misinterprets man's openness to the world as an expression, even a consequence, of man's organic imperfection and a "lack of specific natural means" and so as a "basically negative reality."
man is naturally endowed with reason and furnished with hands, which together are the ultimate tools of all tools, allowing man to fashion instruments of any kind and for an infinity of purposes.
Again, the point is that this human space isn't empty but filled with interesting stuff -- essences, universals, transcendentals, logic, mathematics, beauty, science, history, necessary metaphysical truths, et al. What a place, and what a privilege!
Nor does it ever run short of interesting stuff, which is another feature of this space. Rather than just wanting to know what we need in order to survive and reproduce, we want to know it all. We have an unlimited desire to know everything there is to know about everything there is, or in other words, are ordered to the infinite object, O.
We all know there is a "biosphere," and underneath this a subatomic field of energy vibrations. But what is above these two? Teilhard de Chardin called it the "noosphere," which is again not "invented" by man but discovered. Or better yet, a kind of "co-creation" that takes place between immanence and transcendence, a la Voegelin or Polanyi.
Other animals live in an "environment" to which they are adapted. What is man's environment? Reduced to an animal environment the human being would scarcely be human, because there would be no way to actualize his infinite potential. For
It is not merely the "totality of all things" but equally the "nature of things" that constitutes the realm of the mind. We are able to reach -- which does not mean comprehend -- the essence of things, and because of this we find ourselves empowered to attain the totality of things as well (Pieper).
Otherwise, truly truly, to hell with it.
One of the keys to understanding our true nature and our ultimate destiny is the fact that the things of this world are never proportionate to the actual range of our intelligence. Our intelligence is made for the Absolute, or else it is nothing (Schuon).
So, pick one: God or radical absurdity.
3 comments:
So, pick one: God or radical absurdity.
Ultimately, it truly is that simple.
Good evening Dr. Godwin, M'lady Julie, and those lads and lassies out there in Internetland, blessed are ye one and all. May the luck 'o the Irish be with ye.
From the post: "So, pick one: God or radical absurdity." Reader Julie commented on this pithy quote, "Ultimately, it truly is that simple."
And it 'twood seem, until we unpack this more. To whit:
I heard it said today "Love is not a feeling, it is a choice." This snapped things radically into focus for me; I had thought myself a clod, an insensitive piece of wood, and was perplexed by my own apparent inability to love. I doubted because of my very muted emotional tone.
However, my track record shows long-term durable and functional relationships. How now brown cow?
I see now. I choose to love. That is how I end up loving people. I don't have to feel anything. The choice is key. I am a chooser, not a feeler.
I had a talk with my neighbor, a noted psychiatrist, who after extensive de-briefing stated I was not narcissistic, sociopathic, borderline, or any of the things which make the love of others problematic. She cleared me of a burden of guilt and shame I had lugged around needlessly for longer than most of you have been alive. Just like that, poof, I am redeemed. She described me as roughly normal, a "people pleaser," agreed I may have had an attachment trauma in infancy, and recommended I work on expressing my emotions clearly to others, watch my boundaries to avoid being victimized, and look out for my well-being too instead of always obsessing about the well-being of others.
This psychiatrist gave me a sensation that smacked of the feeling I had after meeting Jesus and being forgiven my wretched sins. What are relief! I'm OK, you're OK, she's OK. She did not charge me a cent for her services, but honestly I feel like I owe her my life. I began to fawn over her and wanted to kiss her hand, and she said "Stop that. Off with you, back to your home."
NOW: What in the dickens does that have to do with the subject of the post?
My comment, part the second.
After my psychiatric redemption, on the following morn and the next, I felt again guilt and shame entering my psyche. I awake each dawn sitting bolt upright, murmuring "I want to go somewhere." I want to disappear right out of this cosmos. I imagine a halter around my neck suddenly snapping taut, just like in the story "Incident at Owl Creek." A jolting snap which conclusively ends the nightmare, and I see myself in my minds eye, swinging and jerking spasmodically, suspended from a rough-hewn gallows. Cold, sneering eyes look on from a nameless crowd of shabby people watching the spectacle. "I do not belong here" I murmur, "I should never have been brought here."
My constant refrain of many years. I can handle it, have developed the methods to clear this from my mind within minutes by certain chants and thoughts.
So much for my cure. It did not take. And the sin I will have to see Jesus about again, over and over.
So you see. Choices. Either God or radical absurdity. And here swings Trench, a man suspended between the two. For if I chose God, and I did, how could I feel like I should not ever have been born? How does that fit? How does that work?
And if Darth Vader chose the dark side of the force, how then does he hurl the Emperor to his death?
I submit to the panel, people are complicated. Even something which seems so simple, such as choosing God over radical absurdity, is fraught with complications. Because people are a committee, a house divided.
Sorry to unload this darkness, truly, however the panel should know, the path to God is strewn with boulders. One must keep going, one foot in front of the other.
Love to all.
Post a Comment