Let us continue our excursion into the purification of the intellect.
Again, although the term -- purification -- will sound anachronistic to the postmodern, post-literate, and post-reality ears of the left, it is quite obviously one of their enduring preoccupations, extending back to the French Revolution, when the penalty for impure thoughts was separation of them from the body.
We see this same obsession with Impure Thoughts in all subsequent revolutions, from communists to Islamists to our contemporary cancelists.
Here again, this obsession with the thoughts of other people represents but the transformation of an archetypal religious concern that essentially coarises with man.
This is just another way of saying that the serpent has always been with us. He likes to accuse other persons (starting with God) of crimethink, which is why Jesus makes the point of advising us to remove the plank from or own heads before complaining to the authorities about the other guy's splinter.
Man has been dealing with this question of impure thoughts since the beginning of his terrestrial career some 50 to 100,000 years ago. And the earliest and most persistent solution to this problem has revolved around human sacrifice. Unless you have a better idea.
Today this ritual scapegoating is called "cancellation." It's the same mechanism, only sublimated: instead of killing the body, they only kill the career and/or reputation, and banish the victim to the wilderness, exiling him beyond the borders of the cult.
This is all exhaustively outlined in the works of Gil Bailie, Rene Girard, and others, so I don't want to repeat it here. It's also discussed in various anthropological studies of millenarian / apocalyptic movements.
Now, to a certain extent, you could even say that the modern west is just an accident of one man's pathological obsession with impure thoughts, and a desperate attempt to deal with them.
This man was Martin Luther, who is Patient Zero of cancel culture. His was the first successful revolution in the west since the revolution of Christianity some 1000+ years before. That first revolution truly overturned the order of the world; so too did Luther's, to such an extent that we are still dealing with the aftershocks.
Luther suffered from a truly morbid scrupulosity, even to the point of what we would now recognize as Panic Disorder: he just couldn't eliminate the Bad Thoughts from his head. I read somewhere that his confessions would last for hours, but that he always came back for more. No amount of forgiveness could expiate his guilt over his own disgusting impurity.
Eventually he landed on the idea that there was nothing he could do about his impurity and sinfulness, but that Jesus had done it for him. In a new twist on the meaning of Christ's redemption, he likened it to a blanket of white snow over a stinking pile of dung (regarding impure thoughts, he also had an obsession with feces, and scatological references abound in his works.)
But with that little maneuver, the intellect was severed from the body, somewhat analogous to Dr. Guillotin's invention, only leaving the organism alive. But the intellect was ruined, a victim of original sin. And if you want to see how ruined, just listen to one of those famous TV snake handlers like Joel Osteen or whoever it is this week. Look ma, no brains!
Once the intellect was severed from Christianity, the path was cleared for the new & improved ideologies that continue pestering us to this day. For the descendent of Luther there is no defense against them but "faith," which is no defense at all.
To be perfectly accurate, it can still be a defense for the faithful, but it can have no impact on the faithless materialist who -- ironically -- has a total but misplaced faith in the powers of his own omniscient and omnicompetent intellect.
Let's talk abut these people, since they occupy all the positions of power in our culture. There is no one in the ruling class who isn't a demented child of Luther, practicing the one true faith of progressivism in one of its many two-faces.
That may sound polemical until you think it through, all the way down to the ground. Then you'll see that it is obvious.
In The Active Purification of the Intellect, Garrigou describes a certain modality of morbid tenure. Such self-styled intellectuals
are afflicted with almost a mania for collecting. Theirs is an accumulation of knowledge mechanically arranged and unorganized, somewhat as if it were in a dictionary. This type of work, instead of training the mind, smothers it, as too much wood smothers a fire.
Under this jumble of accumulated knowledge, they can no longer see the light of first principles, which alone could bring order out of all this material and lift up their souls even to God, the Beginning and End of all things.
Here again, Luther and his progeny can offer no defense against such intellectuals, for he regarded our reason as an enemy and even "plague": we must accept things on faith, and pretending otherwise is a grotesque fall into pride and hubris.
This approach is similar to that of the Islamist, who would agree that anything not in the Book is unnecessary and probably the work of the Devil: "man, made from a bad tree, can do nothing but want and do evil" (Luther). Good works count for nothing and good thoughts even less, for man is "innately and inevitably evil and corrupt" and reason but his filthy whore.
Let's fast forward 500 years and see how this comports with the cult of antiracism: to the extent that you are white, you are innately and inevitably racist. And if you deny your racism, this only proves how racist you are. This kind of anti-logic is called a Kafka trap, but it could also be called a Luther trap: if you don't agree that your intellect is utterly wrecked by original sin, this only proves how wrecked you are by sin.
Now, this is not to say that the intellect escaped the consequences of the fall. If only! But a casualty is not necessarily a fatality, although it certainly can be, or maybe you didn't attend college.
Moreover, the wound becomes fatal as a direct consequence of turning away from God and sealing the mind from the flow of grace. To put it conversely, an "ungraced intellect" isn't just wrong but...
I don't want to exaggerate, but let's just say a liar and a murderer. It results in a literal spiritual blindness, such that, instead of 20/∞ vision, one is reduced to 20/Ø vision, which is no vision at all. In the words of Fr. G, the refusal of grace "takes all penetration away from us and leaves us in a state of spiritual dullness, which is like the loss of all higher intelligence."
So, Luther is not correct that we born into total and inescapable cosmic stupidity. Rather, full blown leftism is an acquired condition.
Once again the post has run overlong. To be continued...
29 comments:
he regarded our reason as an enemy and even "plague": we must accept things on faith, and pretending otherwise is a grotesque fall into pride and hubris.
Reminds me of some of the very good-hearted and God-centered Christians I know, who find themselves utterly rejecting the testimony of reality wherever it disagrees with the poetic and metaphorical descriptions of difficult concepts in the Bible. I don't fault them; certainly their hearts are in the right place, and it's clear that whatever they think about the shape of the earth or the timing of dinosaurs, they follow Christ and live accordingly as best they can. When you can see the grace at work in someone's life, it's hard to say he's completely out of line. Even if you wish they wouldn't be quite so earnest about how the earth really, really is flat, and to believe otherwise is to be snared by the devil.
Good works count for nothing and good thoughts even less, for man is "innately and inevitably evil and corrupt" and reason but his filthy whore.
Then there are Calvinists, who believe that some people are saved, and some aren't. Full stop. There's nothing you can do about it.
Say what you will about flat-earthers, at least they have hope...
Martin Luther had an issue with Judaism, and more specifically Jews, which became increasingly more um, hostile as the years wore on. I believe he started out disapproving of Spanish Inquisition techniques but he eventually came to think they weren't going nearly far enough. And not in a Mel Brooks kind of way either. At least Hitler wanted to expand his persecutions to be more inclusive, welcoming gypsies, gays and those low browed slavs to his fun.
As Lutherans, my family always avoided Jews. Not because of our prejudice mind you, but because they’d charge us double for their services after finding out we were Lutherans. Sometimes I wish religion didn’t have to be so hard.
"...regarding impure thoughts, he also had an obsession with feces, and scatological references abound in his works..."
And lice, and vermin, all of which he delighted in flinging at Aristotle, none of which touched Ari, and all of which seemed to cake on the inside of his own skull. Must've made those lengthy confessions rather aromatic.
I should add that the typical Lutheran is pretty far removed from Luther's ideas. For example, it would probably be hard to find a Lutheran who doesn't believe in free will, just as you'd be hard pressed to find an Anglican who thinks the right behead your wife is a good first principle for a new theology.
Julie wrote in her comment:
"Then there are Calvinists, who believe that some people are saved, and some aren't. Full stop. There's nothing you can do about it."
There should be more discussion of Calvinism. Let me ask, has anyone had a bona-fide conversion story to share?
These stories used to be shared and in fact are studied in American literature classes as works of literary art in their own right.
Each Calvinist over 70 years in age has a very concrete relationship to Hell. Those that are hell-bound know it and those that are saved heave a sigh of relief.
Calvinism separates the cowboys from the Indians like nothing else.
Now, if GDB can establish that no progressive is among the elect, then case-closed. You might as well oil up that guillotine.
"...Theirs is an accumulation of knowledge mechanically arranged and unorganized, somewhat as if it were in a dictionary. This type of work, instead of training the mind, smothers it, as too much wood smothers a fire... "
Syncoonistically, I just posted on a similar theme, Testing Knowledge & Wisdom to Promote Learned Helplessness, digging a bit into what knowledge & wisdom are, and are not, and how our schooling methodology keeps our students minds at a safe distance from either, by means of stuffing them with flattened facts, information, and answers designed to kill a students questions.
Trying to give a visual image of the differences between Information and Knowledge, that a point is to a fact, multiple facts make a line of data, and related lines of data may enclose a space of information in a flat, two dimensional sense, which can be useful, but that as:
"... a triangle is to a tetrahedron, or as a square is to a pyramid or a cube, I propose that:
'Information is to knowledge, as flat geometric shapes are to three dimensional objects'
The question then is, as 3-Dimensional objects have depth through the vertical axis which 2-Dimensional shapes lack, what should we imagine would provide that vertical dimension to knowledge, which the flat plane of information is lacking?..."
However a dazzling array of geometric shapes they might assemble on paper, they have no depth, while those with 3D Knowledge, have far more than a slew of 2D 'informational text' stored in memory, and if it is knowledge rather than compartmentalized information, the objects of their knowledge will integrate into the rest of what they know and is known, and through that process of stirring and following questions to gain a personal understanding, principles will be revealed and become a part of a student's understanding, and provide some of the building blocks of wisdom.
The 'Informational Text' that our school's textbooks and tests teach, is not, and cannot, lead to either knowledge or wisdom, but man O man are they eager to certify their paper thin forgeries as 'your truth'.
I would say that we are either arguing from fact to principle or principle to fact, i.e., ascending to or descending from Truth, the latter being the peace & order of the intellect.
Liberals have no consistent principles, so they're either running from them or pulling back from them.
Gagdad Bob said "I would say that we are either arguing from fact to principle or principle to fact, i.e., ascending to or descending from Truth, the latter being the peace & order of the intellect..."
Agreed. But we can't argue from facts to principles (or vice versa), without looking upwards (inwards), which requires abstracting concepts from facts, which are contextually True to those facts, but in a vertical manner that the mere facts and data of information cannot comprehend.
Knowledge, to get a bit cheeky, is what comes of information being 'known in a biblical way'. An example I use in the post, is that being told to memorize the dates of the Boston Tea Party, the battles of Lexington & Concord, Bunker Hill and Yorktown, dates which are important facts containing useful information about the American Revolutionary War, but it's still two dimensional, and throwing in more dates & names to memorize,
"... will still lack the depth of knowledge - not to mention interest - of which they are only information of. It's only when at least one higher level conceptual point is integrated into that informational space, that your understanding realizes a vertical axis to rise above the flat informational plane of mere facts & data, enabling you to enter into the object of what you know. With that, what had been a two dimensional data square of length and width, is transformed into a three dimensional object of knowledge having real depth, and with each additional concept the object of what you know is developing not just in appearance, but in weight and substance, from the inside out, into a pyramidal form, a cube, a dodecahedron, and eventually into a well rounded three dimensional sphere.
Having that conceptual component is what gives the thinker something to think about and room to think about it in, in a way that is not possible to do with a simple flat fact - a date is just a date, even multiple names & dates & labels, are but flat and deathly uninterestingly facts. It's only when you begin adding conceptual depth to the flat informational plane, that those revolutionary events begin to develop an understanding and interest in the nature and struggle for Liberty (which is... what?) which you'd previously had only information about. When each data point in what you know, itself anchors another 3-D point, it serves as a natural framework for further questions (...at what point does Liberty integrate into Law, and into community) seeking to fill in the inevitable gaps in a person's knowledge, extending both outwards (... is Law separable from Justice, community, and government), and inwards (... how does virtue extend from education and morality), further integrating any new set of facts & concepts into the spaces between what had been known, developing a more well rounded knowledge through a process that can and should continue ad infinitum, 'for as long as you both shall live'..."
Protestantism and Islam are related because both religions are rebellions against Catholicism. One from inside Catholicism and one from the outside. Belloc calls Islam a Catholic heresy.
When I realized what M. Luther had wrought with his rebellion, and realized the significance of the wound he had inflicted on the Body of Christ, I turned away from Protestantism and returned to Catholicism. The wound really is as serious as Dr. Bob says. M. Luther really is the Patient Zero. What M. Luther handed on to his descendants was so much less than what had been handed to him. I was so bitter when I realized that.
Interestingly enough, during my and my family's return to Catholicism, my youngest son's teacher in Germany was a descendant of Martin Luther, and she had also returned to Catholicism. Not only was she my son's first through fourth grade teacher, she was also his catechist in Catholicism those four years. This son has now brought more people back to the Catholic faith than any of the rest of us.
About M. Luther’s scatological fascination, there is an interesting book about German national character and the German fascination with the scatological. Boy is that a book that wouldn’t get published these days. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/439732.Life_Is_Like_a_Chicken_Coop_Ladder
The other thought that this post brought to mind was Albrecht Dürer’s dream and the painting he made of it. I always felt that it also portrayed the significance of the cataclysm that the Reformation wrought.
https://www.wga.hu/html_m/d/durer/2/16/2/12dream.html
Schuon has a fascinating essay on Protestantism, essentially making the argument that it is a legitimate religious approach, just closer the simplistic theology of Islam than of Christianity. Both approaches feature such things as the denial of free will, fideism, occasionalism, bibliolatry, absence of hierarchy, no rational theology, etc. Schuon would say that it is extrinsically heterodox (as related to Christianity) but intrinsically orthodox, in the sense that it can still be effective despite itself, depending upon the faith and sincerity of the adherent. In short, God knows his own.
Bob: I believe it's a mistake to use personality defects as an argument against their ideas, as attractive as that can be. I think of Luther as a kind of antibody created by the Church of his time, that although was a major force of good, was very corrupt. I hear Luther championed the direct reading of the Bible rather than being filtered through the teachings of the church, and Salvation through Faith rather than by works.
Imagine today's Pope having complete control of all of (non-Orthodox) Christian faith; I imagine that was Luther's world.
That brings me to another problem I have while I read your thoughts (gratefully!). Is Salvation possible through intellect? Is it denied to the dumb? I feel as interesting and even as inspiring as reading your's and other's thoughts, what essentially is required? Maybe that's not what your blog is about, but more a parallel investigation into the nature of reality.
When I hear of the story of Luther and his simple message of salvation through faith in Christ, I wish the Catholic church could've said "We hear you", reformed, and there would be no schism. It's my understanding that the Catholics essentially agree with that belief today, adding the authority of the experience of the Church along with the Bible. Today though, there's the added corruption of social justice, environmentalism, so it seems Catholics today are still struggling to reform their institution (see "New Oxford Review").
Appreciatively...
Hello BZ:
I enjoyed your thoughtful comment. You seem to have noted Bob's complete throwing of the baby out with the bathwater; i.e, as soon as Luther was seen as part bad, he was was all bad. Nothing he did he or said could be good because on this day Bob was out to get him. So yes, the fecal interest was presented as evidence of Luther's unholy intentions. Never mind any corruption of the Catholic church, how did that enter into it? Not discussed.
Bob either lacks the capacity, or feigns a lack of capacity, to entertain evidence which disagrees with his feelings of the moment. He tends to play with absolutes only.
Bob has written every Democrat was rotten to the core and demonic. None of them could ever do anything for this world. If someone voted for Biden, well...they should just get off the planet. His reader Julie echoed the sentiment and agreed a socialist could not be a Christian (easily refuted by interviewing parishioners).
I don't know why or where this ire is coming from. I think this is a "venting" blog and is not for serious thinkers. People need to vent.
Although he can discuss philosophy competently Bob has this glaring need to stick it to some out-group and his readers share this need as well. Hence the attack on Protestants in this post. And the jab at Protestants is a first; he may be getting bored with sticking it to the Democrats.
As for myself, I love the blog for other reasons. Bob writes well and he funny in his dry and droll way. And, it is very hard to find sustained conflict on the internet, so to find a combative author like Bob, that is why I'm here trolling. But I don't buy in to the schtick, I just like to play.
-Dung Artist 000 0000
BZ:
Thank you for the thoughtful critique. First, the post isn't really intended to be about Luther but about the religious category of purity, and how it manifests in the left. Since the posts are free associated, Luther just popped into my mind as a person rather markedly obsessed with impurity. The post isn't about his ideas per sea, although I do happen to disagree with those as well. In short, ono inawa shyo.
Also, the Pope doesn't have complete control over the church and faithful, rather, vice versa. It's a misunderstanding to think that he's entitled to change any fundamental truth of the faith, rather, only to preserve, defend, it and hand it on.
As to the role of intellect, that's a complicated question that goes to different temperaments, gifts, and spiritual types. For example, there are the bhaktic (typical of Christianity in general) and the jnanic types, and there are obviously countless saints who were not metaphysicians or even theologians.
Also, the bhakti generally needs to be situated in a tradition that has done and does the thinking for him, so to speak. Spiritual free lancers usually end badly, although there are exceptions. More generally, failure to be open to the truth is just bad character.
Conversely, there can be no jnani without bhakti. If the truth doesn't make one humble, awed, worshipful, etc., one is doing it wrong.
As to wishing the Church could have responded to Luther with a counter-reformation or something, I have good news for you!
As I often point out to my kids as we study history, the people who wanted certain changes (Bibles in their own languages, for instance) weren't necessarily wrong, but they way they went about getting those changes very often was. And the way the Church handled things was often pretty awful, too.
It's like humans in general are just terrible, even when they really want to do good. There oughta be a term for that...
I have come to notice certain geniuses not only have a messed up life in many regards, but it sometimes seems that messedupedness contributed to their ability to find new truths or a new way: forced from a happy path in life, they find something new. This gives me hope for myself and allow fellow miscreants, that there's a possibility of redemption and purpose for imperfect lives, which includes maybe everyone. I am not a Catholic, though I admire their end product: it seems to me Catholics have a more soulful quality inculcated into them. That said, I find the current Pope abysmal, I wonder if he believes in God or the divinity of Jesus. I find this is the razor that separates people who count on faith in Christ, such as Dostoevsky or Chesterton or Dávila, vs. "merely" inspired intellectuals, such as (I suspect) Carl Jung, maybe Jordan Peterson for examples. I fear the idea that you have to be really, really smart to find salvation; if so, I/we are doomed!
I credit reading OneCosmos over the years as giving me a better framework or schema to plug in everything, something beyond the utilitarian worldview we get in our default culture.
I have nothing but respect and gratitude for Bob, just putting that out there. Oh yeah, too, there is no human institution that isn't corrupt and trying to throw off that corruption, that's just how this world is. I admire the Church, and they've thrown off heresies and challenges before. My favorite reading (besides OneCosmos, of course!) lately are by St. Teresa of Avila.
Yours, Bill
Be not afraid, Bill. As my husband is fond of saying, there's no IQ test required to get into heaven.
As I see it, at the end of the day, we are all of us one of the two thieves or murderers who were crucified with Christ. At that moment, in our hearts we will either jeer or repent; God will know His own.
Almost three years ago, my youngest brother died on Good Friday. I don't know if he was a churchgoer; he certainly wasn't wise, and wasn't always good. I do believe, all the way down, that at the final moment he was with Christ, and knew that all was forgiven. He was truly the thief on the cross, and he was finally free from pain. May we all be so blessed on our last day.
Several times I have seen written the comments "God will know His own."
I take it then there are people who are not God's own? That is fascinating. Do tell how these folks came to be amongst us.
While you're doing that I will go have a sit down. Wow, I can tell this should be a good one.
Bill, please opine too, you seem to have your sh*t together.
Dung Artist 000 0000
Or you could just crack open a Bible, and read what Himself had to say about it.
@anonymous DArtist
16
For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life.
17
For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him.
18
Whoever believes in him will not be condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
19
And this is the verdict, that the light came into the world, but people preferred darkness to light, because their works were evil.
20
For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come toward the light, so that his works might not be exposed.
21
But whoever lives the truth comes to the light, so that his works may be clearly seen as done in God.
Gospel 3:16-21
https://bible.usccb.org/bible/john/3
@anonymouse DArtist
I forgot to sign my name - Irene NYC - in the above quote from the Bible.
Julie, thank you for your hopeful words.
Appreciatively...
Julie, Irene, point taken about the scriptures. The scriptures speak to people perishing if they do not believe, etc. These are sanctions.
The Bible does indeed address what will happen to people depending on their actions.
But the question was, are there people which are not God's own? This had not been addressed.
Certainly those hell-bound have been disowned by their Father. God can disapprove of his children but could it be said they are not his children at all? On what basis?
It would be like a taping of Maury:
Maury: God, the results are back and you ARE the Father.
God: Absolutely not! I could never be the Father of that scoundrel...
Ah, but the DNA don't lie. Now does it.
Why must I continually remind people, despite the title of the book and blog, this is One Cosmos? And you just can't two Fathers involved?
Is there something about it you do not understand?
Again, read the scriptures. Specifically, the things Jesus said. Sheep and goats, people being cast out into the darkness, wailing and gnashing of teeth, etc. The prince of this world and his children. Eternal hell. Not here to bring peace, but the sword.
All those old-timey fire and brimstone preachers didn't just make that stuff up out of whole cloth, they read it and found it rather alarming, which was why they preached about it.
Read it for yourself, not just in one Gospel, but in all of them. Maybe even use multiple translations, because sometimes a word or two of difference sheds new light on what was meant. Check the context, learn what the people He spoke to would likely have understood by it. Even then you will have only scratched the surface, but it's far better for you than popping in here and demanding to be spoon-fed answers which you will then happily reject out-of-hand because it's just, like, our opinion, man.
Go do your own darn homework.
Being 'smart' isn't even a requirement for being Wise, let alone for salvation.
Thank you for your thoughtful response Julie.
I would never dissuade anyone from believing the scriptures, but as for myself I don't buy it.
I know, I know. I risk being banished to hell.
The smart money is to believe the scriptures as an insurance policy against being banished to hell, and I might have gone that route except I know God would not be fooled by, and would not approve, such chicanery.
Anyway, the whole point I was trying to make is that every sinner, even those that end up in Hell, are "God's own." Even the prince of this world has to be God's child, or otherwise would have created itself out of the ether and would be a bona-fide second God.
What we must avoid is a sneaky return to polytheism through the back door and that's what devil talk seems like to me.
So, anyway Julie, carry on. Your firm belief in the Bible shall serve you well.
-Dung Artist, languishing in a dungeon somewhere in France. 000 0000
Anonymous,
Of course every existent is ontologically God’s own. The problem is that some of them are never disowned by God Himself, they tragically disown God. The very love of God that keeps them in existence is experienced as torture by the damned. Love burns, as we well know? This is why Bergoglio’s alleged theory, as reported by his Freemason friend, Eugenio Scalfari, that lost souls simply vanish into extinction, if it is true, is yet another example of fake mercy.
Anon, here's what I said to those in my time who wished me dead:
"Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you are unable to accept My message. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out his desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, refusing to uphold the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, because he is a liar and the father of lies.
But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me!"
Please note that having been told, you cannot claim ignorance when the day comes.
Anon 3:23 PM, point taken. I do fear if on my dying day I discover Christianity was the true path. I certainly was told, and still didn't accept Jesus as my personal savior.
I'll have to take my chances because I took another path that seemed right to my inner sensibilities.
Do I follow my soul, or a popular religion that does not seem to call to my soul?
Long ago I decided to be authentic and to follow the promptings of my soul. Either these are authentic or I don't care to exist. I may burn for my fidelity to it.
One arcane horror is to try to cram something down your your soul's throat that you know to be unpalatable to it. I was trained up as a Hindu, so how am I to easily convert to Christianity? What, turn my back on Vishnu?
Upon my death, should I arrive at St. Peters gate, I will explain what happened and then St Peter can do with me what he will. Should I speak with Jesus I will say, verily you are the Son of God, and this I never doubted for a moment. Do as you will with me.
Refreshing as always to read your analysis.
On sky news australia re cancel culture and critical race.theory ( critical hate theory) Peta Credlin talks about the left and " original sin". Its become a real Cult.... not unlike the spanish inquisit i on, islamists etc. Hence their alliance with islamists.
Post a Comment