We may have created the concept of meaning — MonfortS26

Explain???

Meaninglessness only has a semantic meaning within the context of meaning itself...

In other words, meaninglessness is ultimately an apophatic way of understanding meaning. We're slowly moving towards this in the West.

I would start with The Meaning of the Creative Act if you want to get an overall sense for his ideas. (Or have you read him already?) It's his earliest work that gives a broad sense of his philosophy. It's rambling and brash, but it's brilliant.

Ah, now that's a book I haven't yet read, but want to, — John

What have you read from him? It's probably his most mystical writing, in a way. He ties creativity to a bunch of different aspects of life and the world. It can get a little bewildering, but it's incredible. A quote from that book that reflects what you're saying about intuition:

"The task of philosophy is to find the most perfect formulation for truth, perceived in intuition, and to synthesize formulae. These carry conviction by the light which shines out from them, rather than by demonstration or conclusions."

Perhaps a general telos; love, the creation of novelty or redemption perhaps? But nothing too rigid? — John

Are you asking me? I think love and redemption are certainly part of the end, I'm not sure about the creation of novelty, you'd have to expand on that. An interesting side thought is how much western culture loves great stories; novels, movies, the golden age of TV, etc...in a sense, eschatology permeates all of Western society in that way, and I wonder if our obsession with stories is descended from the Gospel. I'm not making any kind of claim, just making the observation.

I'm not sure what you mean by "a static view of consciousness" or "one unchanging consciousness" — John

I guess I was thinking if there's no evolution of consciousness, then humanity has always had the same modes of thinking; discursive reason, intuition, imagination, along with emotions, memories, sense data...and I don't think that's true. I think a lot of complex factors (many of them spiritual) lead to changes in consciousness over the course of history. So I don't really think in Teilhard's terms of consciousness being connected to material evolution.

I tend to think of the changes as ineluctably mysterious; and so I hesitate to associate them with such a loaded idea as 'evolution'. — John

This is a nuanced idea that I can entertain.

Are you thinking here of something like a shared mystical understanding? — John

Not necessarily, I was just trying to describe a mindset of accepting teleology without knowing what it will be as being a tenable position.

If you can't reconcile origins with freedom, how do you view both concepts?

Being itself clearly could not be said to not exist, so if God is being itself, then he ipso facto exists. — Thorongil

I would maybe reference Tillich's concept of God as the "ground of being", or "God above God", which is similar to Gnostic concepts of God. Not to sound banal, but we can imagine different forms of modality that we include in the word "existence". It's not hard to imagine the physical world as an "emanation" from God, and consciousness as a further emanation from the physical world; all of it imbued with a "divine spark", a memory of God, a certain essence. This doesn't mean God exists in the same way his creation does; an artist imbues the art work with the "essence" of himself, but he's not of the same order as his created work (on a mental level; obviously the artist and the artwork are both physical things).

Do you think the idea of freedom as primary is compatible with a theologically evolutionary view of spirit, though? — John

I'm working through it still, but intuitively, yes. This might sound like bad philosophy, but the two ideas taken separately both resonate in my mind, so, in my thinking, a harmonization must exist. Again, I don't place primary importance on discursive reasoning for these topics. I place a lot of emphasis on intuition. Berdyaev's critique of discursive reasoning in the first chapter of The Meaning of the Creative Act has been pretty influential for me. I think I've always intuitively felt the existence of a spiritual telos. I've always had an obsession with eschatology. I guess it depends on how we're defining these various terms; "consciousness", "spirit", "evolution"...I think of Barfield's evolution of consciousness as originating primordially in myth (the positive gnostic sense of the word), in a time when there was a spiritual unity instead of metaphor; language (imbued with a spiritual power) evolved with the birth of consciousness into a dualistic split between subject and object; primordially, there was one participatory reality, and metaphoric language signifies the first split between subject and object. To say "the spirit is a breath" or "the spirit is a wind" is to remember when they were one and the same. Barfield always seems too sheepish to actually come out and say this because he was so focused on a philological approach to the topics that interested him, instead of taking a specific religious stand. He didn't seem to want to step too far outside his specialty. Anyway, taking Berdyaev into account, these metaphors become objectifications of the spirit, as Barfield's participation begins to wane, and abstract reason begins to take shape as consciousness evolves. So, all that being said, I don't see how these concepts are deterministic. It seems like you equate any sense of origin with determinism; maybe I just don't understand the academic philosophical concepts of determinism well enough, but I see no problem with viewing an evolutionary theology as stemming from a primordial freedom. A static view of consciousness actually feels more deterministic to me; God imbued mankind with one unchanging consciousness and now he's enslaved to it unless he "accepts Jesus", or some form of the usual narrative. In this view he's basically just deterministically enslaved to God's will because he's a static being. No freedom in sight.

because freedom and creativity rely on the possibility that there are many ways the story of God and humanity may turn out. — John

This is an interesting thought that I haven't entertained before. I think there's actually wisdom in this idea that doesn't clash with the concept of a spiritual telos. There are, in a sense, many ways the story can turn out; many potential versions of a telos. You could maybe build an argument that the evolution of consciousness is pointing towards the birth of a telos, one that we don't yet know. So instead of discursively abstracting a resonable-sounding telos given the data, we can look at the evolution of consciousness and predict that "something will happen in the end", we're moving towards something, thanks to human creativity and freedom. Granted I haven't done this in this thread, I've more or less suggested my own telos. But it's an interesting idea.

The objectification of spirit that Berdyaev warns against seems to be exemplified in Steiner's notion of a 'science of anthroposophy' or 'spiritual science'. — John

Yes, and Berdyaev was critical of Steiner, and for good reason I think. Steiner remains an enigma, though...bioydynamic farming has been shown to be effective (I work in the wine industry; biodynamics has done wonders for the winemaking process, granted it's still on the fringe). My bigger concern about Steiner is that his followers seem to border on the cultish. Barfield's focus on language is what's important to me, as far as anthroposophy goes. But even Barfield's excessive admiration for Steiner feels a little off.

Yes, that is the real problem, I agree. I like Berdyaev's view of freedom as primary, the same as you're saying; he sees it as something prior even to divinity, as far as I understand. But if you take determinism at face value, as the idea that human actions are ultimately jump started by an outside force (and so at it's mercy), and if freedom is not outside the will but the foundation of it, then oppression could be seen as emanating from freedom. Seeing it this way gives meaning to oppression as a cycle. I don't see this as a problem, especially in light of ideas from people like Barfield and Teilhard de Chardin who see humanity evolving, whether strictly in consciousness (Barfield), or organically into consciousness (Teilhard).

I'm not trying to make excuses for the oppressor, but maybe I'm inadvertently doing that. The problem I keep trying to explain is simply that each of us is both oppressor and oppressed. So when we talk about the oppressed needing to forgive the oppressor, this is a non-linear process (if you will): I forgive you, you forgive me, I forgive Augustino, he forgives me, he forgives you, you forgive him...Wayfarer forgave his father, I haven't forgiven mine yet, but will in the future, etc., ad infinitum until everyone is forgiven. So I'm looking at it on at first a small scale. I'm not looking at Hitler, etc. Those are logarithmically much more massive instances of the same principle that us everyday people deal with. It's best to start existentially with myself.

True, it is an explanation that involves psychology, but it's also an intuitive conclusion, not a phenomenological or logical one. The problem here for me is that I have a hard time imagining oppression being something that repeatedly is born in different people without apparent prior cause, as if isolated incidents of oppression just pop up in the world. This is tied up with the concept of Otherness; imagining that people essentially just randomly develop evil, oppressive tendencies actually perpetuates otherness, because it's such a bizarre premise in the first place that evades any obvious explanation. This is a classic aspect of otherness; the other is evil, and there's no explanation as to why. Hegel's idea doesn't seem to address the problem of the origin of oppression. In other words, the dichotomy of oppressor and oppressed should be seen as dynamic and diffuse, not binary. So while I don't necessarily disagree with your explanations of Hegel's ideas, at least in theory, I still think we have to look at oppression as being a cycle. The question is what the root cause of the cycle is; I don't have an answer right now. But what I'm positing in this thread is that forgiveness is the antidote. I don't think this goes against the scriptures you're quoting, because again, the meek includes both oppressor and oppressed, viewed this way.

Edited for clarity.

I don't know if you are aware of Hegel's 'Master/ Slave' dialectic? — John

I'm not, thanks for the info. I pretty much agree with the concept, it's not far off from what I'm saying about forgiveness only issuing from the oppressed. The oppressed is the only one in a position of being able to offer forgiveness. To me, one of the powerful things about forgiveness in this regard is that it's an everyday concept that bridges the gap between theoretical, arm-chair ideas about oppression on the one hand, and real life on the other. Forgiveness is visceral, it's emotional in the same way that oppression itself often is.

Freedom being the recognition of one's humanity...I can get with that. I'll have to think on it. Freedom is hard to define. There's a glimmer of truth in the idea that only the oppressed can then experience freedom (whatever freedom is); but I would counter that by saying that even the oppressor is oppressed; an act of oppression is always born from oppression first experienced by the one who is now oppressing. An example is how often sexual abuse is a cycle. The abused becomes the abuser. So this is where I depart from Hegel's concept. Hegel's concept along with Marx never seem to realize this. This is one reason, Augustino, I'm in favor of a history that has a direction; these concepts to me are beginning to take shape in history. Ironically, this view of oppression leads to a more hopeful view because it defines everyone as both oppressor and oppressed, and so, if only the oppressed can experience freedom...then there's hope for a spiritual equality for all of humanity. Augustino, this answers your question about whether it's a "moral equality". I would say no, but I would ask for your definition of moral equality. And again, the apparatus by which oppression is ended is forgiveness, and since only the oppressor can offer it, in reality, this can mean essentially anyone, because again, everyone is both oppressor and oppressed. This is why the potential for this transformation of humanity lies within humanity itself, in collaboration with the divine, which needs to issue from a rediscovery of an inner spiritual life.

The symbolism of the 'apple' in the Old Testament is that it is taken from 'the tree of knowledge of good and evil'. So it represents the advent of self-consciousness — Wayfarer

That's a great interpretation that aligns with Barfield's ideas. Is that an original interpretation of yours? That idea in connection with Barfield is something I want to study.

Good thoughts on Otherness that I agree with. My main concept that I'm working through right now is that Otherness is the seed, or one of the seeds of oppression. Looking at Barfield's idea, and your idea about the Apple, you can imagine Adam and Eve (whether they historically existed being unimportant) being birthed into consciousness, and immediately, there is The Other. Male and Female. Two separate consciousnesses separated from the spiritual umbilical cord they had with God.

On the other end of the dichotomy of otherness is equality. Augustino doesn't want equality because he recognizes that different people have different levels of talent (from what I can tell); I recognize that as a simple fact, but that view will inevitably lead to commodifying people, an element in the Western consumerism you're so critical of, Augustino. Social equality as such, on a basic level (economic level) isn't achievable in the world, but the equality I'm talking about is spiritual, and this longing for spiritual equality is what fuels more complex social problems like gender equality and race equality. Otherness is, again, the antithesis to spiritual equality. Seeing a homosexual as 'the other', seeing a black person as 'the other', seeing a less talented person as 'the other', all lead to dehumanization of the subject, which leads to oppression. Their otherness is not a sinful state as traditional Christian ethics would avow, but just the opposite: viewing them as the other is what creates oppression, which leads to what Christians view as sin. Because humanity is so deeply entrenched in this dehumanizing nightmare-world, the only remedy is spiritual, and the only spiritual remedy is forgiveness, which has to be acted out by persons, not offered conditionally from on high. And what's more, the divine is present in all human acts of forgiveness. It's still forgiveness, not "from" God, but in collaboration with God. The oppressed is the only one who can do this. On a political level, the problem is that the progressive left doesn't have the inner spiritual life to bring about the equality they seem to want (to say nothing of their hypocrisies that I've mentioned). How can a new inner spiritual life be brought about in the West in order to enact these concepts? It's a dizzying prospect, but tying in Barfield's concept of the evolution of consciousness actually might bring a sense of hope to the situation; it's almost a superseding of progressive humanism in that it comes out of the godforsaken age we're in and reunites with God, reaches out the hand to God's outstretched hand.

You didn't but you presumed I would be saying that - or at least that's the impression I got from your post, my apologies if I'm wrong. — Agustino

I guess I'm reading a lot of frustration in your thoughts, which seem to also not be very sensitive to people's suffering, but it sounds like you do acknowledge it, and acknowledge that they deserve compassion. It seems like we're actually very much in agreement on a lot of these points, but we started out of the gate both from opposite spectrums somehow, like we're speaking different languages. An East/West divide maybe? Do you live in the East somewhere? Just curious. I agree with almost everything in your last post, except for

it's important to protect them from spreading and imposing their poverty on everyone else as well. — Agustino

Which sounds like a dangerous road that could lead to yet more oppression.

So, my original post was mainly about three interconnected things: Otherness, Forgiveness and the Cycle of Human Oppression (hey, that's the title!). We seem to agree on oppression, not on forgiveness...but no one in this thread so far has addressed the concept of Otherness. Any thoughts? Anyone?

Yeah me too! — Agustino

Broad vs. too broad. ;)

It's not many who rebel against legalism within societies/places where legalism still holds sway. — Agustino

True!

But the subject has already dehumanised itself. — Agustino

No, the dehumanized state is inherited, at least in the example of the "worm" that we're talking about.

Just because they are worms, doesn't mean we should neglect them. — Agustino

Where did I draw that conclusion?

Your critiques on the Pharisees are noted, I've been out of the church for about a year and am rusty on those topics.

But again, if the "worm" suffers all the more, are they not all the more deserving (not the right word) of Christ's compassion? Regardless of what scripture says.

Maybe but it's also a betrayal of one's own self, of one's own uniqueness, of one's own person. — Agustino

Is community a betrayal of the person? Is Sobornost? This is actually a fascinating topic to me, as I find myself to be rigorously individualistic (I'm guessing most of us here are), and yet craving connection and community at the same time, and trying to understand the balance, if it exists.

materialism, consumerism, etc. are merely outward manifestations of it — Agustino

As I'm saying repeatedly, they're manifestations of a spiritual poverty. That poverty is not deserving of punishment any more than economic poverty, nor is it deserving of disgusted disdain. It's never just to vilify the impoverished, in whatever state of poverty. As you said much earlier, if any of us had been born with a different set of difficulties than we have, things would not be better or worse, just a different set of dificiencies. So how are the marginalized any better or worse than the spiritually impoverished masses?

The prostitute and the drunkard are closer to God in an age of legalism, not in an age of decadence. — Agustino

I think the problem here is you're painting in too broad of strokes. Again, freedom in the West is complex. In the US in particular, there is no one theme of culture. There is decadence, wide spread, but legalistic Christianity still holds sway over large swaths of the country. And so indeed, I've noticed that those in this society most given to decadent passions are often those coming from the legalistic Christian background and rebelling against it. So no, they are, in fact, the ones with a passionate decadence, as you're describing it. And the fact that legalism decays into decadence highlights what I keep saying about this process being necessary in history; humanity is going through a process that almost mirrors Christ's crucifixion; we're in an age that mirrors the three days he spent in the grave. The potential ramifications of that analogy speak to Berdyaev's call for a revelation from man to God. Japanese culture seems to understand the need for suffering from a few bits and pieces I've gathered. The chipped tea cup is more beautiful in the tea ceremony than the unblemished cup.

Except that this isn't the suffering of a Casanova. This is the suffering of a worm, petty and insignificant. Today greatness is stopped in its tracks. — Agustino

I disagree, I think any godforsaken culture is always in a state of suffering; how could God be who we believe him to be if it was otherwise? Suffering is not always fully conscious. The poverty of the spirit is a form of suffering; it's not always conscious. Describing this suffering as the suffering of a worm dehumanizes the subject. Perhaps you intend that. I'm always wary of a view that allows for the dehumanization of the subject, because it allows for the possibility of oppression, the continuation of the cycle of The Other. Isn't Christ's compassion precisely an interfacing with those who have been dehumanized, with the "worms" as you call them? Isn't the "worm" who grows up in a decadent society equally the recipient of Christ's compassion as the one who grows up in a legalistic society? It's not the "worm's" fault that he grew up in the environment he did. Indeed, he's a sheep, as you say, but this doesn't damn him in any way because he's not responsible for his circumstances, at least initially in his development. And Christ went to the prostitutes, the drunkards, the demon-possessed. And the culture at the time was one of decadence, and yet Phariseeical legalism at the same time. And to go even further, legalism is it's own form of decadence. Think of the money-changers in the temple, think of the aspects of the Catholic church you were just describing.

She does this purely to fit in, she doesn't do this because of a spiritual longing, — Agustino

The desire to fit in is a spiritual longing. Maybe a socially normalized one, but still spiritual; it's a vague echo of the desire for Christian community; for communion with God and others. This fact reinforces what I said above. Even if fitting in (and not thinking for oneself) is motivated by a fear of being cast out or whatever, the fear itself is still germinated by that deeper longing for communion. The inability to think for oneself isn't deserving of criticism from those of us who can, it deserves our sympathy. Thinking less of that person devolves into another form of oppression; the thinkers begin leading the sheep, eventually off the cliff. It seems to me like your critiques of decadence don't take into account the layers of depth in even the most superficial member of society, layers that person isn't even aware of because they are socially built in. And yet, we can't think of those social norms in a vacuum; they are existential, they exist in the subject, the person.

The point I'm making is that politics is inherent in the subjects that we are discussing. — Agustino

I do agree, I just consider the spiritual elements of this discussion to be the inner, foundational, primary aspect. The political is just the outer, secondary aspect, the "fruit". I'm sure you'd agree, we're pretty much talking about the same thing.

What kind of material about the Orthodox faith are you interested in? Philosophy? Theology? History? Novels? General information? — Agustino

Pretty much all of it? My perennial problem with my interest in this stuff is that I like painting in broad strokes, so something general with a wide view would be nice, at least to start.

That's why you'll find Eastern Orthodox Christians holding many different positions in thought - it's not as regimented as Catholicism. — Agustino

This is part of what attracts me. Also part of what attracts me to the mystics.

Well you're not mistaken, it isn't prevalent. Eastern Orthodoxy isn't legalistic by and large. — Agustino

I'm confused why you were so critical of my original comments about legalism right out of the gate, then. It seems like now you're saying similar things to my original post, including:

. What is happening now is that the West has been emptied of God - of the inner life - and only the virtues are left. — Agustino

Compare with:

But the tragedy of the age is that there seems to be no inner spiritual foundation for the call to equality, and this poverty of the spirit leads to a perpetuation of Otherness — Noble Dust

And I'd be interested to hear some feedback on the concept of Otherness that I tried to outline in my original post. It was one of the main thrusts of my post, but it hasn't really been addressed in this thread.

Your comments on self-worth are helpful, and not completely foreign to me, but they're a good reminder.

As people's freedom has expanded in the West, the nature of their heart showed itself more and more. — Agustino

Also Noble Dust I want to ask you a question as well. How should we deal with decadence as a society? — Agustino

It's really difficult for me to express my thoughts on freedom, legalism, decadence...to start with I'm not a logical thinker in the first place, so I have a ton of different seemingly unrelated thoughts swimming around in my mind in relation to these concepts. I'm first and foremost an artist, I've been a songwriter/composer for most of my childhood and adult life, and a key ingredient in trying to understand these concepts for me is creativity. Let me try to connect the concepts. This is another reason I was attracted to Berdyaev. When I create music, I feel God, I feel Kairos entering Chronos, with me as the vessel. Something I've always felt intuitively is that the creative, artistic urge (the artistic urge seems like the purest form of the creative urge) is not trying to make a work of art, but actually a new form of being or consciousness. I couldn't consciously verbalize this until I read these words in Berdyaev. When I did, I didn't feel I was encountering a new concept, I felt that my own thoughts were given shape and form. The creative act issues from freedom, a primordial freedom that is not separate from divinity. The last 100 years have been some of the most creatively fruitful in the West, but the art of modernity is marked by that same poverty of the spirit we've both discussed. And yet the creative urge is always a divine expression. This is why I consider atheism a religion; the icons of the atheist religion are in the art museums, performed in the concert halls, sold in the bookstores. But the key to me is that God is not entirely absent; again, the concept of a necessary godforsakeness. The godless freedom that the west created for itself gave birth to a highly artistic and symbolical, religio-atheistic world, a humanistic world, a (falsely) progressive world. But again, the tragedy of that world is the poverty of the spirit, and yet western modern art contains a painful longing; Kairos is felt entering into Chronos, but the poverty of the spirit immediately calcifies the art not into meaningful religious symbols, not into new forms of being or consciousness, but into tragic, meaningless idols. And yet the meaninglessness of the idols contains a precious, significant meaning, a secret key to understanding the West's position. You can't understand the modern West without understanding it's art. Freedom is complex, tragic, and diffuse in the West. I can't stress each of those words enough. Decadence is a natural result of this complex, tragic and diffuse freedom. Decadence itself has a hint of the divine in it; giving in to decadent passions screams of the longing for the divine; the drunkard and the prostitute are indeed so much closer to God than the Protestant pastor who has no inner spiritual life. It's not possible to revoke the freedom that the West has created for itself; the West will most likely eventually cave in on itself. I don't see another outcome. The only other possible outcome is an adoption of Eastern concepts, which is beginning to happen with Buddhism becoming popular, but whether a real inner life can be built by the West from this adoption is dubious (not the fault of Buddhism, the fault of the West's inability to apprehend an inner life). But this freedom, while being far from healthy, is also not inherently evil. The depths of human suffering are being revealed through this freedom, and the tragic creative urge, born of this freedom, is an important element in revealing that suffering. The revealing of the depths of suffering through this tragic freedom is an important element in the human drama, and I think it has an eschatological significance.

Nothing is harder to understand than a symbolic work. A symbol always transcends the one who makes use of it and makes him say in reality more than he is aware of expressing. – Albert Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus

Barfield was one of my initial entry points into considering wider philosophical and theological possibilities (may seem strange, but he was a member of the Inklings along with C.S. Lewis, an agonizingly over-quoted favorite of evangelical Christians). If you haven't read Poetic Diction by Barfield, I definitely recommend it in combination with Saving the Appearances.

Genes and viruses both are physical...so I should say a spiritual virus passed down through spiritual genes. Or to be more accurate, spiritual mutations passed down through spiritual genes...

I don't read myths literally either. Something like "the fall" definitely can't be mapped against modern philosophy, yes, which is why we need a re-interpretation of myth. We've projected enlightenment (in)sensibilities unto the past for too long. Owen Barfield's Saving the Appearances and History In English Words, as well other writings of his, are good starting points, but I'm looking for more.

I can't say much about your descriptions of Buddhist concepts, other than I appreciate the info and I'm interested, so I'll do research. A sort of bizarre side note, but I work at a music venue in NYC that used to host a monthly story-telling type event, and a past-lives therapist told a story of a particular patient, and painted a fascinating picture of the work he does, which piqued my interest to look more into those types of things.

I guess I was confused by you saying 'the image of God' specifically. From my evangelical background, that phrase brings up scriptures like "in the image of God he created man", etc., which doesn't seem apropos to what you're talking about, unless I'm confused. If you just mean that "God" has been used as an ultimate authority figure to devastatingly horrible ends, then yes, of course I agree. I'm familiar with the Church history and definitions you describe.

I agree on us being born with all sorts of proclivities, etc. But the caveat to me is that we don't control that initially; a toddler is selfish, but that doesn't come from it's own concious will, in contrast to someone willingly hurting another as an adult, or willingly abusing alcohol, fully concious of the consequences. This is why I have a hard time with original sin. I don't discount it in that I don't discount that we are full of flaws from the start, but I don't peg these flaws as being the fault of the individual. If I'm not responsible for my own original sin, and if this sin is what makes me deserving of hell, how is it that I'm the one who has to make the decision to avoid hell? I suppose that question is more directed at Augustino or others. I never asked to be born. Neither did you. We all stumble into life and find ourselves trying to understand it, to understand our passions, noble and not so noble. The idea of it as a curse seems plausible. our "sin" (I'm tired of that word), or our ignorance, as you put it from a Bhuddist perspective, seems inherited. I imagine it as some sort of virus passed down in our spiritual genes. So this doesn't put the onus on me to fess up, acknowledge all of my wrongdoings...because I'm not responsible for them in an eternal or abstract sense because they are proportunate to my developement of conciousness. I guess that sounds somewhat Bhuddist? I need to do some reading.

Hart seems to have no shortage of polemics, yeah. I find that off-putting. I think I feel the same closeness to some of his ideas as you, though. Thanks for the further recs.

How do you mean that the 'image of God' has been used as an utlimate 'authority figure'? I've always thought of the image of God as something that man is created in, and never had a problem with it, even now. I realize we aren't looking at it from the same perspective, though. To think of man as having a glimmer of the divine potential in him...the potential to creatively develop that potential collaberatively with God, to extend my hand to God's extended hand...

Where should I start with Christian mystics like Echhardt and Boeme? I picked up the Cloud of Unknowing once when I was in a depressed mood, but was so put off by it that I left it on the park bench I was reading it on, lol.

Actually Augustino, the more I think about your critiques of debauchery and insistence of forgiveness being offered after repentance, it brings up topics I addressed initially that haven't really been addressed again; the origins of the modernity you're critiquing. The atheistic world we live in in the West is not a direct result of evil, rebelious people. It's a gradual, natural, result of the disintegration of first the Roman church, then Protestantism. Again, I'm attracted to your faith, the Eastern Orthodox church, but what role does that church play in this picture of the modern world being a result of the failings of other branches of christendom? Is it really just for you to simply stand by and critique the debaucherous state of a secular world born from the failings of 2/3rd's of the church, parts of the church you aren't affiliated with? The way you go about it doesn't exactly welcome folks like myself in with open arms. A critique of debauchery should first be formulated based on an understanding of it's roots, yes? Again, I think of Berdyaev's concept of a nessisary godforsakeness.

As I'm thinking more, It seems like the problem of forgiveness comes from where the power in forgiveness lies. Does forgiveness only have power when it's asked for, or does it have power when offered? This seems like a dichotomy between liberal and traditional ideas about it. I can see why you would think I have a liberal bent because I'm talking about a form of forgiveness that issues from the oppressed, rather than directly from God.

Edit: and just saw your youtube post, I'll check it out. I'm a doubting Thomas too, at least we have that in common!

How do you guys do the quotes? hahaha. Can't figure it out.

No, this is not about politics to me. Why do you insist to know what this is about for me? I have almost no political leanings.

I'm not sure why you're making fun of liberals, it doesn't mean anything to me; I'm not one.

I apologize for assuming you were part of some other tradition other than Eastern Orthodox. Apparently I misread some of your thoughts. Do you have any recommendations for reading materials on your faith? I'm interested in Eastern Orthodoxy; I started reading about it from reading Berdyaev, who I was introduced to through reading Walking On Water by Madeliene L'Engle. I'm attracted to the more mystical elements in writers like Berdyaev. His repudiation of discursive philosophy is powerful, I think.

I had in my mind from reading some stuff that the courtroom idea wasn't prevelant in Eastern Orthodoxy, so I must have been mistaken. But it seems like an anthropomorphism of God. It can't be the only way to apprehend those concepts, then.

I agree with you about peace coming from inside. It's something I'm still wrestling through on a personal level. Maybe there's no need to go too deep into upbringing and all of those factors, but I grew up with a lot of negative feelings of shame/worthlessness, etc. So your assertion that self-worth shouldn't be important sounds nice in theory, but not in practice for anyone actually struggling with those problems. It's something to be overcome, and not through simply casting it off as unimpotant. That is literally impossible for ayone dealing with it. Besides, isn't self worth an aspect of love? Maybe it's more a western neuroses, descended from Evangelicalism...

The idea of those who go to hell being repulsed by God's love has always been interesting to me, I've never dismissed it outright.

Are you familiar with David Bentley Hart? I've only read bits, but understand that he's an Eastern Orthodox and universalist. I'd be curious for your thoughts.

Globalisation, yes. I know that solitude you're talking about well. Feminism, yes, but the partriarchy equally so. Racism, of course. Vilifying the white male is definitely oppression, but it's also an inevitable result of history. Religious intolerance, yes.

I have a hard time concieving this weird, meaningless life as the only opportunity to develop a love for God. It seems totally arbitrary. So many factors go into whether a person may or may not have the opportunity to do this. I also see sin as something mankind goes through to understand these higher spiritual concepts, so your frustrated critique of progressives and what you see as their debauchery doesn't hold a lot of sway for me. I don't disagere, but mankind is going through a huge epoch of turmoil that includes those debaucheries, and I think there's a reason. I don't see it as man spiraling into godlessness. Another idea of Berdyaev's that I like is godforsakeness. Mankind is going through a dark night of godforsakeness, due as much from the impotence of the church as anything else. It's a nessisary period in history. This is behind my idea of humanism giving birth to a new religion of the spirit. The worst moments have the strongest potential for redemption. Sometimes the worst offenders become the strongest advocates for truth.

I didn't mention Berdyaev in relation to church rules, I just mentioned his idea of God awaiting a revelation from man, which you didn't address. Any thoughts?

for real? you could hav just said "hey, that's an opinion man!". :) Let's have a fruitful discussion.

I need to read more on metaphysics. I'm not trying to win a battle here, I'm just searching for truth, friend. If you feel you've "beat" me and sufficiently dismissed my thoughts, what does that accomplish?

I appreciate the idea of disperate persuasions trying to get along; it's a requirement for any real conversation, as already exemplified in this thread. I don't find it to be an ultimate end in and of itself though, just a starting point. Cooperation of different viewpoints as the ultimate goal for the world just keeps humanity enslaved to this brief life. My views are a lot more eschatalogical than that; cooperation of viewpoints needs a higher goal than just living peacefully for 70 years and then dying.

Thanks for your kind words, I appreciat that. And thanks for your reminder about invisible Christians, it's a humbling reminder for foghorns like myself.

I'm definitely interested in any recommendations you have on Buddist reading materials.

I'm with you on that false belief/atheism dichotomy. It seems to be born from the gradual disapearance of the concept in early Christianity of God existing outside of the created world; the gradual acceptance of God as part of the cosmos that saw it's peak in the enlightenment naturally gave birth to atheism as the physical world gradually revealed it's own workings without the need for a divine Atlas holding it all together. I think I read about this from a book you mentioned on the old forum, The Unintended Reformation.

Thanks for the recommendation on early humanists, it's on the to do list now.

Fair enough, there's some opinion in my post. :) your sass doesn't accomplish anything though. :(

True on conservatives/protestants, as I said, I'm painting in broad strokes, just looking for connections in a broad sense.

Materialism is ultimately no basis for any real metaphysic. Even the word metaphysic itself highlights this.

Agreed on your last point. Thanks for your thoughts!

Woah there, stranger! No need to put words in my mouth. I would offer you another C.S. Lewis quote: "Grief is great. Only you and I know that yet. Let us be good to one another." As I said, this isn't about politics. Seeing my liberal progressive NYC friends spouting anger and hatred towards Trump/Trump supporters, etc. is what spurred these thoughts, not my own outrage over Trump's election. I consider his election the logical conclusion of American political forces at this epoch in history.

On to the important stuff. I don't equate conflict with oppression. They are absolutely a dynamic dychotomy, though. Both are nessisary to bring about the Kingdom of God. Sounds like we probably agree on that. What are your thoughts on oppression?

The metaphor of God as judge isn't part of the eastern orthodox tradition. Or it's at least marginal and not central. *shrug*

I can definitely entertain the idea of us being depraved. I grew up with this view. It's something I go back and forth on. For me, I think it was detrimental to my psyche and developement. I didn't grow up with a sense of my own value or worth, thanks to my Evengelical upbringing. The existentialist in me wants to say that because it can be so detrimental to growth, it's a harmful belief. It sounds like you accept penal substituinary atonement, is that correct? I recently have been attracted to Christus Victor, I think that's where a lot of our disagreements are stemming from. How do you derive any sense of self worth from the idea that your entire eternal destiny rests on God throwing you a bone? ;( it's such an oppressive way of viewing yourself. I'm speaking from experience. You are more valuable and beautiful than that. Original Depravity seems to view human nature as worthless, moving towards value only through a fear-of-hell based acceptance of Jesus' sacrifice. Fear based views are ALWAYS, always a form of enslavement. You are absolutely enslaved to fear if you hold this view. That's the only thing I'll be firm and risk being confontational about. So on the other hand, I'm beginning to view human nature as unaware of it's divine value, and going through a painful process of waking up to and taking hold of it's value, a process jump started by Christ's impregnation of unconditional love (of which forgiveness is an essential aspect) into the world. The surpeme moment of Kairos entering Cronos. There's a mysterious divine-human link; Berdyaev says God is awaiting a revelation from man. This requires a free creative act which can only be substantiated through a conciousness that apprehends it's own inherent sacred value, formed in the bosom of the divine itself. There is absolutely no such thing as divine love if you only view God as throwing you a bone. That relationship with the divine is an abusive relationship. Uncondtitional Love is primordial in the deepest sense. Accpeting Jesus to avoid Hell is a condition; there is no room for that mythos within Unconditional Love. It's not a paradox; it's a lie that perpetuates bondage.

If you don't want equality, how do you concieve God's kingdom to be structured? I'm asking honestly. Clearly you believe in Hell. I do not, hence my emphasis on equality. If you'd like to hear my thoughts on Hell, please let me know, but please do not list off all of your reasonings and scriptures for why you think it exists, I know all of them.

As to that Lewis quote, I can't make heads or tails of it.

I don't believe in biblical innerancy, so your arguments through scripture are not convincing for me. Again, I'm very familiar with that tradition.

It's fair for you to assume that because I live in NYC I've taken the Christian faith in vain and don't know scripture. But I do, I was raised in an Evengelical church in the midwest. I can't really say right now in my life whether I'm a Christian. I'm reading and learning a lot right now and am open to a lot.