Wednesday, December 21, 2011

The Love that Moves the Sun and Other Stars

No time this morning. Only time for a short post.

Whereas the Moon has to do with reflected, i.e., lunar, knowledge, the Sun has to do with direct perception of truth or reality (which amount to the same thing). Obviously, we can see much better when the sun is out and shining.

Or can we? If the sun is too bright, we cannot see at all, as in snowblindness. At the very least, it overpowers more subtle sources of light -- other heavenly bodies that are present but hidden.

After all, it is not as if the cosmos is simply divided into God/not-God, or Creator/creature. Yes, you can certainly look at it that way, and it is not *absolutely* false to do so. But in so doing, you will miss all of the details in the cosmic hierarchy.

In a way, this is the inverse error of logical positivism, whereby the person only accepts scientifically verifiable statements. Do this, and you cut yourself off from the wealth of truth that may be found in literature, art, music, poetry, and religion.

You might say that "religionism" focuses on the absolute sun to the exclusion of the relative moon, while relativism focuses on the relative moon to the exclusion of the absolute sun. The latter can have no real truth, since lunar light presupposes the sun.

One can even extend this into politics, in that moonbats need conservatives, whereas conservatives have no need of moonbats. It is not a reversible relation, since moonbats need the wealth of productive citizens in order to redistribute it, whereas productive citizens do not need unproductive parasites in order to create wealth. The left eventually runs out of other people's money, but we will never run out of people who want other people's money.

Regarding those lesser cosmic lights between sun and earth, you may recall that in the bʘʘk I made reference to "the helpful nonlocal operators standing by, ready to assist you." How does that work? UF explains in the following extended passage, which might be one of the reigning dogmas and catechisms among Raccoons:

"You venerate (i.e., love and respect) a non-incarnated being -- a departed person, a saint, a hierarchical being -- in a disinterested manner. Your veneration -- which includes love, respect, gratitude, the desire to conform, etc. -- cannot fail to create an invisible link of sympathy with its object. It may be in a subtle and dramatic way, or rather in a slow, gradual and almost imperceptible way -- this does not matter -- the day will come when you will experience the presence."

This is nothing like a "phantom," "ghost," or some other apparition, but rather, it is "a breath of radiant serenity, of which you know with certain knowledge that the source from which it emanates is not at all in you. It influences and fills you but does not take its origin in you; it comes from outside you. Just as in drawing near to a fireplace, that the warmth that you feel does not arise from you, but rather from the fireplace, so also do you feel that the breath of serenity in question is due to an objective presence."

Once this nonlocal relationship is established, "it is up to you to remain silently concentrated so that the relationship established is subsequently developed, i.e., that it gains in intensity and clarity -- that it becomes a meeting in full consciousness."

Protestants do not accept the possibility of multiple nonlocal relationships, which is fine. For you, Christ is your master, and that's that. In contrast, Catholicism and Orthodoxy provide numerous other nonlocal operators to light the way toward the Light.

Recall what was said yesterday about the person internalizing a relationship between two poles. For just as a relationship can be mediated by love, two can be bound by hatred. Just as, say, a sexually repressed man may chose to be around women who reject him (so as to externalize the conflict), a dysfunctional people, such as the Palestinians, have formed an unbreakable bond with Israel. They do not hate Israel because of "X." Rather, they believe "X" because of their hatred, which is the real driver. Hatred makes one believe insane things (think, for example, of all the insane things trolls believe about me.)

For the neurotic person, such a bond can be every bit as strong as a healthy one; in fact, in a sense, even stronger, since healthy love eventually transcends its immediate object and leads all the way back up to its divine source, whereas the unhealthy kind is solely focused on its local object, which leads to all sorts of other secondary and tertiary pathologies. (It is the same with art, by the way -- the real thing automatically transcends itself and provokes a love of the beautiful per se.)

Sorry to end so abruptly, but I'm already late. To be continued.


julie said...

They do not hate [the object of their loathing] because of "X." Rather, they believe "X" because of their hatred, which is the real driver.

Amazing how eager they are to demonstrate.

julie said...

A) You say that as though we have faith in congressional Republicans. Let me quote Mrs. Crabapple: "HA!"

B) Just over 50% of the country were willing to put the Won in office, apparently believing retarded things like "I won't have to pay my mortgage anymore." That as many might be so stupid a second time (according to CNN - so who knows how valid the poll really is) comes as no surprise, especially given the GOP's apparent determination to lose.

The real surprise is that the American experiment lasted as long as it did. However, people did indeed realize they had the power to vote for themselves greater and greater shares of other people's money. And so it goes.

mushroom said...

Protestants do not accept the possibility of multiple nonlocal relationships, which is fine.

Rejection of the intercession of the saints is part of the Protestant tradition. I think, though, a lot of us do that, but we just call it "studying C.S. Lewis" or being a big fan of George MacDonald or meditating on the sayings of Petey. It amounts to the same thing in the end, we just avoid some of the formality and ritual associated with novenas and such.

julie said...

Speaking of the mentality of the occupiers, here's another via Vanderleun: Why Unhappy People Become Liberals

mushroom said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
mushroom said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
julie said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
julie said...

Another gem via Vanderleun's sidebar: The Search for the God Particle Goes Beyond Mere Physics

John Lien said...

"In contrast, Catholicism and Orthodoxy provide numerous other nonlocal operators to light the way toward the Light."

This intrigues me, even though I grew up Protestant.

I have always argued, "Why deal with middle men when you can go straight to the source?"

But that's just me, arguing.

Maybe I need to pay more attention to those who have gone before and "seen" much more.

julie said...

John - I think the sticking point for many is the idea of "middlemen." That's not what it's about at all. Nor is it about "worshipping" mere humans as gods. Really it's more about having a deep and abiding respect for the ones who have gone before and left a light behind so that we may follow.

You wouldn't call a teacher who demonstrates a skill or an equation or an understanding of language a middleman between the student and the knowledge they would attain, would you? A saint is simply a person who has mastered the art of being a human, from whom one may learn (if one is so inclined) by example and emulation.

Speaking for myself, I could not possibly be where I am now without a great many great mentors, most of whom are dead, and virtually all of whom I hope to emulate in some way. Of the sanctity of most of them I am in little doubt.

Or to paraphrase the Anchoress, you'd ask your friends to pray for you, right? Think of the saints as friends on the other side. Nonlocal Operators are standing by, and it seems they really do like to help...

John Lien said...

Thanks Julie. Those are good points. Yes, in my mind it has alway been there are two entities to pray to, Jesus and God. Asking for help from other spiritual beings is just something new for me. Again, why ask for their help when you can go to the source and ask the same thing? I'm not antagonistic towards it, although I was in the past.

There has to be some good reason to enlist the non-local operators and I am ignorant of why but I am willing do defer to a couple thousand years of tradition to give it a try.

julie said...

John - it doesn't hurt to give it a try, if that seems to be something you're guided toward. On the other hand, of course, nothing says you must do it, either. Christ is the Master of masters, after all.


Will E.: 1) 50% of Americans - the vast majority of whom have jobs - are considered poor and/or low income.

Oh noes! Half the households in the U.S. earn less than the median income!!!

In other news, 50% of Americans have an IQ of less than 100. Unfair! The top thinkers must be stealing all the good thoughts!!!

Gagdad Bob said...

I thought he'd never get it! William finally understands that there were fewer poor and that there was more upward mobility when the state was smaller.

julie said...

I know, right? It must be a Christmas miracle! Now if only that understanding would trickle up, why, just think of all the economic improvement we'd see! People would be upwardly mobile and self-sufficient again, jobs would be plentiful, and more products would be proudly made in the USA.

John Lien said...

(not an original idea) We need to define poverty in absolute terms, meaning insufficient food, shelter, etc. rather than relative terms, meaning, "I don't have what he has!"

I'm thinking the absolute poverty rate is pretty darn low in the US.

I have no trouble helping my neighbors stay away from absolute poverty but if you want to live above that level you have to work for it.

Gagdad Bob said...

You have no idea where the left pulls their poverty statistics from. Let's just say they couldn't do it without a skilled team of proctologists.

Gagdad Bob said...

Heh. From Ace of Spades:

One big reason the Occupy movement failed to catch on is that the 1% they railed against actually makes up 58% of the country. Oops -- that's a pretty big flaw in your revolutionary theory right there.

The classic battle between the Haves and the Have Nots never materialized, and the Gallup Poll people found a reason for this: The overwhelming majority of Americans — 58% — say they are members of the Haves.

Only 34% believe they are members of the Have Nots.

But, but what about minorities, and the uneducated and the unemployed? Surely they must feel oppressed and be ready to throw off their shackles of economic slavery bla-bla-bla, right?

Nope: In every demographic group — race, education, sex, political leaning — the Haves outnumber the Have Nots. Even among the unemployed, 52% say they are among the Haves.

Van said...

Gagdad said " Let's just say they couldn't do it without a skilled team of proctologists."


julie said...

An entertaining aside: Lileks takes down the Iowa journalism professor.

And of course, there's Iowahawk's version, as well.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.