Tuesday, September 26, 2006

Secularism and the Mystique of Nothingness (9.30.10)

As I have gnosissed on many occultions, the current divide between left and right, between a deeply illiberal leftism and the classic American liberalism of our founders, mirrors a hauntological divide that goes back to the very Origin and Center of the cosmos. Looked at in one way, the Origin and Center are situated in the distant past, where history blurs into myth. Looked at from an other angle, they can only be situated in the now.

Human beings are fallen creatures in a fallen world. This concept is thoroughly misunderstood by the secular mind. In fact, “misunderstood” is perhaps not strong enough a word, because it presumes that one may understand it from the outside. However, as is true of all important metaphysical ideas that are couched in religious language, they can only be comprehended from the inside. One must first be in a religious world to know the world from which religion arises. Otherwise you are somewhat like a music critic who happens to be deaf.

For similar reasons, many people believe that you must first somehow decide whether or not God exists before joining a religion, but the opposite is true. One becomes religious so as to make God present in one’s life. Whether or not God exists is a separate issue. The important point is to make him present and real, and thus inhabit the space where our true humanness emerges. Anything short of this makes you merely human, which is necessarily to say less than human, in the sense that a person who does not transcend himself sinks beneath himself (i.e., we are speaking vertically, not of wordly civil responsibilities and the rights that that derive from them).

Once upon a timeless, human consciousness made a choice that brought this fallen cosmos into being. In a sense, this choice was an inevitable consequence of our uncontained curiosity. What would such a world be like? A world of contingency, relativity, of separation from our source. Let’s do it!

It’s not a matter of assigning blame, because in order for there to be a cosmos at all--a mamafestivus for the rest of us--there must be a fall, for to say “manifestation” is to say “relative” is to say “other than the Absolute” is to say “alienation” is to say “remote from God.” And here we are.

So we make the leap from up to down and inside to out. We exchange essence for existence and plunge headlong into the starry naught, the cosmic nothing. The link with the invisible world is broken, and a visible world fills the void. Bang! What a strange, eery, beautiful place!

Having said that....

“We must distrust the fascination abysses can exert over us; it is in the nature of cosmic impasses to seduce and play the vampire; the current of forms does not want us to escape its hold. Forms can be snares just as they can be symbols and keys; beauty can chain us to forms just as it can be a door to the non-formal” (Schuon).

The “cosmic leftism” of which Petey, the merciful, the compassionate, speaks, is the fascination of the abyss. In other worlds, it is an extension of the fall as a solution to the fall. If we can only keep falling, then perhaps we will “break on through” to the other side, perfect mankind, create heaven on earth, and win the human race. Thus, on the deepest cosmic level, our puny cultural divide reflects a much larger choice: reverse the fall, or keep on plunging?

Leftists are activists. And they are socially aware. And they are committed. But their frenetic activity is a substitute for being, “the restless and disappointing turmoil of superfluous things”; their social awareness is a substitute for vertical awareness; and their commitment is an ersatz replacement for faith--a false absolute and graven image for purposes of idol worship. This is why leftism generates such emotionality in its adherents--it is religious emotion in the absence of religion.

Taken together, this plunge of illegiance to allusion represents a hypnotic capitulation to the self-created cosmic machine that drags us down, 32 feet per second per second. The reversal of this fall cannot be achieved, much less imposed, collectively. Rather, it can only be achieved through metanoia, repentance, or “turning around,” toward the light of the transpersonal sun and source.

Secularism begins and ends with the material world. Being that the material world is a shifting and transitory world, one can only derive a shifting and transitory metaphysic from its study. Furthermore, one will necessarily confuse the Principle with its manifestation. One will have to adhere to the bizarre metaphysic that the naturally supernatural mind that is able to know absolutely is somehow derived from relative matter. And if you can believe that, you'll believe anything, which is why so much of wackademia is a moonbatument to folly.

Here is what we have heard from the wise. In “reality,” the cosmos is a “message from God to Himself by Himself.” But this should by no means be taken as an excuse for pantheism or narcissism, since the message is nonetheless real. For while God is both Alpha and Omega, sender and receiver, above and ahead, the message is deployed in time, which is one of the names of Eternity. We have received the message when we have achieved our end. Which is to say, beginning. A new beginning. Perpetually born. Existence renewed. At the razoredgeon.

We were children once, still close to God, fleshly reflecting our celestial origin, older than Abraham, young as a babe's I AM. Then we became very old, very adolt, methusalossed in maya. But then we went 'round the bend, where our past and future finally caught up with us. But only now. And again.


Steve said...

"many people believe that you must first somehow decide whether or not God exists before joining a religion, but the opposite is true. One becomes religious so as to make God present in one’s life."

Might this be a little like worshipping Zeus or Allah before "deciding" whether he exists "so as to make Zeus, Allah, or some other false, mythical god present in one's life"? And given the human capacity for self-deception, if one worships a false god long enough and with enough desire to believe, isn't one likely to come to "know" that this god exists?

Of course, the other side of this epistemological quandary is that if one tries to know that a god exists from, as you say, the "outside," one may never know at all. This is why I have always thought that a real god would make his existence so obvious even to someone on the "outside" that he would be far more inclined to spend the rest of his life trying to know him as fully as possible from the inside through devoted worship.

Anonymous said...

Nags, you raise questions that can only be asked and not answered by entering your invincible density, which no one here is inclined to do.

black hole said...

This is a great post, Bob. You've packaged the cosmos as "a message from God to Himself by Himself" which says volumes with few words. I think you've got it right.
I would add to your post a possible refinement about "falling" vs. "turning back toward the source." The problematic "secular mind" that you speak of is a fairly flimsy artifact, composed only of a network of beliefs held in place by the suface intelligence. Secular attitudes may seem prominent or influential but in the overall order of things they are somewhat ephemeral, and this is because the intellect itself is only an instrument or servant and not a leader.
As we know, underneath and supporting the intellect is the soul or the psychic being, which, as I understand it, cannot by its very nature do anything other than orient itsesf towards God (it is a piece of God). In order to truly fall away from God, this part would need to be absent which as far as I know doesn't occur.

The soul or psychic is the true, if secret or veiled, leader of the being and exterts a command over the life, mind, and body. Therfore, the soul invariably propels the being upward towards the light, dragging whatever retrogressive attitudes may be present in the being with it.
The take home point is that secular/materialist/atheist attitudes may retard or slow the human march back towards God but I doubt if they can completely reverse the march into a true retreat. I think the current of vertical movement may be slow but it is far stronger than any current that opposes it.
This is not to excuse pantheism or narcissism, but rather as a caveat that while these attitudes are obnoxious , they can only delay but not stop the messge from being delivered.

Steve said...

"But their frenetic activity is a substitute for being, “the restless and disappointing turmoil of superfluous things”; their social awareness is a substitute for vertical awareness; and their commitment is an ersatz replacement for faith"

There are people who believe that government should do far more than it does now to ensure that no human being suffers needlessly from poverty, homelessness, and illness and that human beings working together, with government involvement, can help to make this nation and this world a far more hospitable place for humans and other life forms. They believe that President Bush is unqualified intellectually and emotionally to have the power that he does, and that his Republican controlled administration and Congress have implemented policies disastrous or potentially so to the world at large and to the disadvataged in this country while aggrandanzing the already wealthy to an obscene extent.

Yet some of these same people are committed Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, and members of other religious persuasions or adherents of other profoundly spiritual paths and believe every bit as much in the "vertical" as you do and work every bit as hard, if not harder, to fully realize it in themselves and to help others to realize it as you do.

Would you call them "leftists" too? If not, then is it not simplistic to suggest, as you seem to, that those who reject your conservative political and economic beliefs are necessarily godless heathens and that this godlessness underlies their "social awareness" and "activism" and their corresponding efforts to change the "material" world for the better?

Anonymous said...

Another review brought to you by the deaf music critic.

Anonymous said...

Comment moderation!
For the Love of God, PLEASE TURN IT ON!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Regarding Nags and his OCD, I proffer a simple solution:

If you feed a thing, it grows.
If you starve it, it dies.

If everyone who posts here could help the patient by starving his "Preciousssss" to death and deny him the attention he craves, it would be a mercy to Nags and to everyone.

Gagdad Bob said...


I have attempted comment moderation in the past, but Nagarjuna breathlessly huddles by his computer waiting for the moment I take it off, at which point his previously deleted comments instantly reappear.

If anyone knows how to ban an IP on blogspot, please let me know. I've pleaded with him to get a life and leave us alone, but he has no respect for my wishes.

Otherwise, I will abide by the preference of the majority as to whether or not I should moderate comments at all times. The downside of that is that we can have no spontaneous back-and-forth, which would be a steep price, given the quality of the regular commenters.

The other option is to make it "members only."

Anonymous said...

Nags "craves attention" because he has the unmitigated temerity to comment perceptively on what Bob says? Or because he dares to do more than say, "Yes, Bob." "You're so brilliant, Bob." "I agree with everything you say, Bob." "I wish I could be like you, Bob." "I wish I could be you, Bob."? like all the rest of you pretentiously pedantic sycophants?

Gagdad Bob said...

Okay, the Rule of the Exalted Mysteress Joan is in force: GAZE at all times. And beware of his many anonymous postings, such as the one above. To those who are sensitive, his dense and hostile tone is unmistakeable. As if we didn't know that he regards my readers as "pretentious sycophants." Glad he finally found out what's inside of him. Always the last to know.

Naturally, this rule does not apply to the lost and puzzled who genuinely wish to learn.

Steve said...

I may or may not be one of the "lost and puzzled," but I AM "here to learn." It has always seemed to me that one way a person learns from someone's post is to read it and do one's best to understand it and then ask pertinent questions and make pertinent comments about what one has read.

With that in mind, how is it not pertinent to ask how worshipping an alleged god before we even know that he exists is a potential recipe for folly if not worse, while acknowledging that trying to know that an alleged god exists without worshipping him and getting to know him from the "inside" may be futile?

How is it not pertinent to suggest that a real God who wants us to know him would begin my making us certain that he exists so that we would naturally worship him and come to know him more fully from the inside instead of saying, in effect, "I want and command you to worship me even though you have no good reason or evidence to believe that I even exist as more than a mythical figment of human delusion"?

How is it also not pertinent to point out that when Bob says that the social activism of people on the political left is motivated by a godless and hopeless desire to create heaven on earth, that a goodly number of these same people appear to be every bit as religious as Bob or any of the rest of you, if not more so, and that the desire to cure the sick, feed the hungry, and relieve human suffering, with strong support from the government, can be religiously or spiritually inspired?

I've been accused of making "vapid" comments that utterly miss the point of Bob's posts. If soenone can cogently explain how I've done that with the comments to which I've just alluded, I will promptly leave this blog never to return.

If no one will do this, it is reasonable to assume that no one can and that the insults directed at me are groundless and, in some cases, possibly more applicable to the insulter than to the insultee.

God bless.

Anonymous said...

>>This is why leftism generates such emotionality in its adherents--it is religious emotion in the absence of religion.<<

The first modern leftist - Judas.

Anonymous said...

Like a man
deaf from childhood
who feels the air
all around him
but no longer
recognizes it as music.

Anonymous said...

He's also not beneath stealing your nick, so beware.

Anonymous said...

"Yet some of these same people are committed Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, and members of other religious persuasions or adherents of other profoundly spiritual paths and believe every bit as much in the "vertical" as you do and work every bit as hard, if not harder, to fully realize it in themselves and to help others to realize it as you do".

Sure, Nagar-Ganja, but these folks mix spirituality with Marxism; with Christianity, it results in a toxic mix called "Liberation Theology" that looks like religion but is really poison. Jim Wallace and the National Council of Churches crowd are prime examples.

Gagdad Bob said...

Or the many liberal churches that condemn Israel.

Steve said...

Tsebring, I appreciate your comment, but I hope it doesn't land you in trouble with the thought police.

"Sure, Nagar-Ganja, but these folks mix spirituality with Marxism; with Christianity, it results in a toxic mix called "Liberation Theology" that looks like religion but is really poison."

Without commenting on whether or not this kind of religious activism is the Marxist-inspired "poison" you say it is, at least many of the so-called "leftists" in these movements ARE religious, which was my point. It appears that one does not have to be a godless heathen to be what Bob calls a "Leftist."

Steve said...

"Or the many liberal churches that condemn Israel."

Could you cite any evidence that supports your contention that Wallis and the "National Council of Churches "condemn" Israel? I'm aware that they've offered criticism of some of Israel's actions, but I wasn't aware of any "condemnation" of Israel.

Anonymous said...

A few thought thrown out there for Whomever -

Social activism has its place, surely, but if it stems from a materialist, secular consciousness, then the result is merely a transient social "adjustment" of no lasting consequence.

The genuinely spiritual "social activists" like St Francis stress personal transcendence, personal spiritual responsibility above all else. Here's the Mystery: One spiritually transcendent consciousness, even if not conventionally socially active, does more to change the world for the better - via "spiritual osmosis" - than do all the secular activists combined.

Are there modern lefties who stress personal spiritual transcendence above mere activism? I don't know of any. Arch-lefty Michael Moore claims he acts out of Christian principles, but his tact, common to lefties the world over, is to compel, force social "compassion" through gov programs, taxation, social engineering etc. - sometimes resulting in mass death. Of course, genuine compassion can't be forced or compelled. Otherwise, there is "Christianity without Christ", ie., the ape of God.

Judas, blind to the transcendent, wished JC to become the social activist. Judas missed the point totally, is the father to all modern lefties. Show me a lefty who stresses personal spiritual responsibility/transcendence before activism and I will believe his or her religious compassion is genuine.

Big 'Possum said...

Nice writing today Bob.

Gagdad Bob said...

There's a skunk in every garden.

Anonymous said...

Bob, I used to be a member of an extremely liberal church.

It's vehement anti-semetism was one of the reasons I left it.

Big 'Possum said...


Enjoyed your comments above, particularly the oservation about "Christians without Christ". Don't know that I'd refer to them as apes as much as irritants and frustrations, but I'm withca on your point.

This morning I had to turn in a paper for my Servant Leadership class at a local church. The paper is a response to the question of "How do I feel as God's beloved". Just posted on my blog, it ties into your comments nicely.

Anonymous said...

I never thought I'd say this, but maybe we were a little rough on Nags. Not all of his comments were as clueless as we let on. But we wanted him out of here and we didn't care how we did it. Maybe we're reaping some of our bitter harvest.

But what's done is done, and it looks like Hoarhey's right. Keep it on permanent comment moderation or allow participation by members only. Or how about following through with what you and I have said and ignoring him? We'd just have to get everyone onboard the GAZE train?

Something tells me he still wouldn't go away. He seems pretty determined to make his voice heard whether we ignore him or not. But we could still try it and see. What have we got to lose?

Anonymous said...

Cousin Dupree,
Was your nick stolen by cousing dupree @ 11:10 AM or are you just psychic. Mine was taken @ 11:51 AM.

Anonymous said...

No more posts from me until possibly after 10:00 your time ( I have to work) so all else is counterfit but you'll probably know that. I didn't write the 11:51 comment, delete away.

Anonymous said...

Possums -

By "ape", I mean "counterfeit imitator", not anything simian-related.

Anonymous said...

"There's a skunk in every garden."

Heh. I like that. I was thinking along the lines of,

"Light always attracts bugs."

Anonymous said...

I predict that a members-based site would be much less irritating and time-consuming, with an invitation on the sidebar to e-mail requests for an invitation to participate.

Then a troll who appears to visit not so much to learn as to wrench the forum to his wants and purposes and bickering counter-definitional gotchas, could be quickly retired to his own site and, as the King Troll used to do, re-post Bob's posts and argue with them there in his own hermetic mirror chamber, a world where, sadly, nobody much goes.

I don't see that people have to "agree" with Bob, as to be willing and able to discuss matters in the same arena acknowledging the same presuppositions. "Learning" isn't a magic mantra that justifies don't-get-it. What about "I'm a guest here" is so mysterious? Haven't we all sat through conversations where we had not much to contribute and just followed them with interest, postponing puerile questions until we get home?

Oh, how boring it is not to settle this!

Anonymous said...

And in a more on-thread vein, I'm not on board with the "the Fall had to happen for manifestation etc." That line of thought seems like both whistling in the dark, and a denial of repentance, of the grief of the rupture which we have no way of knowing the missed opportunities of the alternative.

You are quite right, however, that in reality as we now know it, Job #1 (as the Ford ads used to claim) is Finding the Way Home.

My favorite metaphor is the Prodigal Son. He told himself stories about the superiority of the Bigger World (curiosity? greed? untimely impatience?), made headstrong decisions, and headed down the slope. At some point, aided by real encounter with manifestation, he "came to himself" and introduced a different, more promising interior discourse. And destination.

He was not necessarily "better off for his wanderings" (though the narrative section of our brains requires it). It is however clear he would have been no good if his will had been hi-jacked or preempted in the name of the Better Decision.

Love and wisdom in that story honor the free will of the wanderer, without any scripts about how "You had to do it, son..." And for a frisson of the mystery of evil, there is a dark obligato of resentment from the family background, to which we could transfer our speculation indefinitely.

But that "the Fall had to happen," or was a "felix culpa," begs the question, and FYI is hotly debated by Orthodox (capital O) Christianity.

Anonymous said...

I think the approach in the post today may be more inviting to an exhausted liberal that is beginning to realize the futility of his secular activism and posturing. If the tone of the conservative argument is the least bit accusing, it’s way too easy to arouse the typical huffing and pissed defensive response. Things regress or at best just stagnate.

Throughout your blogging have you made any revelations in how to get through to a liberal/leftist? And have you considered writing a political book on conservatism based on a One Cosmos enlightened-form of Christianity (or psycho-spiritual Truth of choice). It seems like the books of this ilk that are out there today swiftly get rebuffed by “Bill Mahar-types” because they come from an oversimplified evangelical angle (i.e., too faith-based without adequate insight of Truth).

Gagdad Bob said...


The book you describe is in progress.


Blaming the victim!

I think it depends on which way you look at it, from the top down (felix culpa), or from the bottom up (phoenix culprit!).

Anonymous said...

Dilys -

Well, there's the Fall in the sense of (a) the Godhead self-sacrificing It's Oneness so that Manifestation/Creation could occur.

And then there's (b) the expulsion from the Garden, the corruption of the Garden.

Dare I say that we were, in sense, somewhat party to (a) because though we were only "potential" in the Oneness, it had to have been an aggregate of "potentials" that chose to self-sacrifice Oneness and all-conforming Unity? (yes weird, I know)

As to (b) - no doubt about it, the result of a conscious choice, perhaps one that, if not strictly necessary, was inevitable given (a). Perhaps recognizing that (b) was probably inevitable for most self-aware creatures, the Oneness designed in advance the Rescue.

I think that maybe (a) and (b) are sometimes conflated, resulting in a certain amount of confusion re the "necessity" of the Fall.

Gagdad Bob said...

'Zactly. There's the cosmic fall, which is a metaphysical necessity, and the human fall, which you might say is an "unnecessary necessity," inevitable (or uneveateapple) but not absolutely determined. Nobodaddy is to blame for the first, everybaddie for the second.

Eeevil Right Wing Nut said...

“There are people who believe that government should do far more than it does now to ensure that no human being suffers needlessly from poverty, homelessness, and illness and that human beings working together, with government involvement, can help to make this nation and this world a far more hospitable place for humans and other life forms.
Yet some of these same people are committed Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, and members of other religious persuasions or adherents of other profoundly spiritual paths and believe every bit as much in the "vertical" as you do and work every bit as hard, if not harder, to fully realize it in themselves and to help others to realize it as you do.

Would you call them "leftists" too?”

Yes, I would because (as good liberals must) they believe that the solutions to problems always involve government; conservatives believe that the private sector (i.e. individuals, churches, synagogues, private charities etc.) is best suited to deal with social issues. Until you grasp this basic fact, you will never “get” what is being discussed here.

By making “government” the vehicle through which poverty, homelessness and hunger are addressed, you take out personal responsibility to do what one can on an individual level to help our fellow man as we are commanded to do by God. When government is ultimately responsible for taking care of those less fortunate, the individual is (or at least feels he is) absolved of actually thinking about or seeing the condition of those around him/herself and ACTIVELY working to help their fellow man. When government is in charge of charity, all one must do is be gainfully employed and be willing to vote in politicians who have no compunction about taking a big wet bite out of your paycheck and voila you have done your part to help.
But that isn’t real charity; that is simply wealth transference. Real charity requires not only feeds the body but also feeds the soul by showing love and compassion. Real charity not only feeds the soul of the receiver but also the giver. You do not have to have any love or compassion for your fellow man when charity is a passive act of just letting the government take money out of your check each pay period. Can you really say that liberals feel themselves uplifted spiritually when they look at their pay stub and see what the government has taken out on behalf of the needy?

The difference between welfare and charity is the difference between a hand out and a hand UP. There is nothing more demoralizing and soul killing than being just another faceless, nameless case number, sitting in a government office filling out endless forms. But when an individual consciously reaches out a hand of love and compassion to a fellow human being, nothing could be more soul nourishing and brings both nearer to God.

Anonymous said...

Hi folks. Hey, Talkincamel- good to see you here! I've been in lurk 'n learn mode for a while, but today's post was a very good one. Made me think. Here are some of the thoughts, badly edited:

God wills existence into being. We are a bubble within a bubble. (watch me not make a pun) Turn around and look back into time. You can see only so far and then it goes all hazy and disappears. We have no memory of birth and infancy, but we were surely aware of it as it happend. Where were we before? God knew us before we got here, if I read the scripture correctly. We all of us had to fall into the dark in order to awaken on this plane.
Wonderful stuff to contemplate.

"The important point is to make him [God] present and real, and thus inhabit the space where our true humanness emerges.

This is the hard part. It's a different sort of fall. The rules are deceptively simple- Love God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself.(Hard enough to love yourself sometimes, much less the neighbor.)"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Or what I feel is the prime directive: Do the best you can with what you have.
Somewhere in the midst of it all you take it on faith that God hears your prayers. If you pray for faith, and guidance, and work at it some, chances are you'll get your faith, and guidance. Be careful about praying for forbearance or humility.


High Power Rocketry said...

: )

Big 'Possum said...


I was recently asked what it feels like to be God's beloved. The question was posed in a servant leadership class in conjunction with our reading of Henri Nouwen's "The Life of the Beloved". Here are my deuce cents.

The beloved is not me, the person, it is the divine potential (Christ, if you will) that resides with me, waiting to be activated by my choice to enter into a committed relationship with the living God. As I make this choice, God and I enter into a covenant relationship through which “a child is born”. Through this relationship, this pure child of divine love, birthed by the infusion and promptings of the Holy Spirit, emerges into ever-greater regions of my consciousness. The more time I spend with God, and the more responsive I am to Spirit’s leadings, the greater experiences I will have of bringing this child’s LIFE into the world. The more I bring this child’s life into the world, the more I will experience myself as “being love”, and thus the more I will experience being loved by God.

Little somethin something that came to me this mornin. Seems connected.

Anonymous said...

Big Possum.
Thank you.
If that was "a little something" I can't wait to hear the next big thing.
That was magnificent.


Gagdad Bob said...

I'm always surprised at how some readers know exactly what I'm talking about better than I do. Sometimes I feel like I'm just drawing attention to things that people know but perhaps haven't yet put into words.

Anonymous said...

Wow! I mean...WOW!
You have been given the gifts of discernment and prophecy, Bob.
Your last comment, at 8:01 confirm that you know.
When I was an agnostic, and also a hedonist, I knew God existed (I was lying to myself), but Iwanted God to prove His existance MY WAY!
God didn't operate MY WAY!
What was MY WAY!?
Hell...if I knew.
HELL...if I knew.
I learned a little bit about HELL...through imminent, inevitable death, framed with constant pain, guilt and shame.
It was time to decide...eat, drink, and be merry...or be born again, through emmanent, absolute TRUTH, adorned with
eternal Grace, Mercy, and Honor.
I always thought that if I accepted the Lord, I would lose my identity.
LOL! It is so amusing now, as I look back.
When I sought Truth and Wisdom, was when I realized that I hated myself. I was as low as I could stand!
I didn't care about the nonsensical "loss of identity" worry.
I was ready to die!
So...I died, and I was reborn.
I didn't lose my identity...I gained it!!!
I thank my Father for the sacrifice He made, for an undeserving wretch like me.
He did it for Truth and Love.
That is Glorious!!!
It is the beginning of a long journey towards God, but I know as long as I seek, as long as I learn, as long asI don't give up what is Truly valuable...LIFE...
then I will grow...for ETERNITY.
Hell and death are defeated, and now I know (Gno) that.
God gave His Word!!!
How great Thou Art!!!

Thanks for a Magnificent post, Bob, and some Truly great comments from my fellow bobbleheads!!!

Anonymous said...

Good to see JWM back! The cat must have finally rolled off the keyboard.

Thanks, will, for clarifying the distinction, inasmuch as it is possible to contemplate Manifestation, the Creation, the kenosis or tsimtsum, "dividing the waters," all those massive & obscure yet intimate images of Origin (a). I was referring to the confusion and, indeed, desensitizing factor of an idea of the "necessity" of the human rebellion (b) and its grievous fruits. To the extent, and I'm concluding this cuts a lot of Gordian knots, to the extent the God-man question is at least as much relational as philosophical, there's a kink in going to "It had to happen" however expressed that doesn't demonstrate itself to me, logically, methodologically, mythically, morally, poetically, you name it.

But the distinction between Creation and Destruction is obviously valid; though there's that counter-melody that tirelessly & mercifully makes of one the other, depending on agent and context.

Anonymous said...

From: the desk of Fergus the Cat

To: JWM's Booger the Cat -

Makes ya want to scream, doesn't it? The way these people flail around in their metaphysics . . . just pathetic. Well, someday they'll figure out what we already know. Someday. In the meantimes, we've just got to be patient with them.

By the way, I stared at a crack on the wall for about 20 minutes today. Fun.

Big 'Possum said...


Re last comment about your drawing attention to things we already know......

"God is wisdom and intelligence. All the wisdom and intelligence that we see in the universe is God, is wisdom projected through a visible form. To educate (from educare, to lead forth) never means to force into from the outside, but always means to draw out from within something already existing there. God as infinite wisdom lies within every human being, only waiting to be led forth into manifestation. This is true education."

from Emile Cady's "Lessons in Truth".

Popped to mind.

Gagdad Bob said...

Big Cosmic Possum--

Amen to that. Anyone who thinks I am somehow interested in "followers" is missing the point. I want them to recognize and draw out the eternal wisdom that is within themselves.

Petey, of course, would like to be a cult leader. He's thinking about making you treasurer (of our eternal treasury, that is).

Big 'Possum said...


In a span of three days I have evolved from getting jacked up by Petey and called out by the troll patrol to being nominated for an office. How 'bout them apples. That's gotta be some kind of record.(laughin)

Five+ years ago I was a recent MBA grad, was 2/3 through the dreaded Chartered Financial Analyst program, and occupied a very nice office where I researched X's and O's and other investment merits. Got "called" out from there and have been doing my darndest to stay away from financial stuff ever since. If helping people tap into the buried treasures of the beloved consciousness within is what you mean by "treasurer" then I may be of some support to your merry band. If finances has anything to do with it, you would be prone to re-consider after conversations with my father, banker, broker, and wife.

In quoting Cady I was actually attempting to acknowledge you as an educator of the fashion you've just described. Among the many books adverstised in WIE, yours caught my attention and now rests on my bedside table. Every other full moon I pop it open, read a couple of pages, and invite God to integrate any truths therein into my own being relative to my role in God's reality. Somethin like that. Same process with brother Chomsky. (smile)

Serious question. How much Teilhard have you read? Just curious.

Tin Foil Hat Guy said...


Possibly one of the best Cosmos posts I have read.

I was actually listening to a William Craig MP3 about how God reveals himself and calls us to him as I was going through your post.

His is as visible as he needs to be...
The seeker will find and the reticent will never have enough proof...

God Bless

Bird Dog said...

Thanks for that post. Linked it.

beepbeepitsme said...

The US is officially defined as a secular state.

A secular state is a state or country that officially is neutral in matters of religion, neither supporting nor opposing any particular religious beliefs or practices, and has no state religion or equivalent.

This should not be confused with an atheistic state. State atheism is the official rejection of religion in all forms by a government in favor of atheism.

Basically, a secular state allows for religious pluralism. No official state religion and no government sanctioning of any specific religion.