Tuesday, August 22, 2017

The Vector of Reality and the Church of Non-Being

This book of Thomas's conclusions dressed as axioms consists almost entirely of things humans are entitled to know, by virtue of being human (and in order to become fully human!).

And yet, if I'm not mistaken, most human beings don't want to know them, or at least don't care. Many humans, upon hearing them, would reject them outright. That's just G3AOA (Genesis 3 All Over Again).

Therefore, curiously, it is as if an entitlement -- a gift -- is treated as a burden or nuisance. Then it's as if you have to compel people to believe what people most want to know -- analogous, say, to forcing sailors to consume citrus in order to avoid scurvy. But I don't want to eat an orange! Fine. Die then. But I don't want to know about the First Cause! Fine. Be an idiot then. Go to hell in a handbasket of mind parasites and tenured willfulness.

Not only do human beings want to know these things deep down -- it's how we're built -- but this is the very purpose of having an intellect. Why do people think they have an intelligence that is so disproportionate to anything in the world? For no reason at all? Ultimately, the only "object" proportionate to the human subject is God.

I'm not complaining, mind you. Just warming up.

Let's lift off where we packed up yesterday. This one is worth repeating, because it's so fundamental:

The further a being is distant from that which is Being of itself, namely God, the nearer it is to nothingness.

Again: man is always situated between O and Ø. However, he is -- obviously -- the only thing in all of creation capable of movement within that space. Everything else -- from angels to amoebas -- occupies a single plane. But man -- miraculously -- has freedom of movement in this space, which is none other than free will.

(Yesterday I read that every year the earth falls about 15 centimeters further away from the sun. A sin against Apollo! But that's involuntary, so Not Guilty.)

However, orthoparadoxically, man is only really free when he is moving toward truth, light, virtue, beauty, etc.: in the orbit of O.

To the extent that he seeks and moves toward Ø, then he is not only unfree, but a "slave of sin," so to speak. We will no doubt have more to say about this as we proceed. For now, I'm just going to move along page by page, and blog whatever pops into my noggin.

By the way, many moderns object to the word "sin," and I don't entirely blame them. Sometimes idiots saturate a perfectly fine word, as in how the left has ruined the beautiful word "liberal." For me, sin isn't an underlying reality -- in fact, it has no reality at all -- but rather, the effect of movement toward Ø. Call it what you want, but the more passionate and determined the movement, the more lost the sinner.

Next: Good and true and being are one and the same thing in reality, but in the mind they are distinguished from each other.

Precisely. This goes to exactly what I just said a few paragraphs above about movement toward truth, light, virtue, and beauty. We have different names for these, but they all emanate from the same source, and the closer one moves toward the source, the more they converge.

Recall what I just said about sin having no reality. Well, Evil consists in not-being, so there you are. But sin-ing (the verb) consists in movement, again, movement toward the nothingness of Ø. God is Being, and all that is implied in this. Evil is measured in distance from Being, or non-Being.

Thus, Evil arises through some particular thing lacking, but good arises only from a whole and integral cause. Which is why evil is at once impermissible and inevitable (or ineveateapple, as Petey says).

Looked at this way, the creation as such is Good, just as God says it is in Genesis. Nevertheless, it is not God, so draw your own conclusions. As the Man himself says, "Why do you call me good? No one is good -- except God alone."

Thus, could it be that creation has a kind of crisscross pattern of Being and Not-Being? I don't know. We'll come back to that one.

Here is a nonlocal point where Christianity and eastern religions converge: Sin does not occur in the will without some ignorance in the intellect. Christians tend to focus on the act, whereas eastern approaches focus on the Bad Idea -- the cosmic ignorance -- behind all the sophering.

For example, the aim of yoga is to "become united with the Godhead, the Reality which underlies this apparent, ephemeral universe." Yoga is simply movement toward O by any means necessary, e.g., jnana, raja, bhakti, hatha, etc. Different yokes for different folks -- although Jesus's is easier than trying to do it oneself.

Here again, this one reflects what was said above about freedom and O: To will evil is neither freedom nor a part of freedom. Or course it "feels" free, but it is really a kind of reactionary rebellion; at the extreme -- as with the contemporary left -- if becomes outright inversion.

I'm sure we'll have more to say about this as we go along, but the left worships at the altar of Ø, which is where mere error transitions to outright satanism.

You will have noticed that such persons are no longer susceptible to correction. They have given themselves over to Ø with all their hearts, minds, and strength. This is the world of Fake News, Fake Degrees, and Fake Culture, all mutually supporting one another. It is Darkness Visible -- more visible every day.

We do not strive toward evil by tending towards anything but by turning away from something. From what, for example, is the New York Times fleeing?

That was rhetorical.

Just know that Judgment must not be passed on things according to the opinion of the wicked, but according to that of the good, just as in matters of taste, judgment must not be according to the opinion of the sick, but according to that of the healthy.

But who is wicked, and who is sick? Asked Pilate. Asked the Times.

Now, believe it or not, Everything evil is rooted in some good, and everything false in some truth. It's how and why seduction works. Look at Antifa: it is good to be against fascism, right? Nevertheless, Antifa is evil. Likewise, Stalin fought Hitler, but that hardly made him good. Rather, the good he did served as a shield from the great Evil he Was.

And for nearly a third of WWII, there was an alliance between these supposedly "opposite, though similar, barbarisms of Nazidom and Bolshevism" (Churchill).

We can say the same of the twin barbarisms of white supremacism and Antifa. Even after Germany invaded the USSR, Churchill pulled no punches: "The Nazi regime is indistinguishable from the worst features of Communism." The latter "excels all forms of human wickedness in the efficiency of its cruelty and ferocious aggression." Nevertheless, Churchill was spiritually mature enough to know that it sometimes takes a demon to defeat a demon.

Unfortunately, one of the demons ended up seducing Roosevelt, but that's a story for a different post. Suffice to to say that any idiot can commit evil. But in the words of the Aphorist, The Devil can achieve nothing great without the careless collaboration of the virtues.


Gagdad Bob said...

Apt quote here:

"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he already knows, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.

Abdulmonem Othman said...

The attempt to falsify the divine narrative is in full swing ever since the beginning. It started with disobeying the command in both its forms of do not do or do. The problem has started with the faithfuls who have lost their hold to the center and their conviction has waned, in confronting the anarchy of the left which has been lossened on the world with passionate intensity.It is the story of Yeats second coming. We are living in a time where the faithfuls are regaining their zeal and vehemence to face the mess. God likes the warriors in his path and reminds them that the tricks of the satan are weak,save when the humans allow them to work in their egoic consciousness. It is the humans who allow their community to rise or fall, to be built or be destroyed and this is linked to the type of language they use and their faith in the language they use. It is again the question of truth and falsity, either with god or with satan, that is either with truth or falsity. Let us not be saddened because as there are those responsive to truth there are those who are leashed to falsity and life is a game of confrontation by these both teams and the winners are those with more conviction, with more truth, with more tolerance and their purpose is not to kill but to save the astray.

julie said...

But I don't want to know about the First Cause! Fine. Be an idiot then. Go to hell in a handbasket of mind parasites and tenured willfulness.

It wouldn't be so bad if they could at least be content with making that journey alone; alas, it's apparently not a party if the restuvus won't come, too.

Suffice to to say that any idiot can commit evil. But in the words of the Aphorist, The Devil can achieve nothing great without the careless collaboration of the virtues.

Brings it back to our Unknown Friend and the Devil card, if memory serves...

Anonymous said...

An impassioned and well written post, kudos. I see you've bet everything on the proposition, stated in a number of different ways, that a human being must "move toward" God; and that failure to do so results in severe, possibly permanent, negative consequences.

But you may have lost your hand. This is because it is entirely possible that God is not down with that program.

God may be with a multitude of souls in heaven; saints to the left of him, prophets to the right, holy persons in front, stretching towards the horizon. The souls in heaven are all pure and wise, and possibly incredibly numerous. You and I were, perhaps, once among them, and will be again.

Also, the amount any one soul can be permanently besmirched by "sin" on Earth is not really a known thing, scripture notwithstanding.

What goes on here with people is not clearly understood. But, odds are, the pathways and deeds a soul must encounter here are not going to be all sweetness and light, but may be vital nonetheless for some inscrutable purpose. The amount a person "moves away" from God may have some purpose, and may not be a permanent voyage.

Therefore, the proposition one must strive to be holy in life is generally correct and valorous, but not necessarily God's first or highest priority for humanity. Other paths may be needed, the left handed or dark path included.

My two cents, Stephen Greybeard.

Van Harvey said...

"Next: Good and true and being are one and the same thing in reality, but in the mind they are distinguished from each other.


Precisely... but I repeat yourself.

I wonder though, what the relationship is, if any, between their apparent separateness, and being able to distinguish one thing, from another... could we see the parts, and the choices to be made, if without effort, we saw all as One?