1. demyth. morality part ii will be coming shortly. a beautiful thing with writing is that it is often exploratory and you behold things that you did not foresee. and so it is here.
2. kj2 (i.e. the younger kj, kathryn anne jensen) graduates from high school tomorrow. if you know her and how to contact her, do so and give her proper congratulations. love on the katie kathryn.
3. in general, the family is very well. I am eager and proud to say that my parents have renewed their commitment and love for each other in a way I never thought possible in such a short timespan. humility and commitment provide the foundation for so much more.
4. the last two days of seriously pursued rest have been wonderful. amazing how much large volumes of sleep helps.
5. serious use of the word 'research' to describe my life begins tomorrow. thank God.
---
things on my mind/heart presently:
- soundview. particularly our young men. for too long there's been a sickness among us. I'm thinking primarily about the male lit program. the issues that seem the most obvious to me are as follows:
i. a vacillating lack of commitment.
ii. an absence of binding community.
iii. a general lack of initiative.
iv. little apparent hunger for character/integrity-development.
v. too much performance before women.
the first matter (commitment) is by far the most important for many reasons. I pray for a God-inspired, God-authored kick-to-the-ass to awaken the taking-the-Kingdom-seriously so desperately needed. simply yelling and/or shaming has nothing to do with God, for submission is assisted and begun by Him but accepted and loved by the Christian.
- I've been far too severe lately. it has been with fiery eyes that I've come to see some of the ferocity and severity of God, bringing with it confirmation of my own fire and intensity as given by God. however I have made indulgence of confirmation rather than looking for instruction and discipline. mercy and grace alongside fire and the sword: that is the picture of Jesus as He reveals Himself.
- what a life it would be where the heart actually knew its own state and acted accordingly. especially in relation to women. ha!
- Christ is unique in the following way: He commands us to something akin to an Absolute morality, but does not offer protection for our conscience. He does not suffer us to drift in the idolatry of subjective ethics any more than codified idolatrous Ethics. the question "who will command my conscience?" is laid waste and replaced with the monstrosity of unconditional love. and thus the first sin is undone and turned back upon itself.
---
man versus himself
man versus machine
man versus the world
mankind versus me
the struggles go on
the wisdom I lack
the burdens keep
piling up on my back
so hard to breathe
to take the next step
the mountain is high
I wait in the depths
yearning for grace
and hoping for peace
dear GOD INCREASE!
healing hands
of God have mercy on us
clean our souls once again
Jesus Christ!
Light of the world
burning bright
within our hearts forever
freedom means love
without condition
without a beginning or an end
here's my heart
let it be forever Yours
only You can make
every new day
seem so new
HALLELUJAH!
---
time to run.
to Christ the Perfect Redeemer, Who we Know without knowing, Whose Revelation subsumes and conquers our feeble knowledge, Who initiates, achieves, and completes Real submission, we cry out in Your love. amen.
12.6.07
2.6.07
demythologizing morality (part i.)
writing borne out of a recent conversation:
there are several issues at hand. they build upon each other and so we may as well begin sensibly. many of the following thoughts will feel like tautological statements, but I maintain that many of them pass beneath the vision of everyday life and should therefore be pointed out. moreover, many nearly definitional observations (most notably dostoevsky's 'without immortality..') still find considerable opposition among the supposedly educated.
i. the vacuity of morality. (or, ethics and criteria as expressions of preference) (or, the non-Value of a priori reasoning)
ii. totalitarianism as insight. (or, the corporate realization of non-binding ethics)
iii. ever-present idolatry. (or, the fundamentally religious expression of behaviour)
iv. the necessity of the ubermensch. (or, the contrasting roles of arbiter and Arbiter)
v. perilous choice. (or, why honest discussions between Christians and non-Christians employ the same data)
vi. the hope of Christ A. (or, the Absolute call to love)
vii. the hope of Christ B. (or, Salvation from the underground of the arbiter)
---
i. the vacuity of morality.
a. individual human conduct is self-governed by what we describe as either the ethical or the Ethical*, depending upon what the individual appeals to as the source or Source of its governance. this largely constitutes a definition with the additional note of free will; in other words, behaviour is either truly self-governed or bears the volitional appearance of self-governance. conduct which does not bear the volitional appearance of self-governance (an obvious example is a seizure) is not considered to emerge from the e/Ethical.
b. the criteria for evaluating behaviour/thoughts/emotions/et al are contained within the e/Ethical.
c. the ethical is an expression of preference alone. in other words, there is nothing binding about a particular ethical system. the selection of "first principles" from which a person derives his conduct is entirely up to the individual and summarizes this expression.
-> example: the governing value of science and modern philosophy is that self-contradiction is fatal, whether in a model for physical interactions or in the reconciliation of a person's values with their behaviour. but this principle must be proposed as an axiom rather than a piece of knowledge deduced from the cognito. the notion that a self-contradictory ethical system should be discarded relies upon a statement that is either axiomatic or flows from an axiom. that axiom embodies at least a piece of the preferential nature of a person's ethics.
d. the transition between any two ethical systems is therefore an expression of a change of preference and nothing else (my rhetoric is harsh here for a reason: romantic and 'progressive' idealism conceals this fact with words, and so with words the fact should be revealed so that it is seen clearly).
e. however, the transition from the Ethical to the ethical requires something more than a change in preference (for the presence of the ethical indicates preference). the transition should also be described as a rejection, for it also requires such a rejection of the Source that belied the Ethical. this rejection is more than a preference if and only if the Source exists in the Absolute sense. in either sense it constitutes an act of metaphysical rebellion against the (real or perceived) Absolute.
f. in either event, we have the possibility of a fundamental distinction between the ethical and Ethical: the absence or presence of rebellion against something larger than individual preference, in particular against the Absolute.
f. in either event, we have the possibility of a fundamental distinction between the ethical and Ethical: the absence or presence of rebellion against something larger than individual preference, in particular against the Absolute.
g. ethics does not have the capacity to find anything more than its own suppositions when confronted with any other ethics or Ethics. this applies at the level of theory and evaluation. it therefore hopelessly circular.
h. the same is true for Ethics if and only if the Source does not exist in the Absolute.
i. therefore only Ethics has the possibility of saying something Meaningful about anything. ethics and therefore morality are vacuous notions when they are taken to mean anything more than an individual's choice of supposition.
j. up to this point I have defined Ethics in relation to the perceived Absolute. we note that Ethics in relation to a false or nonexistent Absolute bears a precise resemblance to ethics. in other words, idolatrous Ethics are an expression of the ethical.
k. the statements above about non-idolatrous Ethics do not depend upon the human capacity to establish precise knowledge of the Absolute; at no point did they invoke epistemology or the question 'how do we *know* if the Absolute is True?' these matters are important but nonetheless secondary.
l. (summary) we find that the fundamental (existential) distinction between e/Ethical systems is a distinction between the Ethical rooted in an existent Absolute and any other e/Ethics. the latter represents preference, the former an expression of the True Absolute; transition between two systems of the latter reflects a change of preference, while transition from the former to the latter would be an act of rebellion against the Absolute in addition to such a change.
-> extension: this section is essentially tautological, but often rejected at the level of the question in (k.) that rejection is not a logical refutation but rather a statement of "it doesn't matter." this is fundamentally unilluminating and reflects a preference: that the Absolute must be confirmed Absolutely in order to be relevant. this statement must be recognized as an axiom and its products therefore suffer from the flaw of a priori reasoning. then the question is, why bring up this series of definitional statements in the first place? the answer: in order to maintain a clear understanding of human behaviour, we need to begin by demythologizing ethics/morality (thus the title of this piece). the use of the term is deliberate: any last vestige of importance other than preference assigned to the ethical bears the psychological function of a myth, one that must be recognized in order to see the regulation of conduct clearly.
-> extension 2: in this sense, this section is an exposition on Ivan Karamazov's summary "without immortality, everything is permitted."
* here and throughout I take the convention of referring to qualities (innate, derivative) of the Absolute (i.e. God) as capitalized nouns.j. up to this point I have defined Ethics in relation to the perceived Absolute. we note that Ethics in relation to a false or nonexistent Absolute bears a precise resemblance to ethics. in other words, idolatrous Ethics are an expression of the ethical.
k. the statements above about non-idolatrous Ethics do not depend upon the human capacity to establish precise knowledge of the Absolute; at no point did they invoke epistemology or the question 'how do we *know* if the Absolute is True?' these matters are important but nonetheless secondary.
l. (summary) we find that the fundamental (existential) distinction between e/Ethical systems is a distinction between the Ethical rooted in an existent Absolute and any other e/Ethics. the latter represents preference, the former an expression of the True Absolute; transition between two systems of the latter reflects a change of preference, while transition from the former to the latter would be an act of rebellion against the Absolute in addition to such a change.
-> extension: this section is essentially tautological, but often rejected at the level of the question in (k.) that rejection is not a logical refutation but rather a statement of "it doesn't matter." this is fundamentally unilluminating and reflects a preference: that the Absolute must be confirmed Absolutely in order to be relevant. this statement must be recognized as an axiom and its products therefore suffer from the flaw of a priori reasoning. then the question is, why bring up this series of definitional statements in the first place? the answer: in order to maintain a clear understanding of human behaviour, we need to begin by demythologizing ethics/morality (thus the title of this piece). the use of the term is deliberate: any last vestige of importance other than preference assigned to the ethical bears the psychological function of a myth, one that must be recognized in order to see the regulation of conduct clearly.
-> extension 2: in this sense, this section is an exposition on Ivan Karamazov's summary "without immortality, everything is permitted."
---
section ii will come as soon as possible. possibly monday evening after our hot qcd project is complete. maybe sooner. anything's possible.
ad majorem gloria Dei.
31.5.07
a house divided
a curious combination: 'purity of heart is to will one thing, and that thing the highest.' with 'self-division is the signal of the paroxysm of the underground.'
a curious question: what picture would I behold if my life and person were taken to the absurd? if my personality, characteristics, religion, et al were taken to an extreme but logical extension of themselves?
a seamless transition: 'I begin with total freedom and end with total despotism.'
a perilous choice: identical evidence belies Ivan and Alyosha, the skeptic and the believer.
a disquieting thought: self-justification is, at our age, a largely passive process.
a stop: self-sacrifice alone is self-idolatry.
---
how does a scientist exorcise his demons? analysis alone will begin from a broken place and only explore its compact realm. and even if reason detects the lie, falsification and self-contradiction is not sufficient to destroy possession. the possibility of specific revelation is exchanged for fear and self-flagellation. but specific revelation is constructive and full of light.
writing seems to me to be the simplest route.
a curious question: what picture would I behold if my life and person were taken to the absurd? if my personality, characteristics, religion, et al were taken to an extreme but logical extension of themselves?
a seamless transition: 'I begin with total freedom and end with total despotism.'
a perilous choice: identical evidence belies Ivan and Alyosha, the skeptic and the believer.
a disquieting thought: self-justification is, at our age, a largely passive process.
a stop: self-sacrifice alone is self-idolatry.
---
how does a scientist exorcise his demons? analysis alone will begin from a broken place and only explore its compact realm. and even if reason detects the lie, falsification and self-contradiction is not sufficient to destroy possession. the possibility of specific revelation is exchanged for fear and self-flagellation. but specific revelation is constructive and full of light.
writing seems to me to be the simplest route.
5.5.07
appeasement wench & more
Royal wars of poll violence
---
22% Believe Bush Knew About 9/11 Attacks in Advance
---
Christian-Muslim wounds still "very deep": Khatami
almost as deep as the wounds against jews that khatami has decried so strongly. oh wait, I got mixed up. the jews are supposed to be nuked, that's right. or was that just nuance?
against violence and extremism, eh? right up there with palestinian demonstrations against violence.
unless it's violence against americans or jews.
maybe she should take kim jong il out for coffee. I'm sure we can exhume hitler and prop up his body at the table for precedent. after all, dialogue is the key to conflict resolution.
---
in contrast:
"Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and disaster."
“You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace.”
"I would make this war as severe as possible, and show no symptoms of tiring till the South begs for mercy."
"If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world, but I am sure we would be getting reports from Hell before breakfast."
- William Tecumseh Sherman
---
and this is much of the modern west: sufficiently diseased and perverse that we eagerly seek our own self-destruction. well, to be fair, not *our own* self-destruction, just that of all the whores who don't feel super-duper-guilty for the west's culturally imperialistic past, because they deserve it.
reductionist fools that know too much information but long ago took leave of their capacity to think. but then again, a priori reasoning makes understanding the world very easy. you get to voice sophisticated arguments that ultimately are dressed-up statements of the initial presumption; arguments maintained by those too self-absorbed to realize that they've done nothing more than state their preference.
---
'for it is written,
'and just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper..'
- romans 1:28
---
diseased thinking is a demonstration of God's wrath.
Slipping in the polls ahead of France's presidential vote on Sunday, Socialist Segolene Royal launched a last-minute broadside against right-winger Nicolas Sarkozy, warning his election would unleash violence across the country. In her most outspoken attack yet on Sarkozy's "dangerous candidacy", Royal said she had a "responsibility to issue an alert over the risks ... regarding the violence and brutalities that will be triggered across the country. Everyone knows it but no-one says it. It is a kind of taboo." Her comments Friday on RTL radio were taken as a direct warning to voters that a Sarkozy victory on Sunday could set off riots in the high-immigration suburbs similar to ones in November 2005.you mean the great car-be-que that, umm, never stopped? hundred cars a night baby. every night.
Speaking in the city of Lorient, she launched another personal attack on Sarkozy, saying "there is something indecent in this campaign." Sarkozy "is a candidate who has never stopped paying court to all that is dark in human nature, who has never stopped whetting every kind of fear and vengeance." Instead the French should "turn towards the light. Reject the spirit of vengeance, refuse the lies and the hate," she said.way to call out the politics of fear.
---
22% Believe Bush Knew About 9/11 Attacks in Advance
Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure. Republicans reject that view and, by a 7-to-1 margin, say the President did not know in advance about the attacks. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 18% believe the President knew and 57% take the opposite view.this of course begs the question: how many of those polled are truthers?
---
Christian-Muslim wounds still "very deep": Khatami
Former Iranian president met Pope Benedict on Friday and said the wounds between Christians and Muslims were still "very deep," including those caused by a controversial papal speech last September.definitely deeper than the wounds inflicted on christians that were killed in the ensuing riots. yep, no doubt.
almost as deep as the wounds against jews that khatami has decried so strongly. oh wait, I got mixed up. the jews are supposed to be nuked, that's right. or was that just nuance?
At Friday morning's conference, Khatami, speaking through a translator, said that Christianity and Islam needed to rediscover their common roots as monotheistic religions in order to improve relations. "If Christian and Islamic societies could only rely on love and justice and get back to these founding principles and if together we fought against violence and extremism ... then we can lay the foundations to heal any wound," he said.
against violence and extremism, eh? right up there with palestinian demonstrations against violence.
unless it's violence against americans or jews.
it's worth noting that the man in the picture above is another iranian advocate against violence. minus certain incidents involving embassies in, say, 1979, and mild threats of 'wiping' some random meaningless nation 'off the map.'
but again, smart people will tell you that such foolishness is just media manipulated rhetoric and that the man is actually quite kind. in fact, he never said that israel should be annihilated. that's why he defended those media manipulated comments you see.
---
Syrians bolstered by 'good American' Pelosi
Many Damascus residents say her private visit with Mr. Assad and senior ministers shattered Washington's attempt to isolate the regime. "She was enormously popular here, a hero," said one such resident, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "This is the best thing that has happened here, if it proves [Mr. Assad] was right not to give concessions." Along with recent visits by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and officials from the European Union, the resident added, Mrs. Pelosi's trip "bolsters the regime with the Syrian people, and it shows that isolating Syria won't work."oh goody. what's next, a card of congradulations for offing hariri?
maybe she should take kim jong il out for coffee. I'm sure we can exhume hitler and prop up his body at the table for precedent. after all, dialogue is the key to conflict resolution.
---
in contrast:
"Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and disaster."
“You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace.”
"I would make this war as severe as possible, and show no symptoms of tiring till the South begs for mercy."
"If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world, but I am sure we would be getting reports from Hell before breakfast."
- William Tecumseh Sherman
---
and this is much of the modern west: sufficiently diseased and perverse that we eagerly seek our own self-destruction. well, to be fair, not *our own* self-destruction, just that of all the whores who don't feel super-duper-guilty for the west's culturally imperialistic past, because they deserve it.
reductionist fools that know too much information but long ago took leave of their capacity to think. but then again, a priori reasoning makes understanding the world very easy. you get to voice sophisticated arguments that ultimately are dressed-up statements of the initial presumption; arguments maintained by those too self-absorbed to realize that they've done nothing more than state their preference.
---
'for it is written,
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,1 corinthians 1:19
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."'
'and just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper..'
- romans 1:28
---
diseased thinking is a demonstration of God's wrath.
27.4.07
whoa nellie
fridays are majestic. this friday will be quite majestic after the higgs talk is over in, oh, 5.5 hours. in just a few moments I'm going to get my act together and finish up details..
which brings us to facilitator training this weekend and the conclusion of one of the busier seasons of my life. reviewed weekend-by weekend, we've had:
04/27-04/29: facilitator training
04/20-04/22: spokane
04/13-04/15: olympia & tacoma
04/06-04/08: olympia, easter
03/30-04/01: soundview (high ropes adventure)
03/23-03/25: soundview (high ropes) & continuing in seattle (debbie's crew)
03/16-03/18: soundview (facilitating) & olympia
03/09-03/11: spokane & s/v people
and I'm pretty sure there was serious stuff going on every weekend before that leading back to new years.
and so, in just a few days, forced rest. thank God.
having a full life has been a tremendous blessing in many ways and has led to self-blindness in so many others. and that blindness isn't tolerable anymore. it just isn't healthy and it detracts from honest worship before God.
---
alrighty, back to work.
oh, and a sad comment on society: it's not good when the media is sufficiently pervaded with newspeak that, upon reading an editorial/article, the reader can intuit (and later confirm) more of the actual events from the way the article is written and the rhetoric is chosen than from the misleading tripe actually published.
honest and clear discussion is at the heart of the functional/beneficial discourse that drives a healthy republic. the citizen should and must be as committed to vigilance on this front (for it is the internal defense against authoritarianism) as he is committed to vigilance against external threats.
which brings us to facilitator training this weekend and the conclusion of one of the busier seasons of my life. reviewed weekend-by weekend, we've had:
04/27-04/29: facilitator training
04/20-04/22: spokane
04/13-04/15: olympia & tacoma
04/06-04/08: olympia, easter
03/30-04/01: soundview (high ropes adventure)
03/23-03/25: soundview (high ropes) & continuing in seattle (debbie's crew)
03/16-03/18: soundview (facilitating) & olympia
03/09-03/11: spokane & s/v people
and I'm pretty sure there was serious stuff going on every weekend before that leading back to new years.
and so, in just a few days, forced rest. thank God.
having a full life has been a tremendous blessing in many ways and has led to self-blindness in so many others. and that blindness isn't tolerable anymore. it just isn't healthy and it detracts from honest worship before God.
---
alrighty, back to work.
oh, and a sad comment on society: it's not good when the media is sufficiently pervaded with newspeak that, upon reading an editorial/article, the reader can intuit (and later confirm) more of the actual events from the way the article is written and the rhetoric is chosen than from the misleading tripe actually published.
honest and clear discussion is at the heart of the functional/beneficial discourse that drives a healthy republic. the citizen should and must be as committed to vigilance on this front (for it is the internal defense against authoritarianism) as he is committed to vigilance against external threats.
18.4.07
a deep chasm
"without immortality, everything is permitted."
here is a reality that few acknowledge and millions more would deny with infantile reasoning and wasted breath. it constitutes an abyss, a jagged hole in the mind of man. for how else can we examine even the prospect of absolute anarchy?
---
say there is no God. or say that there is a God but He cares not in the slightest how we live towards Him or each other.
then there is no standard or absolute code of living.
"yes, yes, of course" the half-aware, half-educated mind chides. "we know all that already." ai, but you don't! if you understood more than the words you wouldn't be able to chide; such nonsense would fracture in your mouth and your tongue would cease to move. fear and insanity; these are the only true and honest responses to this hell.
and thus dialogue ensues within three archetypes.
response 1: the social contract theorist.
"while this statement of immortality and permission may be a truism of sorts, it's rather meaningless. after all, what is more important is what a person actually chooses rather than what is merely possible. as though anything became possible before recognizing this statement! anyway, you've fogged up the whole matter. self-interest with respect to cultural norms, that's the object you should focus on. to be more clear, yes, a person can choose to commit horrible acts against others, but in any reasonable society this will come at a horrible cost to himself. thus we stave off the anarchy that you are concerned with and maintain all-necessary order."
but of course this is just a red herring. the issue really isn't the maintainence of order, but rather the saving of man from destruction before such a perilous truth.
with enough power in the hands of the offender, social checks and punishment cease and the abyss you think you've cleverly avoided is staring you right in the face. for you desparately want to avoid it! that desire taints your reasoning at every step. you still want to see Hitler as objectively evil despite the fact that your social contract only condemns Hitler when society is more powerful than him and doesn't agree with him. for the abyss you look into here is deeper than a lack of condemnation and the force of restraint. you rely on whatever words you can employ to remove the obvious, that even the most gut-wrenching act you can think of can only be condemned insofar as it doesn't fit into culturally accepted norms. and what sort of vacuous condemnation is that?
for what happens when norms break or the power of society falters? here the abyss is revealed clearly, but it did not magically appear. it was there always and you simply chose to hum words of encouragement to yourself and cover your eyes while telling yourself how progressive you were for your clear understanding of anthropology.
despicable, contemptible idiocy.
response 2: denial.
perhaps I'll write more on this later. not much more to say other than to call this denial out for the mindlessness-posing-as-meaning it is.
response 3: nietzche (my take anyway).
nietzche's response is sufficiently unique and honest that it deserves to be described. he simultaneously embraced this truth (to some extent realized in the idealization of the ubermensch) and was driven insane by it, as its reality was so discordant with his conscience that he could not reconcile the two.
---
observations:
1. any notion of true Good can only be rooted in the Absolute. any other notion can only be conscience and mere human sentiment. what I, on my own, define as good is therefore only that which I perceive as good - not what is Absolutely good!
1.a. and so how can I legitimately rebel against God for anything? if my conscience tells me to rebel, that telling can only be Good if it is originated in the same Absolute I would rebel against! otherwise, no matter how noble the feeling or rhetoric, my rebellion is only an expression of preference.
2. it's interesting that the denial of God (and therefore of any Absolute means to assess conduct) in the West is shortly followed with sudden and severe self-righteousness. memo to folks in the West: you can only be morally indignant when you believe in morality! we're not talking about difficult things here. so, for example, if you deny absolute morality but say that those who judge things/people to be evil are acting unjustly/hellishly, you're a pitiable fool.
2.a. more interesting is how this indignation is almost always on behalf of actual evil. see chomsky. there's the whole spectrum: denial of absolute morality, condemnation of his fellow citizens, and expulcation of guilt for mass murder (the khmer rouge incident of course being the most prolific; intellectual justification for the murder of jews via justification for palestinian terrorism is another one).
---
"everything is permitted."
there is an abyss. it cannot be avoided. if you reject it, then
you should examine yourself to see if your rejection of God is as
complete as you might think.
here is a reality that few acknowledge and millions more would deny with infantile reasoning and wasted breath. it constitutes an abyss, a jagged hole in the mind of man. for how else can we examine even the prospect of absolute anarchy?
---
say there is no God. or say that there is a God but He cares not in the slightest how we live towards Him or each other.
then there is no standard or absolute code of living.
"yes, yes, of course" the half-aware, half-educated mind chides. "we know all that already." ai, but you don't! if you understood more than the words you wouldn't be able to chide; such nonsense would fracture in your mouth and your tongue would cease to move. fear and insanity; these are the only true and honest responses to this hell.
and thus dialogue ensues within three archetypes.
response 1: the social contract theorist.
"while this statement of immortality and permission may be a truism of sorts, it's rather meaningless. after all, what is more important is what a person actually chooses rather than what is merely possible. as though anything became possible before recognizing this statement! anyway, you've fogged up the whole matter. self-interest with respect to cultural norms, that's the object you should focus on. to be more clear, yes, a person can choose to commit horrible acts against others, but in any reasonable society this will come at a horrible cost to himself. thus we stave off the anarchy that you are concerned with and maintain all-necessary order."
but of course this is just a red herring. the issue really isn't the maintainence of order, but rather the saving of man from destruction before such a perilous truth.
with enough power in the hands of the offender, social checks and punishment cease and the abyss you think you've cleverly avoided is staring you right in the face. for you desparately want to avoid it! that desire taints your reasoning at every step. you still want to see Hitler as objectively evil despite the fact that your social contract only condemns Hitler when society is more powerful than him and doesn't agree with him. for the abyss you look into here is deeper than a lack of condemnation and the force of restraint. you rely on whatever words you can employ to remove the obvious, that even the most gut-wrenching act you can think of can only be condemned insofar as it doesn't fit into culturally accepted norms. and what sort of vacuous condemnation is that?
for what happens when norms break or the power of society falters? here the abyss is revealed clearly, but it did not magically appear. it was there always and you simply chose to hum words of encouragement to yourself and cover your eyes while telling yourself how progressive you were for your clear understanding of anthropology.
despicable, contemptible idiocy.
response 2: denial.
perhaps I'll write more on this later. not much more to say other than to call this denial out for the mindlessness-posing-as-meaning it is.
response 3: nietzche (my take anyway).
nietzche's response is sufficiently unique and honest that it deserves to be described. he simultaneously embraced this truth (to some extent realized in the idealization of the ubermensch) and was driven insane by it, as its reality was so discordant with his conscience that he could not reconcile the two.
---
observations:
1. any notion of true Good can only be rooted in the Absolute. any other notion can only be conscience and mere human sentiment. what I, on my own, define as good is therefore only that which I perceive as good - not what is Absolutely good!
1.a. and so how can I legitimately rebel against God for anything? if my conscience tells me to rebel, that telling can only be Good if it is originated in the same Absolute I would rebel against! otherwise, no matter how noble the feeling or rhetoric, my rebellion is only an expression of preference.
2. it's interesting that the denial of God (and therefore of any Absolute means to assess conduct) in the West is shortly followed with sudden and severe self-righteousness. memo to folks in the West: you can only be morally indignant when you believe in morality! we're not talking about difficult things here. so, for example, if you deny absolute morality but say that those who judge things/people to be evil are acting unjustly/hellishly, you're a pitiable fool.
2.a. more interesting is how this indignation is almost always on behalf of actual evil. see chomsky. there's the whole spectrum: denial of absolute morality, condemnation of his fellow citizens, and expulcation of guilt for mass murder (the khmer rouge incident of course being the most prolific; intellectual justification for the murder of jews via justification for palestinian terrorism is another one).
---
"everything is permitted."
there is an abyss. it cannot be avoided. if you reject it, then
you should examine yourself to see if your rejection of God is as
complete as you might think.
a few brief thoughts
1. poisoned/diseased thinking is a dangerous spectacle. it willfully nods to evil while maintaining the appearance of sanity and reasonable inquiry.
2. on the va. tech shootings: "I don't even know what I would do in that situation" is a sure marker of cowardice. if you don't cultivate your response (protection, love, self-sacrifice) in the present, do not be surprised if you cower before such hate in the future.
3. death is something we experience every day; but there is altogether too much death and too little dying. for the act of bearing a cross is assuredly described in the present tense for a reason.
4. mercy and forgiveness is usually something that is given when the offender comes before the offended. so what are the mechanics of mercy when the offender is clueless? 'bring up the offense' you might say; but what if that act must be delayed out of prudence and love?
5. perpetual service is a subtle and deceptive sin. it fosters a sense of injustice and resentment while treating the God who can accomplish His own service with childish contempt. as if He needed us! joyfully, it is a sin that is easily turned to the redeemed thing it should be.. if only one has the courage to treat it as severely as it deserves. for the condition here is blindness amid the claim of sight; both must be shattered, not merely noted with delicate words.
6. the severity and ferocity of God must be paid heed; we ignore them at our peril. if we are to carry His death and life within us, His love must burn as bright within our eyes as His untamed severity.
7. a truly sick foolishness: to absolutely deny the Absolute but retain morality. and thus the utter vacuity of the Western intelligensia.
2. on the va. tech shootings: "I don't even know what I would do in that situation" is a sure marker of cowardice. if you don't cultivate your response (protection, love, self-sacrifice) in the present, do not be surprised if you cower before such hate in the future.
3. death is something we experience every day; but there is altogether too much death and too little dying. for the act of bearing a cross is assuredly described in the present tense for a reason.
4. mercy and forgiveness is usually something that is given when the offender comes before the offended. so what are the mechanics of mercy when the offender is clueless? 'bring up the offense' you might say; but what if that act must be delayed out of prudence and love?
5. perpetual service is a subtle and deceptive sin. it fosters a sense of injustice and resentment while treating the God who can accomplish His own service with childish contempt. as if He needed us! joyfully, it is a sin that is easily turned to the redeemed thing it should be.. if only one has the courage to treat it as severely as it deserves. for the condition here is blindness amid the claim of sight; both must be shattered, not merely noted with delicate words.
6. the severity and ferocity of God must be paid heed; we ignore them at our peril. if we are to carry His death and life within us, His love must burn as bright within our eyes as His untamed severity.
7. a truly sick foolishness: to absolutely deny the Absolute but retain morality. and thus the utter vacuity of the Western intelligensia.
1.4.07
nourishment
man cannot live in a vacuum. this fact - true at all levels of living - is inescapable, for it is a piece of the revealed Absolute and therefore should be viewed in relation to the living Truth (in whom full Life is found) instead of a mere object of knowledge. the connection from the destructive (man cannot live) to the constructive (man will live) is found in the pulse that drives Creation.
in simpler words, man must be loved in order to Live Truthfully . the converse action is also true: that man must also love in order to Live.
but what is this love? it is beyond me!
---
my love is feeble and broken. self-seeking and ignorant. prideful and arrogant. presumptuous and flippant. incompetent and awkward. a lie steeped in hate.
so is yours.
this is a lesson of the Cross that must always be before us: that my 'love,' when confronted with the Source of Perfect Love, is unmasked for venom and violence upon the only One who really loves me. that my sin is more than something I do; that it is the rebellion that would execute Jesus in the most humiliating way posible.
---
my love will shatter me and anyone near. it cannot survive the Light of eternity.
something else is required. Real love. it must therefore be derived from the Provider of True love.
ironically His love - the real thing! - also breaks the world. it shatters me, for I am not Real enough for Reality; the weight of glory passes through me.
---
and so I thank you, my beloved soundview family, for the love you have shown me and continue to shower down on me. I find rest in that love. and that true rest is an indication of your submission before God, that your love is covered by Him and therefore made True in me.
you are a light to my eyes and a song to my spirit; even your presence nourishes me and treats many wounds. you have been as angels in my life.
He has made us the family of God. may we never turn away from that gift in which we are bound for this life and the next.
in simpler words, man must be loved in order to Live Truthfully . the converse action is also true: that man must also love in order to Live.
but what is this love? it is beyond me!
---
my love is feeble and broken. self-seeking and ignorant. prideful and arrogant. presumptuous and flippant. incompetent and awkward. a lie steeped in hate.
so is yours.
this is a lesson of the Cross that must always be before us: that my 'love,' when confronted with the Source of Perfect Love, is unmasked for venom and violence upon the only One who really loves me. that my sin is more than something I do; that it is the rebellion that would execute Jesus in the most humiliating way posible.
---
my love will shatter me and anyone near. it cannot survive the Light of eternity.
something else is required. Real love. it must therefore be derived from the Provider of True love.
ironically His love - the real thing! - also breaks the world. it shatters me, for I am not Real enough for Reality; the weight of glory passes through me.
---
and so I thank you, my beloved soundview family, for the love you have shown me and continue to shower down on me. I find rest in that love. and that true rest is an indication of your submission before God, that your love is covered by Him and therefore made True in me.
you are a light to my eyes and a song to my spirit; even your presence nourishes me and treats many wounds. you have been as angels in my life.
He has made us the family of God. may we never turn away from that gift in which we are bound for this life and the next.
21.3.07
engagements, singleness, and suffering
first off, congradulations to all of the engaged people in my life, all 28 million of you. I'd extend a personal note of blessing and well-wishing to each of you, however - alas - there are too many of you.
and so blessings upon you and your soon-to-be-spouse; may you find rich joy in each other, may the Lover of lovers teach you about Himself and each other through your marriage, may the children you raise be a delight to your eye, and may God shower down grace and humility for you to share with each other. enjoy this life and drink it in deeply.
---
and now for the six of us that aren't engaged/married..
singleness is a peculiar kind of suffering. to be single is to experience a measure of pain, but not all pain is suffering and to be single is different than living in singleness. this distinction is - must be! - a crux, a cross which we must understand in being.
pain is circumstantial. the product of choices and events; impersonal, existent despite the pained's response.
suffering is a volitional enhancement upon preexisting pain. for this reason it bears the resemblance of masochism, for whose volition enhances pain except the sufferer's?
a starving man experiences pain - his entire body yearns for food but has no choice except to consume itself instead. in his anguish he may or may not cry out to the heavens - but his body still experiences relentless pain.
now say that this man, as he lies in agony, finds a crust of bread lying next to him. exultant, his spirit rises, and as he reaches towards the crust he sees his child, eyes squeezed shut and body shaking with the same hunger that grips the father, not ten feet away. his exultation immediately fades yet returns just as quickly with a new sensation; he will give the bread to the love of this life. his decision was not a choice, but it was an act of volition. in this moment his pain has been enhanced by suffering, but here the enhancement is not painful. the pain of hunger has not abated, yet somehow its sensation is different: love for his child is at the forefront of his mind and spirit and that love mediates the unchanged pain. through that mediation his pain becomes purposeful and noble, and that nobility recognized by all.
now say that in the moment of exultation this man finds - no, not his precious child! - his fiercest enemy, doubled over and near death. our starving hero now faces an entirely different decision, for the possible act of love before him is an actual decision: his own life or that of his enemy. before conscience would have destroyed him had he chosen his own life over that of his child; now conscience takes leave and all forces human and abstract will contend with him to choose the wise choice, to choose himself. but if our hero is a Christian, he is not accountable to the wisdom of the world but rather to the wisdom and love of the Christ whose Name he bears. he is not even accountable to his own conscience, that pale imitation of the Truth to Whom he must be obedient. and the question is one of obedience: will our hero choose to obey God, loving his enemy at the cost of his own life, or will he rebel? both roads will lead to suffering! should he love, he will find himself suffering alongside Christ - the suffering that comes from willfully setting aside a good thing in favour of obedience and love, and in this suffering he will find enhancement of what might take his life at any moment. should he rebel, his pain will be ameliorated and replaced with the knowledge of rebellion against his love - his choice will be the same as the father's choosing over his son. and he will suffer. but say he loves his enemy. those near will mock him for this unnecessary, uncalled, unwise foolishness and those that pity him for his nobility in fact despise him (for to pity a man in this way is to hold him in contempt). this mockery will only deepen his suffering, but now there is a curious thing to behold: his choice creates anxious suffering in anyone who sees this love, for this kind of love is a confrontation and a challenge. the anxiety passes by the mockers in a moment - death is already there and its fundamental character will not be changed by a single event - but lingers with the pitying crowd, now separated by this love into pitying individuals confronted with a choice: will they also love?
but back to our hero. should he find solace in his obedience, his suffering will now have a new character - it has taken on the purpose of Christ's love. the death-pain is still before him and he is and must be conscious of it - he can do no other! should he ignore the pain, the loving gift is no longer love and he is no longer an honest man. yet this act is that much easier to understand than the conscious choice he has made. what cruelty is this, that our hero must not only be asked to love his enemy while at the hand of death, but that he must be fully aware of his pain, his decision, and its consequences or that love will no longer be love?
let us now go back to the crux, the cross upon which our hero is nailed at the point of suffering and decision: to the choice to love his enemy. as he sees the man before him he also feels the touch of his wife's hand across his brow. as he sits on the brink of oblivion he knows that he has provided for her - her body is nourished and she is not in danger. in her love and terror she offers quiet love to her husband, providing what encouragement she can amid the fear of losing her beloved. her eye catches the crust at the same time as our hero and the two share in the exultation of hope for life. but as his eye catches his enemy he becomes alone. the choice of love will now bring suffering upon his own head and upon his beloved's. and as he hands the bread to his enemy, his wife's exultation will turn to ash and his pain will take on a facet he has chosen but could never wish upon anyone, for now the love of his life is separated from him across an expanse of tears and anger. not only will his choice remove her from him and him from her, but in the point of decision she no longer understands him and the two-become-one they have become is rended like the sky back to two - and this before the physical death that yet awaits him! he experiences premature death in the present, death that must be endured before the death to take him.
but the suffering here is deeper than the continuation of the hunger that will consume him. it is even deeper than the pain that separates him from his wife and friends. it is the fact that he has made a choice, and that to do the unthinkable that no person (only The Person) asks him to do. this is the suffering that enhances his pain - and he cannot even cry out for justice, for to do so would be to turn his back on the choice (and Choice) he has willfully taken. everyone near and far will scream: cruelty! how could One demand such a cruel choice? only our hero will remain silent, for his volition is at one with the One who required this love, and it is by that volition that his decision in the moment and future decisions as he remembers will be defined.
suffering is a volitional enhancement upon preexisting pain.
what clean words to describe such agony.
but this is just one facet of Jesus' suffering on the earth: that He chose the will of the Father to the point of execution; that His suffering became the crux of human history.
---
and this is the distinction between being single and living in singleness. God help me to choose the latter - I must do no other!
and so blessings upon you and your soon-to-be-spouse; may you find rich joy in each other, may the Lover of lovers teach you about Himself and each other through your marriage, may the children you raise be a delight to your eye, and may God shower down grace and humility for you to share with each other. enjoy this life and drink it in deeply.
---
and now for the six of us that aren't engaged/married..
singleness is a peculiar kind of suffering. to be single is to experience a measure of pain, but not all pain is suffering and to be single is different than living in singleness. this distinction is - must be! - a crux, a cross which we must understand in being.
pain is circumstantial. the product of choices and events; impersonal, existent despite the pained's response.
suffering is a volitional enhancement upon preexisting pain. for this reason it bears the resemblance of masochism, for whose volition enhances pain except the sufferer's?
a starving man experiences pain - his entire body yearns for food but has no choice except to consume itself instead. in his anguish he may or may not cry out to the heavens - but his body still experiences relentless pain.
now say that this man, as he lies in agony, finds a crust of bread lying next to him. exultant, his spirit rises, and as he reaches towards the crust he sees his child, eyes squeezed shut and body shaking with the same hunger that grips the father, not ten feet away. his exultation immediately fades yet returns just as quickly with a new sensation; he will give the bread to the love of this life. his decision was not a choice, but it was an act of volition. in this moment his pain has been enhanced by suffering, but here the enhancement is not painful. the pain of hunger has not abated, yet somehow its sensation is different: love for his child is at the forefront of his mind and spirit and that love mediates the unchanged pain. through that mediation his pain becomes purposeful and noble, and that nobility recognized by all.
now say that in the moment of exultation this man finds - no, not his precious child! - his fiercest enemy, doubled over and near death. our starving hero now faces an entirely different decision, for the possible act of love before him is an actual decision: his own life or that of his enemy. before conscience would have destroyed him had he chosen his own life over that of his child; now conscience takes leave and all forces human and abstract will contend with him to choose the wise choice, to choose himself. but if our hero is a Christian, he is not accountable to the wisdom of the world but rather to the wisdom and love of the Christ whose Name he bears. he is not even accountable to his own conscience, that pale imitation of the Truth to Whom he must be obedient. and the question is one of obedience: will our hero choose to obey God, loving his enemy at the cost of his own life, or will he rebel? both roads will lead to suffering! should he love, he will find himself suffering alongside Christ - the suffering that comes from willfully setting aside a good thing in favour of obedience and love, and in this suffering he will find enhancement of what might take his life at any moment. should he rebel, his pain will be ameliorated and replaced with the knowledge of rebellion against his love - his choice will be the same as the father's choosing over his son. and he will suffer. but say he loves his enemy. those near will mock him for this unnecessary, uncalled, unwise foolishness and those that pity him for his nobility in fact despise him (for to pity a man in this way is to hold him in contempt). this mockery will only deepen his suffering, but now there is a curious thing to behold: his choice creates anxious suffering in anyone who sees this love, for this kind of love is a confrontation and a challenge. the anxiety passes by the mockers in a moment - death is already there and its fundamental character will not be changed by a single event - but lingers with the pitying crowd, now separated by this love into pitying individuals confronted with a choice: will they also love?
but back to our hero. should he find solace in his obedience, his suffering will now have a new character - it has taken on the purpose of Christ's love. the death-pain is still before him and he is and must be conscious of it - he can do no other! should he ignore the pain, the loving gift is no longer love and he is no longer an honest man. yet this act is that much easier to understand than the conscious choice he has made. what cruelty is this, that our hero must not only be asked to love his enemy while at the hand of death, but that he must be fully aware of his pain, his decision, and its consequences or that love will no longer be love?
let us now go back to the crux, the cross upon which our hero is nailed at the point of suffering and decision: to the choice to love his enemy. as he sees the man before him he also feels the touch of his wife's hand across his brow. as he sits on the brink of oblivion he knows that he has provided for her - her body is nourished and she is not in danger. in her love and terror she offers quiet love to her husband, providing what encouragement she can amid the fear of losing her beloved. her eye catches the crust at the same time as our hero and the two share in the exultation of hope for life. but as his eye catches his enemy he becomes alone. the choice of love will now bring suffering upon his own head and upon his beloved's. and as he hands the bread to his enemy, his wife's exultation will turn to ash and his pain will take on a facet he has chosen but could never wish upon anyone, for now the love of his life is separated from him across an expanse of tears and anger. not only will his choice remove her from him and him from her, but in the point of decision she no longer understands him and the two-become-one they have become is rended like the sky back to two - and this before the physical death that yet awaits him! he experiences premature death in the present, death that must be endured before the death to take him.
but the suffering here is deeper than the continuation of the hunger that will consume him. it is even deeper than the pain that separates him from his wife and friends. it is the fact that he has made a choice, and that to do the unthinkable that no person (only The Person) asks him to do. this is the suffering that enhances his pain - and he cannot even cry out for justice, for to do so would be to turn his back on the choice (and Choice) he has willfully taken. everyone near and far will scream: cruelty! how could One demand such a cruel choice? only our hero will remain silent, for his volition is at one with the One who required this love, and it is by that volition that his decision in the moment and future decisions as he remembers will be defined.
suffering is a volitional enhancement upon preexisting pain.
what clean words to describe such agony.
but this is just one facet of Jesus' suffering on the earth: that He chose the will of the Father to the point of execution; that His suffering became the crux of human history.
---
and this is the distinction between being single and living in singleness. God help me to choose the latter - I must do no other!
5.3.07
hmm
"only the consciousness of sin is the expression of absolute respect, and just for this reason, i.e., because Christianity requires absolute respect, it must and will display itself as madness or horror, in order that the qualitative infinite emphasis may fall upon the fact that only consciousness of sin is the way of entrance, is the vision, which, by being absolute respect, can see the gentleness, loving-kindness, and compassion of Christianity.
the simple man who humbly confesses himself to be a sinner - himself personally (the individual) - does not need at all to become aware of all the difficulties which emerge when one is their simple nor humble. but when this is lacking, this humble consciousness of being personally a sinner (the individual) - yea, if such a one possessed all human wisdom and shrewdness along with all human talents, it would profit him little. Christianity shall in a degree corresponding to his superiority erect itself against him and transform itself into madness and terror, until he learns either to give up Christianity, or else by the help of what is very far remote from scientific propaedeutic, apologetic, etc. - that is, by the help of the torments of a contrite heart (just in proportion to his need of it) learns to enter by the narrow way, through the consciousness of sin, into Christianity."
- Soren Kierkegaard
---
the (nearly) infinite depravity that would murder the Lord of glory beheld in one hand; the (nearly) infinite worth conferred in that death beheld in the other.
this paradox is too harmful and too wonderful for us as we are. a truthful response can only be (in time) rejection or newness. the extreme character of Jesus offers us no other road.
---
rest.
the simple man who humbly confesses himself to be a sinner - himself personally (the individual) - does not need at all to become aware of all the difficulties which emerge when one is their simple nor humble. but when this is lacking, this humble consciousness of being personally a sinner (the individual) - yea, if such a one possessed all human wisdom and shrewdness along with all human talents, it would profit him little. Christianity shall in a degree corresponding to his superiority erect itself against him and transform itself into madness and terror, until he learns either to give up Christianity, or else by the help of what is very far remote from scientific propaedeutic, apologetic, etc. - that is, by the help of the torments of a contrite heart (just in proportion to his need of it) learns to enter by the narrow way, through the consciousness of sin, into Christianity."
- Soren Kierkegaard
---
the (nearly) infinite depravity that would murder the Lord of glory beheld in one hand; the (nearly) infinite worth conferred in that death beheld in the other.
this paradox is too harmful and too wonderful for us as we are. a truthful response can only be (in time) rejection or newness. the extreme character of Jesus offers us no other road.
---
rest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)