More Odds & Endlesses
Here's one: "The left must make you metaphysically ignorant in order to convert healthy impulses into the sick ones they require in order to fulfill their project."
This reminds me once again that truth -- at least on the macro level -- must be the highest value, from which all others flow. I am currently reading a book that holds "liberation" to be the highest value, but this cannot be true. If it were true, then the truth of it would have to take precedence. Besides, "liberation" or "realization" are of no use to the world in the absence of truth, let alone love and beauty. Raccoons have no interest in "realizationism" unless it is an undeserved byproduct of the traditional virtues removing the impediments to grace; it is analogous to happiness, which cannot actually be sought on its own level, since it is an effect of right living, not a thing in itself.
Even if I could experience Oneness, I'd give it up in a nanosecond for twoness and then the threeness which is its fruit. I'm quite sure God feels the same way, which is why his interior life is intrinsically three. Yes, he had it all, but he gave it up for love. That's all you need to know about cosmology, at least as it pertains to your day-to-day life.
Yes, you can argue that "all is one," but only if you make the immediate caveat that the One holds the two within itself, the womb of eternity, or that the Subject gives birth to the object for all time. For "what good is it to me if this eternal birth of the divine Son takes place unceasingly but does not take place within myself?" (Eckhart).
Do you want to know what goes on in the core of the Trinity? I will tell you. In the core of the Trinity, the Father laughs and gives birth to the Son. The Son laughs back at the Father and gives birth to the Spirit. The whole Trinity laughs and gives birth to us (Eckhart).
Jesus is the smoking cr(e)ator at the center of history. This is to say, an Idea descended into time, the Idea of ideas. Once this Idea entered time, we could not love the world in the same way, except insofar as it embodies and reflects this eternal Idea.
The contemporary left wing equivalent of religion + sadism is narcissism + sanctimony.
America's founders were not anti-religious. Rather, they simply wanted to ensure an even praying field.
Whenever you hear the phrase "socially conscious," reach for your revolver. For the left, this replaces being "spiritually conscious," or just having a conscience in the traditional sense. It is their version of "fundamentalism." This is the reason why leftists are so attracted to environmental hysteria, as it allows them to feel morally superior at no cost to their moral depravity. They can lead an immoral life but imagine that they are purchasing "moral credits" by scolding the rest of us. Thus, the scam of "carbon credits" is no different than purchasing indulgences.
I would much prefer to have my theology politicized than to have politics theologized. In other words, there should be no objection to wishing to see one's religious values reflected in politics. This is altogether different from the left's project of elevating their horizontal ideology to a state religion.
Liberals only want to be judged by their intentions, never outcomes or consequences. As such, this is again similar to a reverse religion, in the sense that they worship at the altar of a kind of pure metaphysics (actually, "infraphysics," as it were), unsullied by the actual events of history. This is why the young and stupid are so susceptible to its charms, since they have the least history. I remember when I lived in the quasi-timelessness of childhood and adolescence. No wonder I was drawn to an ideology that reflected that false infinite.
Contemporary liberalism is for the carnal man (the only man who exists, since his spiritual nature is denied at the outset), therefore the weak man who wants his weakness "normalized." Furthermore, it relieves him of the strength of character it requires to grow to full manhood, while at the same time making him both wise and righteous in his own eyes. No wonder it's so popular!
Take your pick: crystal clear ambiguity or vague certainty.
Just as in science, we need a frame of reference with which to "see" religious facts. Just as the paradigm of quantum physics creates a way to see phenomena inaccessible to the Newtonian paradigm, religion illuminates a field of eternal and transcendent "theologoumena," or "facts of God." A fact is a relation between two events. Therefore, a religious fact is a relation between man and God, or O and (¶).
Once you admit the idea of "higher" and "lower" in any sense whatsoever, it's just a way of saying that things are oriented from the top down, not from the bottom up, otherwise your distinction is supported by "nothing."
God is either One or Zero. No, wait. The Godhead is beyond-being, or Zero, which gives birth to One, or being. Gravity takes care of the rest.
Atheistic mental masturbation: nOnanism.
Their telovator doesn't go to the top floor.
Is what we see a projection of psychic space? Or is psychic space the interiorization of the exterior? Obviously the former. For what does it mean to say that something is deep in the absence of a mental conception of space? If the cosmos is "infinite," it is only because the mind is; or let us say that exterior and interior are infinite in both directions. But since there cannot be "two infinites," it's merely two sides of the same möbius strip joint. The outer reaches of inner space: the only final frontier there has ever been, the evolution of the interior horizon. We're already living on the Other Side we're dying to get to. Hallow, noumena!
And another journal is swept into the recycling bin of history.