do you think will happen, when that does occur?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 11:00 amAnd then how are we protected from former abuses of power by dominant religious organizations. Long before the current woke situation, people rebelled against church power, even strongly religious people. Secular society developed out of a rejection of the kind of power the church had (any of them) long before most of the issues you complain about. How do you get secular and religious people to accept a turning back of the clock?

Since this all seems to be one great repetition of History, Secularists will once again need to Protest the centralized Church and Authority.

They already do, against the State, so I don't see why it'd be a problem against the Church.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2024 6:08 am On the other hand the thread says Christian civilization and the people you tend to quote seem to have a society wide focus and how we can restore society. I'm unclear about what is being proposed/hoped for here.

You have indicated that you are unclear about what is *proposed* but the real essence of the question hinges in something far more difficult and much more central, but it is something that -- here on this forum -- is next to impossible to discuss and even more impossible for people, in our present dispensation and state of things, to believe in and accept. And I will make an effort to describe *it* since it is the very essence of the Christian position.

From a Catholic theological standpoint there are three levels in man and to man's existence. His natural situation as a creature with mind, a body and a mind capable of surviving and building; and as well a creature with a natural reasoning capability. But there is a third element that is part-and-parcel of the created world and yet is supernatural to it. All earth creatures exist within the order of nature and are determined by that order. Only man has this reasoning faculty and yet this is still part of the natural order because other animals reason in their way, as a weaker reflection of man's reason. But only man can conceive of whatever it is we mean, and we mean so many different things, when we speak of *God* which is one of the most slippery language terms for reasons most here can grasp easily.

In the Christian concept what is referred to as Sanctifying Grace is, to put it in typical terms, God's gift to man. And Grace is considered to be a state that really & truly separates man from both nature and (so-called) beast. It is God-given Grace therefore that is what is sought, let's say, by choosing a spiritual path and a path that has rules & regulations, do's and don't do's, and a recognition and a belief in -- wait for it I know you're itching! -- the concept of *sin*. Sin as most know means only an offense before God. Offenses before God establish blocks to being in and (let's say) enjoying Grace and the State of Grace. Here, obviously, I have lost everyone, or most, who reads here. And we definitely know why this is.

We might conceive, in some vague sense, or in a deistic sense, of a *God* that (somehow) created all things. But our definition of God really has no meaning if that God does not, or has not, intervened directly and concretely in this world. And as you well know the Christian belief is that God very certainly, and very concretely, intervened in the world. Not as a metaphor, not as a likeness, not as a vague reference, but in realness. And you also know that this God -- or god-concept if you preferred a vaguer term which allows for a philosophical distance -- established very specific rules & regulations. These were defined, in Christianity, in the early days (the first and second centuries) and then developed, expanded on, perfected, by those labors of theological thought.

It is this -- the entire demanding contract -- that we are all in rebellion against. Really, if you look into it honestly you will see that it is not that Christianity is a dark inhibition against man's true becoming and realization -- this is how it is portrayed naturally (and in some sense how you portray it) -- but rather it is a path for the living of live that is hard, demanding and one that to keep oneself to that path requires constant vigilance. If you knew, and with clarity, what *mortal sins* are you would very clearly recognize why most people find it infinitely easier to commit them, and to remain in a state of mortal sin, rather than confront *sin*, rectify it, and live a very very different existence.

You and all readership here, with the possible exeption of a couple, can no longer *visualize* the God of Christianity as a real being, and you are that much less capable of believing in *sin* as the obstructing, blocking element (like a contaminating goop) that dirties the lens through with Divinity is seen, and effectively contaminated the human vehicle. So, when connect to God expressed in *Grace* and certainly *Sanctifying Grace* as conduits to the higher regions of intellectual realization (in the sense of the Latin and Catholic term intellectus) are broken and lost, man falls down into the *region* so to speak of his naturalism. And this is what Christianity and Catholicism say is the root of the problem. That is why they say *You cannot do it without God*. Man can do all sorts of incredible things, and man is doing them now, but what is intuited is that the culmination of man's efforts will result essentially in -- again wait for it! -- the creation of the machinery that is described as *the Anti-Christ*.

I say machinery because, as we all are aware, the advanced machines of our days are presented to us as the vehicles through which a form of slavery will come into our world as has never before happened nor been possible. Is all this true? How could I know? How could any of us know?

So in answer to your *question* and about *what is proposed* -- and you are aware that I am channeling Catholic notions of the Older Order -- a man, and men, have to purify themselves of those contaminants and those layers of *sin* which obstruct Grace and also which cover-over what I refer to as *our lenses of perception* of those Higher Metaphysical realities.

What Dawson is speaking about, as an historical and European Catholicism, is more or less exactly this Grace that has *entered the world* in those cycles wich had been truly Christian -- even in the most imperfect of senses! Even if it was only attained marginally! It is this -- this nexus of Christian practice and also in a general Greco-Christian relationship to ideas & ideals -- that European civilization came to be. The word *civilization* needs a clarifying definition. To lose civilization does not mean damaged highways and superstructure, it means the loss of a far higher and far more relevant relationship with supernatural, guiding realness.

And this is why I say: It can only start with the individual and in the individual. The individual must make the radical choices. The individual must assume responsibility.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 1:55 pm
And this is why I say: It can only start with the individual and in the individual. The individual must make the radical choices. The individual must assume responsibility.

You'll be pleased to know that I've made my choice, and assumed responsibility for it.