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.
27.4.07
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)