I wish to dedicate this post to our own Iambiguous and in the hope that Glorious Isis will round up all the pieces of his scattered and fractured Self and mend them all back together.
attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Nov 14, 2023 10:39 pmYes, I agree. I think everyone is going a bit hard on the chap in question, over-diagnosis!
The issue at play is really different. It is hard to state it plainly but I will make the effort. Unfortunately I will have to name names but doing so I do not mean to rouse conflict but, as I always say, to try to get closer to a position of *understanding*. We are living now in a maddened present. And not only can we observe maddened individuals acting madly, but we too are part of the same problem. And what is that problem? It arises, I am coming to understand, from the breakdown in agreements --
metaphysical agreements. I see it as Nietzsche explained it: the erasure of the *horizon* in which man lived. That is to say in a *world* that made sense and with a philosophical, religious and existential outlook that made sense to him, that he could *believe in*.
Waldo Frank wrote about the *dying body of Europe* in this sense and he meant the psychic body. When the certainties were erased, when everything was turned upside-down, man lost his bearings, and when a man loses his bearings he begins to lose himself. I think that Iambiguous expresses and also exemplifies this *condition*. That is, of being fractured and in a dissolving state. Obviously this is a condition of nihilistic postmodernism and we are all *outcomes* of these processes.
That means that we are living in a diseased condition. Turning back to Waldo Frank he proposed that in a dying body -- he referred to
inanition, suffering a lack of nourishment -- that the dying or dead body is anything but inactive. In fact it lights up with all sorts of processes related to decay. Each cell (a metaphor of an atomized person, soul or self) still contains life vitality, but is separated now from the holistic body that once contained him. Separated from his relationship to a whole and to shared, agreed-upon life-processes. I was struck by the power of the metaphor when I first read it.
I propose that every *dying* self in our strange present, struggles with semi-conscious knowledge of his moribund condition. Even if you are dying you still have to carry on as if you are not, and as if life goes on. One will tend to normalize the condition or try to become comfortable within it. What other choice do we have? We can understand this from many different angles. For example nationally. Here I speak of America but I believe similar processes go on everywhere. The glue that binds the social and cultural body begins to come undone. There is evident a strange, pained hysteria as maddened people who do not understand what is happening to them, act out their madness as social-emotional rehearsals. It is like a troubled teenager who acts out an internal conflict by self-cutting. I will only make
the allusion to a condition of soul sickness. You will get what I mean or perhaps you won't. But it seems clear to me.
With the loss of metaphysical ground, and the rise of unconsciously lived nihilistic response, people strive for neurotic *solutions*. But there are no solutions. Because the larger holistic body is in a moribund process. How can one realize that, responsibly, and somehow avoid being one of those who act it out as if in a living existential theatre?
There are two people who write here and who are deeply involved in this *conversation* that I can mention here to some advantage: Immanuel Can and Lacewing. I can include others, and I could also include myself since I am, as we all are, deeply involved in this *problem*. But for the sake of my point I will refer to these two. They are locked in spiritual and intellectual struggle. They are in a *fight* and a conflict and seem not to be able to arrive at am *agreement*. Why is this? Ostensibly, it appears that Lacewing is in acute rebellion against her own Christian formation in some sort of evangelical Christian community. It constrained her; it did her harm; it stunted growth; and she had to transcend its limiting influence.
Immanuel on the other hand remains ensconced within that structure out of which Lacewing had to break free of. Not only can Immanuel not understand Lacewing's *jail-break* (as it were) he is involved in a cultural and religious movement that seeks to *restore* man's relationship to those ideals and ethics, borne of religious philosophy, that deeply informs Europe. It is, for him, a life-and-death issue and a stark choice. One either aligns oneself with the *current* (so to speak) that is life itself -- Jesus Christ as the *cup* the *spring* and *the living water* -- or one sets oneself on a path of death. These ideas are deeply interwoven with religious and metaphysical symbolism or, if you will, a sort of spiritual science.
What I try to do -- standing as *witness* to the personal conflict that in fact expresses a far larger and wider ideological and metaphysical conflict -- is to present a way of seeing the essential struggle in somewhat different terms. For that reason -- and perhaps stupidly (?) -- through a reference to the Platonic Cave. So in this model Lacewing and Immanuel are down there is a *pit* where vision is impaired and where all these personal issues intrude and complicate the conflict. They believe that they are in profound and irreconcilable conflict. And perhaps if we see their struggle applied to the *outside world*, perhaps we have no choice but to entertain the idea of *irreconcilable differences*.
Personally, I have resolved a great deal of the conflict and contradiction in everything we have been discussing as religious and Christian by a sort of intellectual manoeuvre of *ascent* to a level or layer above the fray. I suggest that that gives me a vantage and an advantage that both Lacewing and Immanuel cannot seem to attain. Immanuel because he is locked into a *absolutist* position, and oddly Lacewing because she too, in her strange way, holds to a contrarian absolutism.