The great imbecilic explanations of human behavior adequately explain the one who adopts them. --Dávila
Yesterday's footnotes in search of a post ended with a couple touching on the ontological roots and axiological flashes of Christianity.
These roots are above, the leafy flashes (AKA pneumosynthesis) below, and let's try to figure out just what's going on down here.
Our first hunch is that it all revolves around the inner and upper meaning of personhood per se.
Analogously, I'm thinking of the following aphorism:
The transcendent God is not a projection of the one who is our father in the flesh. To the contrary, a reflection of God turns the animal progenitor into a father.
Just so, God is not a projection of our own concept of personhood, rather, that which is its very principle, and without which we are obviously just animals, fundamentally no different from any other, only worse, if you're familiar with the blood-spattered history of atheist ideologies, from communism to national socialism to "global boiling," et al.
Human beings embody a new cosmic category, this again being persons. Let us comb thorough this big pile o' aphorisms for any other clues about the goround of this mysterious personhood.
At this point we'd like to keep things abstract and above board. No monkey isness!
In other words, we want to avoid delving into matters of explicit faith, and try rather to hone in on what every intellectually dishonest person agrees with, regardless of (implicit) faith.
Faith (our kind) is more an explicit "fine-tuning" or differentiation of those principles we can reach via nature.
Which goes back to a couple of ground aphorisms that are worth repeating, 1)
Today we require a methodical introduction to that vision of the world outside of which religious vocabulary is meaningless. We do not talk of God with those who do not judge talk about the gods as plausible.
And 2)
Christianity does not construct a rational explanation of Christ, but constructs the universe as the sum of necessary postulates to the existence of Christ...
Put these together, and we're looking for -- or at -- a vision of the world in which Christ -- the Godman, the metacosmic person -- is possible. After all, in order for anything to exist, it must first be possible for it to exist, otherwise it's impossible in principle and therefore in fact.
Let's start with some necessary entailments of the anti-Bob contingent, AKA reductio ad trolliums, so we can rule out a whole lotta BS, before considering the alternative. Note that each of these addresses the same cosmic bullshidiocy from a slightly different angle:
If man is the sole end of man, an inane reciprocity is born from that principle, like the mutual reflection of two empty mirrors.
Man is the animal that imagines itself to be Man.
Only man pretends to be the anti-God.
"To have faith in man" does not reach the level of blasphemy; it is just one more bit of nonsense.
To believe in the redemption of man by man is more than en error; it is an idiocy.
He avoids announcing to man his divinity, but proposes goals that only a god could reach, or rather proclaims that the essence of man has rights that assume he is divine.
Humanity is the only totally false god.
The human has the insignificance of a swarm of insects when it is merely human.
Even so, you are nevertheless free to be an inane and idiotic progressive insect and pest. Indeed, nothing is stopping you besides reality, even if it takes time for reality to exact its revenge. Progressivism is already -- I mean, just look at their faces! -- dead, but death takes time:
An expert stab in the nerve center of an error kills it in seconds. But it requires centuries for its corpse to decompose.How cosmically appropriate that their leader is literally an undead and decomposing corpse! Truly truly, the author of progressivism is a humorist without a sense of humor, and who might this unintentionally amusing author be?
Indeed, who could it be, if not a person, since dark angels are persons too. And there are plenty of persons we don't like, but we do not jump to the conclusion that they aren't persons. A little perspective, please. Rather, forgive them their trespasses yada yada.
BUT
The Lord’s Prayer does not say: “... Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against whomever they wish.”
Dig? Let us stupulate that
In every moment the majority lives from dead ideas.
And that
Religious pathology is the key to history.
The leftism of the majority of leftists is perfectly explicable, but the intelligent man who has left-wing ideas must severely examine his conscience.
Well, maybe a little preview:
That which is not a person is not finally anything.
5 comments:
The great imbecilic explanations of human behavior adequately explain the one who adopts them. –Dávila
I always thought humans were best-survival machines, give or take emotional checks and balances. Empaths check their best-survival drives with agreeableness, rationals balance their best-survival drives with logic, and psychopaths don’t worry about any of that.
Which of course makes me a braying maggot.
But this is more about the idea of personhood. Individuality. Freedom to be me. Now I’m not one to wear the rainbow colors, the MAGA colors, the gangsta rap colors… I look and appear quite bland to most. They point their pink plastic Barbie fingers at me hoping my kind will drop and die. But I’m gonna wave my bland flag high. High.
There was that time long ago, when I tried sporting a gigantic mushroom fro and bell bottom pants. But I kept tripping and falling from all that eye-blocking hair and oversized pant fabric.
I finally chose the path of practical blandness. It’s an easy path. A safer path. I noticed that Conservative Christians who always talked up liberty and individuality seemed to really hate free willies who let their freak flags fly. Plus many are as worshipful of their Dear Leader Dejour as North Koreans are of their own Dear Leader Jongjour.
Shouldn’t we be even more worshipful of President Trump if he freely chose to sport a gigantic fro and bell bottoms? Especially without tripping or falling?
Yes I know, STFU you braying maggot, you know not what you do and we don’t care what you say. But still, this doesn’t make sense to me. Why talk about freedom of individuality, without also talking about the many moral-behavioral strictures which makes our Conservative Christians dress as blandly as I do?
... there are plenty of persons we don't like, but we do not jump to the conclusion that they aren't persons. A little perspective, please. Rather, forgive them their trespasses yada yada.
BUT
The Lord’s Prayer does not say: “... Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against whomever they wish.”
Must be something in the air today, I needed that. I know of a few human cockroaches who are in need of the worst prayer I can offer: that they will see themselves in truth, and if there's any shred of personhood left in them, repent before it's too late.
The guardian angels of many people must be fallen angels.
Never thought of that before, but it would explain a lot.
Ogosho Mel Tome has been out of many albums, and when he was young, he said it was a voice, when he couldn't complain about getting on the ride. All the songs are cool, last year's best dish CD is record record record design, mood is jazzy. The first girl Daddy is so good. I don't like male vocals, but Mel, Thome.
But why is it not so popular in Japan? Shades like Sinatra, no pathos like Johnny Hartman, just a notenki, the face is like “Totchan boy”? Really, it's too bright. But it's good. I have a little feeling like “How is it, I'm good”, but I have to say it's a big board.
Post a Comment