The girl at the “party” didn’t like that I responded to her question about whether I liked Zwingli. But with this silly hipsterish generation, you can never tell what are socially acceptable actions and which are taboo. A basic rule is that anything substantial or meaningful falls in the taboo category, while anything “random” falls into the cool category. And you notice the obsession of the twenty-somethings with the word “random,” too.
Telling, since the hipster types celebrate the random, in a very patterned, predictive way. But what are normal human interactions are not normal amongst the average “educated” twentysomethings. If someone at a “party” aske me what I think of Zwingli as a reformer, they are going to get a nice deconstruction of how his views are pantheistic, nominalistic and make no sense whatsoever. She began this conversation by assuming I was a moron and didn’t know what “religious orders” were and guffawed me. So I humored her and said, “please explain.” Another hipster with a mohawk joined in. He was a “JesusGod lover, man, God is in everything.” And isn’t the rule for chicks 101 to let the hot one blather on about her cat, her buddhism and her ex? Continue reading
I propose a modified form of the transcendental argument for God’s existence. Not that it’s different, but it’s an aspect to the argument I’ve never seen previous proponents take. It occurred to me while reading Alisdair MacIntyre and while considering some of what Husserl and Karl Otto Appel have said. But of course, debates get old. They get old as I get old, maybe. Anyway, the subject matter itself is still worthy of reflection, even if one chooses not to engage in debate. Didn’t debate used to be a respected art? yes. But in our INGSOC modernity, questioning is itself suspect. But to the point.
MacIntyre points out that there is a kind of narrative structure for any meaningful conversation to take place. He makes a convincing case in his piece mentioned above. It occurred to me that for the localized instance of conversation to make sense, though, there has to be a larger narrative structure within which the localized conversation takes place. MacIntyre’s The Virtues, The Unity of a Human Life and the Concept of a Tradition gives an example along the lines of approaching someone gardening. To say a nonsense statement like “flight of the condor eats cheese wings perpetually,” has no meaning. In fact, to say even a meaningful phrase assumes some sort of context, such as, “how is the gardening coming?” or something of that nature. So why is it that we do one and not the other? Deconstructionists, relativists, nihilists, and so on, can say that it’s just utilitarian and social convention that has caused to use certain sounds in a certain way to stand for certain things, and that we evolved this way, blah blah blah.
But this kind of simple, mundane interaction doesn’t just show a kind of appropriateness to the content of what can be said, it also evidences a narrative structure. For example, generally, such a conversation would have a greeting, middle, and climax. Granted not always per se, but even a passing hello, has a kind of narrative structure to it, with an intended meaning that one party has, that the other party receives and many or may not acknowledge. Again, the intentions obviously vary as well as the received meanings and responses, but none of this changes the loosely narrative structure of such interactions. Continue reading
September 5, O.S. 1748.
“As women are a considerable, or at least a pretty numerous part of company; and as their
suffrages go a great way toward establishing a man’s character in the fashionable part of the
world (which is of great importance to the fortune and figure he proposes to make in it), it
is necessary to please them.
you to know, but which you must, with the utmost care, conceal and never seem to know.
wit; but for solid reasoning, good sense, I never knew in my life one that had it, or who
reasoned or acted consequentially for four-and-twenty hours together. Some little passion or
humor always breaks upon their best resolutions. Their beauty neglected or controverted,
their age increased, or their supposed understandings depreciated, instantly kindles their
little passions, and overturns any system of consequential conduct, that in their most
reasonable moments they might have been capable of forming.
with a sprightly forward child; but he neither consults them about, nor trusts them with
serious matters; though he often makes them believe that he does both; which is the thing in
the world that they are proud of; for they love mightily to be dabbling in business (which by
the way they always spoil); and being justly distrustful that men in general look upon them
in a trifling light, they almost adore that man who talks more seriously to them, and who
seems to consult and trust them; I say, who seems; for weak men really do, but wise ones only
seem to do it.
Ariadne constructs the labyrinth in the Greek myths. In Inception, she is the projection of Cobb’s pysche that grounds him – the anima of Jung. Some goofballs in a forum were laughing at my analysis of Labyrinth, but if you look at Inception, there are some very fascinating parallels between the two, inasmuch as we enter Sarah’s psyche just as we enter Cobb’s. Both are labyrinthine.
In “The Process of Individuation” by M.L. von Franz in Carl Jung’s Man and His Symbols, explains of the meaning of the labyrinth as subconscious:
“The maze of strange passages, chambers, and unlocked exits in the cellar recalls the old Egyptian representation of the underworld, which is a well-known symbol of the unconscious with its abilities. It also shows how one is “open” to other influences in one’s unconscious shadow side and how uncanny and alien elements can break in.” (pg. 176)
This dude nails it in terms of all of Inception being Cobb’s process of individuation. And never listen to anyone who uses anime characters as their avatar.
The so-called argument from the one and the many is a hallmark aspect of classical Van Tillian apologetics. Having studied this school for the last ten years, I am very acquainted with its methodology and published works. However, once one moves into patristics and Catholic and Orthodox theology, and then into other religious philosophies, the argument as constructed in writers like Van Til, Rushdoony and Bahnsen no longer works. This is not to say, however, that the argument has no relevance: on the contrary, in my estimation, it still retains its strength as a powerful signpost pointing to the Personal God of the Bible. However, I don’t think it proves the Trinity.
There are two reasons the one and many argument doesn’t to prove the Trinity. For one, Van Til wasn’t the first to reason in this regard: many earlier Christian thinkers and church fathers had argued along similar lines, such as Origen, Irenaeus, Basil and the Cappadocian, Maximus the Confessor, and others even in other religions, as we see in the Coomaraswamy article on Vedic Exemplarism. What is interesting in Maximus though, is that from the created one and many we experience, it does not prove or point to a single divine ousia and three Persons, but rather a single rational Principle of God – the Logos, the second Person of the Trinity, in whom all the many logoi, or rational principles/meanings of things are united. So for Maximus, drawing on Origen, the many logoi are one in the one Logos of God. This argument arose historically in the context of Hellenic Christianity borrowing the Logos idea, and was transformed into an argument for the necessity of creation through the Logos. In other words, the one and many argument is an argument centered in divine exemplarism. Continue reading
I recently re-watched Aeon Flux (2005). In the film adaptation, which departs from its older MTV predecessor, we see a dystopian Brave New World-type scenario where the human population has fallen back into rule by an elite dynasty of scientists, headed by Trevor Goodchild. Goodchild rules a large walled city where outside, the earth has been re-wilded. This brings to mind the infamous 1992 UN document. The reason for the prison city is the myth that outside the city, viral death reigns. The reason for this is that in 2011, a virus was released that killed 99% of the earth’s population, and supposedly Goodchild’s predecessor discovered the cure. As it turns out, the Goodchild regime is based on cloning, and eventually we find out he is a good guy. We are presented with the revolutionaries, made up of Aeon and her elite “Monicans,” battling the Goodchild regime. However, Goodchild and Aeon eventually team up and are fighting for a secret common cause, unbeknownst to the Monicans or the big brother police state.
What is thus presented is a blurred vision of good and evil, where both sides are really working for common goals, but take different paths to get there. In the end all was justified. But that is not how human morals work; we don’t autonomously do whatever we want and choose good or evil, based on an ends-justifies-the-means approach. The meaning then, appears to be that the new Aeon, or new age, will only emerge after a period of mass death, transhumanism and cloning (“flux”), all of which are fine, in the long run.
I was very thankful to be able to do the voiceover on the trailer for the greatest movie ever made. The reviews are in! Moviegoers are promised to be dazzled, dazed and confused, beyond all recognition. A film so powerful critics are saying they literally stammered and babbled like bufoons for weeks after viewing the opening sequences.
A couple of years ago, when I first began to look at race studies and “national socialism,” someone (I don’t recall who) argued to me that national socialism was not Teutonic paganism. This is a bunch of bull. It clearly is, and I intend to demonstrate that. What the movement also has is interesting connections with is Hinduism and gnosticism and can also be considered as a forerunner to the modern green movement. Yes, Nazism as a forerunner to the modern green movement. How is this? The key players in demonstrating this claim are Savitri Devi, Heinrich Himmler and other notables of the so-called “traditionalist studies,” such as Julius Evola, Ananda Coomaraswamy as well as the infamous God-hater and fraudster, Madame Blavatsky.
Just as I critiqued the notion of “perennial philosophy” that specifically rejects the biblical God who is in covenantal relationship with man, so these theorists also posit at times a “perennial religion.” What is this? Once again, it is the age-old pantheistic lie that “Nature” is God. You will notice in these writers that, having rejected a personal God, like with Guenon, his move was more gnostic in nature, become a Sufi Muslim. With someone like Savitri Devi, a huge promoter of the Nazi movement and well-known writer of the traditionalist school, Devi makes clear what the agenda is – a green, neo-pagan, polytheistic-that-blends-into-pantheistic mythos that looks to Hinduism and the myth of Aryan “godhood.” Thus the convergence of Devi and Heinrich Himmler’s fables. Devi makes this abundantly clear in this article, which is indisputable proof. Continue reading