Blog Archives

Mono-Pluralism: The Epitome of a Berdyaev Hedge

4/29/2024

About a month ago, I suggested that Nikolai Berdyaev’s metaphysical quest should have led him to non-Omnigod and pluralism.

On rereading Chapter Five of The Meaning of the Creative Act, I revisited the closest Berdyaev seems to have come to realizing that true creativity within Creation makes pluralism a necessity (bold added):

Abstract metaphysical and mystical monism shuts out the possibility of a creative act, either in God or in the world. The creative act presupposes a mono-pluralism, that is the existence of a multitude of free and independent beings; in other words, a concrete all-oneness.

The paragraph above epitomizes what I now call the Berdyaev Hedge — the seeming inability to short something metaphysically without covering and "insuring" that short against loss with a presumably failsafe long.

Pluralism must be the bedrock of Creation, but pluralism must possess the oxymoronic quality of also being mono. There simply must be a multitude of free and independent beings, yet this multitude of free and independent beings also belong to some kind of concrete oneness.

Berdyaev continues:

The question is not whether the world and man are outside divinity, but whether every person, every being, has free and independent existence. The transcendence of Divinity may be accepted only in the sense that the individuality of every personality cannot disappear and be dissolved into Divinity. The free and independent being of the personality unites with God but does not disappear in Him. Dissolution presupposes a non-personal God: free union presupposes that God is personal.

Berdyaev is clear that his concept of concrete oneness to which the multitude of free and independent beings belongs is not the sort of dissolution unity the oneness religions promote.

Fine, but what exactly is the concrete oneness to which he alludes?

The personal God is the Triune God, the three persons of the Divine Trinity. Only with the Persons of the Divine Trinity is personal communion and union possible. A Unitarian God is non-personal. To the First-God, about whom Eckhardt taught, nothing personal applies. In the religious consciousness of India, Divinity has not yet revealed the Trinity of His Persons to the world — that is a lower degree of revelation.

In Christianity, Divinity has already shown His Triune Face. The world is an inward drama of the Trinity. It may be said both that God is completely transcendent to man and that He is immanent in man. There must be revealed in me not only God and the Divine but man as well, my human nature — this means man must be born in God.

The plurality of the world has a positive religious meaning. Eternity is the heritage not only of God but of man, as profit from the world-process. This is the meaning of Christianity, as a religion of divine-humanity.

The Trinity is the long through which Berdyaev covers his pluralist metaphysical short. He rejects the idea of a single, unique Creator God in favor of the unity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in one Godhead — of three free and independent beings existing in a concrete oneness.

Berdyaev appears to acknowledge the metaphysical necessity of pluralism...yet cannot take this necessity to its conclusions. Instead, he hedges his pluralism through what he calls the “dynamic development of God” within the Trinity embedded within the mono-ness of the Godhead.

Or something to that extent.

The crux of the Berdyaev Hedge involves ensuring that the orthodox supplies ample cover for any and all heterodox speculations. Unfortunately, this hedge also seems to have prevented or hindered many authentic and thorough breakthroughs in Berdyaev's thinking.

Note added: Berdyaev's mono-pluralism might be his way of attempting to express dyadic relationships, but as is the case with many of his declarations, implication overrules explication.

2 Comments

Without Jesus, We Cannot Really Believe in God

4/28/2024

5 Comments

The other Abrahamic religions approach God through an Old Testament consciousness and depict Him as an incomprehensible, absolute, autocratic master. Well, okay, Christianity does that, too.

The problem is that such depictions are (or should be) irreconcilable and incompatible with Christianity and its emphasis on the reality of an intimate and personal divine-human connection.

Without Christ, it is difficult to comprehend God.

No, scratch that. Without Christ, comprehending God becomes impossible, which, ironically enough, makes God comprehensible.

He is the almighty master, the source of everything, the stern master, the unknowable transcendent, and the all-powerful, all-knowing lord. Although he has no needs, he fiercely demands our submission and punishes us eternally should we refuse.

And so on.

An incomprehensible God becomes incredibly easy to comprehend, but quite difficult to believe in.

Any relationship with God must be inner, intimate, and personal, and this is only possible through God as a person, God as a man — that is, through Jesus.

Christ is not a faraway autocratic commander. He is near us. He is within us, and we are within Him.

With Jesus, God’s absolutism ends, and we are called to immediate participation in the divine life of Creation.

This is easy to comprehend, yet it strikes most, Christians included, as incomprehensible.

5 Comments

Litmus Tests That Fail Themselves

4/28/2024

0 Comments

If your Litmus Tests involve things like

sincere and humble submission to the Pope or any other external authority
pooh-poohing the depth of evil revealed during events like the birdemic
or insisting that everyone vote in the most important election ever to save civilization

then you adhere to Litmus Tests that fail themselves — in ways you obviously cannot even begin to fathom.

0 Comments

Only Love Frees Us From Despiritualization

4/27/2024

0 Comments

Spirit is ultimate reality. It can be denied, but it can never truly be destroyed. If it could be destroyed, the material world as we know it would simply cease to exist for the simple reason that the material is a subcategory of the spiritual.

Whenever we perceive the material world as nothing more than the material world, we are locked in grips of despiritualization. The spiritual is still there, we just refuse to or are unable to sense it or know it. In this sense, we do not possess the power to dispossess anything in Creation — including ourselves — of spirit, but we can certainly make ourselves immune to spirit or estrange and alienate ourselves from it.

We do not possess the power to kill the spiritual in Creation, but we do have enough power to deaden it, most notably, within ourselves. This is the essence of despiritualization. However, possessing the power to deaden Creation also entails that we possess the power to do the opposite — to respiritualize Creation.

Although awareness is vital, respiritualizing Creation involves much more than merely recognizing and knowing that the material world is a subset of the spiritual cosmos. It involves far more than simply bringing Creation to life within consciousness. We may not be able to remove spirit from Creation when we despiritualize, but we are able to add spirit to Creation when we engage in respiritualization.

How?

Through love. The world can only be released from the curse of despiritualization through love. We feel this most acutely with people or Beings who are close to us in spirit. We sense Beings who are close to us in spirit as more alive, more meaningful, less burdensome, less obligatory because they are aligned with us, joined to us, and dear to us. Love burns away the pure-materiality of those Beings and reveals spirit, within the Beings we love and within ourselves.

Without love, our relationships within Creation are reduced to necessity, compulsion, pressure, burden, resistance, and obligation. We feel the apparent deadness of the material world pressing down upon us, threatening us, tempting us, and exploiting us, and we react to this deadness by exerting our own pressure, obligations, threats, temptations, and exploitation into the material world.

Love liberates us from despiritualization, but true liberation from the apparent deadness and burden of the material world involves a love of Christ. Without the love of Christ, true respiritualization — true spiritual freedom — cannot occur.

Without Jesus, the necessities, compulsions, pressures, resistances, and obligations of the despiritualized material world cannot be entirely overcome. Put another way, without Jesus, we can never truly free ourselves of the world while retaining a sense of self, that is, an authentic source of love.

The love of respiritualization is the love of freedom, harmony, and alignment. The selves who love each other and are united in such a way are free.

0 Comments

Optimistic or Pessimistic? From a Spiritual Perspective, Both Are Principally Superficial

4/25/2024

0 Comments

Optimism about this-worldly matters is all fine and well; however, it is by no means a Christian obligation, duty, virtue, or value. Being buoyant and cheerful about temporal matters may provide emotional, physical, and social benefits; however, such benefits do not necessarily benefit one’s spirit or soul.

Conversely, this-worldly pessimism may make one cheerless, gloomy, and a veritable downer. It may also lead to detrimental effects on one’s emotional or physical well-being and relations with others, but it is by no means a sin, nor is it spiritual kryptonite.
I mention this because many Christians are under the errant belief that they must retain this-worldly optimism no matter what. As if the faith would crumble without it.

On the flip side, many Christians believe that it is wrong or sinful to harbor pessimistic views concerning this world and tend to eschew or dismiss all who display the slightest hint of this-worldly pessimism.

Misguided beliefs about optimism and pessimism arise from conflations with hope and despair.

Hope is a true Christian virtue. However, when applied to this world, the best it can offer is this — the steadfast belief that God is providing us with what we need to learn spiritually and to harness that learning to willingly, creatively, and lovingly accept and work toward Jesus’ offer of eternal life in Heaven. The spiritual virtue of hope is in the eternal and cosmic significance and meaning it grants to mortal life. That is the ultimate meaning behind ideas like “as long as there is life, there is hope.”

I can extend this hope to include people I know and love, perhaps even to people I don’t know; however, I cannot apply it to my social status, the economy, my children’s future job prospects, the future of my town, state, or nation, my physical health, or any other predominately this-worldly concern. Once I do that, hope ceases being hope and becomes optimism. As noted above, optimism about this-worldly matters is fine and well, but it is not mandatory and it is not a virtue.

Despair is perhaps the worst of sins. When applied to this world, it is the declaration that God has abandoned us, that He is not providing us with what we need to learn spiritually, and that Jesus’ offer of everlasting life is inaccessible to us. Worse, that Jesus’ offer is illusory; that Heaven does not exist. Despair is the ultimate sin because it strips all eternal and cosmic significance and meaning from mortal life and leaves us with nothing but our inevitable, meaningless deaths.

As with hope, I can despair over people I love, less so over people I don’t know, but I can only do so at the expense of hope. Any feeling of despair over this-worldly affairs like society, the economy, or social status is just acute pessimism and will remain so as long as it does not poison the spirit or other-worldly hope.

Yet many Christians firmly believe that optimism about mundane, this-worldly affairs is indispensable to being a good Christian and that this-worldly pessimism is akin to some form of self-damnation.

Once again, these misguided notions stem from conflating optimism and pessimism with hope and despair. Although the conflation may appear trivial and superficial, it can induce many spiritual errors and harms such as enervated and unsound discernment.

Christians who regard this-worldly optimism as some spiritual duty open themselves up to the danger of regarding the spiritual as a subset of the material, physical, and temporal rather than recognizing that the opposite is, in fact, the case. Christians who foster this-worldly pessimism can easily fall into the same trap if they lose sight of the bigger picture.

This-worldly optimism or pessimism is principally superficial from a spiritual perspective. Optimism is not a virtue, and pessimism is not a sin.

Christians would also do well to remember that optimism is not hope, and pessimism is not despair.

Optimism provides no safeguard against error and sin! On the contrary, it can lead to innumerable errors or sins and, yes, even self-damanation.

Obsessive this-worldly optimism may lead one to forget about hope altogether and commit to nothing more than potential positives in this world. Moreover, any weakening of such this-worldly optimism could also lead straight to other-worldly despair (if there’s nothing positive in this world, how can there be anything positive in the other world)?

Likewise, pessimism can also lead to many errors, sins, and self-damnation. However, Christians can hold consistently bleak views about temporal matters and retain or fortify their hope as long as they do not allow such negative views of temporal matters to blur or cloud the eternal and cosmic significance of mortal life.

In the end, optimism and pessimism are a part of moral life, but they are surface dwellers. Hope and despair exist in the depths. Knowing the difference is imperative.

0 Comments

Comments Back On

4/24/2024

0 Comments

Comments will be turned back on shortly. Please note the comment guidelines on the sidebar.

0 Comments

The Whole of the Moon

4/23/2024

I have just learned that Karl Wallinger, the Welsh-born musician, multi-instumentalist, and songwriter best known for his work with The Waterboys and World Party, passed away a little more than a month ago at 66.

In all honesty, I don't know much more about Wallinger nor the bands with which he was associated, but The Waterboys' The Whole of the Moon remains one of my favorite pop/rock songs from the 1980s, mostly for the back-and-forth contrasts within the lyrics and the song's simple yet catchy carnivalesque foundation, upon which the band adds layers of instrumentation and backing vocals resulting in a culminating crescendo via a sax solo.

I must confess, any pop song that features violins, trumpets, and a saxophone automatically receives bonus points from me.

Anyway, Wallinger is the chap playing the keyboards in the video below.

HQ audio version below.

Soon

4/22/2024

The cuckoos are calling, which means the poppies will begin blooming soon.

Of What Use is the Sociosexual Hierarchy if Society and Men Are Net-Evil?

4/21/2024

Those who promulgate or display an obsessive interest in things like sociosexual hierarchies tend to refer to whatever they criticize or oppose as fake and gay.

No real objection from me there; much of what sociosexual hierarchy adherents criticize or oppose is indeed fake and gay.

However, sociosexual hierarchy fanboys possess a glaring blind spot when it comes to the fakeness and gayness of their sociosexual preoccupation and self-absorption.

Fake because “systems” that classify and rank men based on their social standing among other men and their ability to attract women express, at best, only partial truths about men and society, entailing that such systems offer little more than generalized distortions and misrepresentations.

Gay because I cannot for the life of me understand why men are so fervently interested in other men and their own supposed ranking among other men.

Yet for the sake of argument, let’s pretend the sociosexual hierarchy is pure truth. What then? How do its tenets hold up in our net-evil and quickly perishing societies?

If alpha males are indeed the elite men that naturally rise to occupy the bulk of leadership positions in the West, then what exactly are the fruits by which I am to know them?

If alphas are indeed running the show, then they are succeeding in running a net-evil show replete with the worst sorts of value inversions one could devise, and all the other men — the betas, the gammas, the deltas, and the omegas — are all willingly onboard for the ride.

However, something tells me the alphas are not running the show. The ubiquity of head girls and other assorted female psychopaths in leadership positions all over the West alone is a testament to that.

Moreover, barely any of the men who remain in leadership positions today qualify as alpha males. So, where are all the alphas and what exactly are they leading?

I suppose the sociosexual hierarchy acolytes acknowledge all of that by referring to our current value-inverted iteration of Westen Civilization as Clown World and, by default, probably insist that the only solution to value-inverted Clown World is the reimplementation of a proper hierarchy of values in society, namely via the recognition and application sociosexual hierarchy.

Well, okay, but if this “natural” hierarchy is so valid, then how could it be so easily and willingly inverted, usurped, and discarded? Moreover, how will it ever be reimplemented?

Putting all of that aside for a moment, my biggest concern with this whole sociosexual hierarchy business is that it does little more than distract people — men in particular — from the sorts of things they should be thinking about and concentrating on.

The all-encompassing focus on society diverts attention from more pressing spiritual problems and matters. The forceful emphasis on groups and ranks within society diminishes men (or women) as individuals, as unique selves within Creation, each with a unique spiritual arc and quest. It reeks of materialism and positivism, as do the ultimate aims and functions within the hierarchy.

Here's the thing — people, men particularly, welcome such diversions with open arms because it provides them the pretense of being involved in serious intellectual/spiritual business while simultaneously avoiding the urgent and acute spiritual matters to which they should be attending.

At its core, the sociosexual hierarchy strikes me as uncreative, anti-creative, anti-spiritual, corrupt, pseudoscientific, systemized thinking that, among other detrimental effects, increases alienation.

It does little more than attempt to explain a supposed system embedded within another system. It is just another aspect of Societianity — the compulsive belief in society as the be-all and end-all of mortal life in this world.

It offers few answers to ultimate questions or aims. As with all predetermined models, its outputs are entirely dependent upon and controlled by its inputs. All else is considered pointless and irrelevant to its pre-arranged schemata.

And at the end of the day, who cares where men happen to land on some sociosexual ranking if the society itself is thoroughly corrupted and net-evil, and the majority of the men on said ranking is spiritually shallow, unserious, unrepentant, hedonic, dishonest, cowardly, and effeminate?

The whole thing is just another inane schtick, which helps explain why it is currently so uber-popular.

The World? The Future? Our Children? Our Grandchildren?

4/20/2024

Many Christians and conservatives continually express deep concerns about the future -- more exactly, about the kind of world we will leave our children and grandchildren. Though I empathize with such concerns, I find most are limited in perspective and tainted by misguided notions of what the future means in spiritual terms.

Concerns about the future and future generations also tend to falsely inflate our power over the future and future generations while simultaneously deflating the immense power of the agency and freedom of future generations.

The following repost presents some of my ideas and assumptions on the topic.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

I am exploring this question because I occasionally get some indirect (and direct) criticism about my apparent lack of concern about the fate of my child and Christian children in general.

The criticism is connected to salvation. The thrust of the criticism is the individual, personal choice for salvation on the part of Christian parents and how this does little to help their children who, it is assumed, will be left to fend for themselves in an increasingly hellish world once the parents depart from mortal life.

I suppose I could get into the problems of framing the matter in such a way or approaching the subject from the perspective of anxiety, but I won't.

Instead, I will touch upon some basic metaphysical assumptions I hold. When approached superficially, these metaphysical assumptions may provide little comfort to anxious Christian parents concerned about the well-being of their children in a world that grows darker by the day, but I hope that said anxious Christian parents will engage the assumptions I have outlined regardless.

The first assumption is that my child is God’s child first. That God knows him and loves him as much as I do – and more. God allowed my child to be born into this world in this time and place because He understands that the experience offers my child the opportunity to reap immense spiritual benefits accessed only through the experience of mortal life. He would not have allowed my child to be born into this world in this time and place if the opportunity for such benefits were inaccessible or impossible. Because God loves my child, He has faith that my child possesses -- or can access -- what is needed to make the choice for salvation and will work actively to guide my child toward this choice.

The second assumption centers on my understanding that mortal life in this world is inevitably and unavoidably entropic. Entropy continuously chips away at the temporary order we sometimes experience. Every person who embarks on the journey of mortal life dies. Some die young, some tragically, and some violently. Others live long, extended lives filled with vitality and vigor, but even they ultimately succumb to the forces of sickness, age, and decay. Thus, the material aliveness of individual beings in this world is temporary. Nothing “material” in this world lasts forever. Barring sudden accidents or illnesses, we will grow old, wither, and die like our great-grandparents, grandparents, and parents. Our children, my child, will do the same. However, the entropic state of the world also allows for the possibility of creativity. Our worldly creations are not free from entropy, but the creative acts themselves live on eternally.

The third assumption accepts the reality of suffering in this mortal life. The continuous onslaught of disorder on temporary order ensures varying degrees of suffering, primarily physical. Yet physical suffering also induces psychological and spiritual suffering. A big part of our experience in this mortal life involves “dealing with” suffering, including my child’s suffering.

The fourth assumption concerns Jesus’s gift of salvation and eternal life. Although we inhabit an entropic world of unavoidable suffering and death, we can choose to overcome this world by believing on Jesus and following Him into everlasting life. This gift of salvation and eternal life is also available to my child who, like us, is an eternal spiritual being. I, as a parent, must accept that my child existed before he came into this world as my son. Moreover, my child’s experience in this entropic world of suffering and death is the only knowable means through which he can accept Jesus’s gift of salvation and eternal life. Without this experience, my son would likely not have the opportunity to follow Jesus into Heaven.

The fifth assumption – a fact rather than an assumption – stems from the understanding that the choice for salvation and Heaven is deeply individual and personal. As a Christian parent, I may succeed in providing my child with the best possible material and spiritual conditions in this entropic world. I may even succeed in protecting him from much of the evil infesting the world; however, in the end, nothing I do as a parent protects him completely (nor should it) or guarantees his salvation for the simple reason that his salvation is entirely up to him, in the same way that my salvation is entirely up to me. I can guide, nurture, and assist my son toward choosing salvation and Heaven, but I cannot decide for him. I cannot ensure his salvation. Nor can I force him into salvation and Heaven. I must accept that my child may – despite my best intentions and actions – reject Jesus’s offer.

I could go on, but I think the above suffice to paint a fairly clear picture of my basic assumptions concerning protecting children and ensuring their salvation. These assumptions do not entail that there is a set formula for raising children in this world and protecting them from evil, but they do provide a basis – at least for me. Having said that, all parents must do their best within the conditions of their own individual circumstances.

So, with all that in mind, what have I done to protect my child and guide him toward salvation?

In terms of externals, my wife and I took the opportunity to move away from the Anglo world and settle in a rural part of Hungary. We hoped the move would shield my son from some of the blatant evil that permeates the Anglo-West, particularly in education. However, Hungary is very far from immune from the evils that plague the West proper. Nonetheless, we believe the move has managed to spare our son from some of the most obvious harm.

It helps that nearly all of the families in the village we live in are cohesive and Christian-oriented. Divorces and “dysfunctional” families are the exceptions rather than the rule. Living in a small community of six hundred has also allowed my son to nurture relationships he may not have nurtured in larger, urban settings. The pastoral surroundings have also imbued him with a closer connection to nature, but the entropic nature of the world is still there, chipping away.

Being able to purchase a home debt-free has alleviated some of the financial stresses and struggles that sometimes taint family life.

Attending the small Roman Catholic Church in the village and the Roman Catholic school in a nearby town provides my son with a sense of community and some of the externals of Christianity, which I believe are helpful for children. Thankfully, the Catholic faith here has not been completely poisoned by leftism, but it is still very much aligned with the System, and it did lock down during the birdemic. Three years ago, my son made the personal choice to serve as an altar boy and continues to do so to this day. Though I hope my son eventually becomes a Romantic Christian, I know that Romantic Christianity is an adult choice. For now, it is enough for him to understand basic Christian beliefs about salvation and Heaven “as a child”.

When it comes to Christian “teaching” at home, my wife and I have chosen to employ a light touch. Though I sometimes speak about general Christian matters, my wife and I have intuitively decided upon a “show rather than tell” approach. When my son is older, I hope to be able to discuss Christianity with him in a more direct manner.

In terms of media, my wife and I make efforts to shield our son from noxious material, particularly online, but we do not expressly forbid him from exploring secular media, for the simple reason that we know such prohibition would likely only increase curiosity and generate rebellion.

These external choices have served us well thus far, but they have their obvious limits. There really is no “place” you can go to protect your child. Some places may be better than others, but no place is “safe”. Furthermore, there's only so much you can do to protect your child and being overprotective probably does more harm than good.

For example, our current location puts us fairly close to the raging proxy war in the east and another potential conflict simmering just to the south. As far as countries go, Hungary is still firmly within the EU and the System. It has a tragic history, mostly because of its location, and that inherent historical tragedy is still unfolding today. Many Hungarians are no better than their atheistic, leftist counterparts in the West. The culture is predominately secular and materialistic. Furthermore, even if I could provide my son with the ideal “place” to grow up, that ideal place will change, or he may decide to move away to a less ideal place one day.

The current economic environment ensures that whatever financial freedom we have enjoyed as a family is steadily being encroached upon and eroded away via inflation and various “global crises.”

Attending church and a religious school offers no protection against anything, including rejecting God. On the contrary, such experiences often breed passivity or System conformity or, sometimes, fortify the choice against God and Creation. Modeling and infusing Christian living at home likewise guarantees nothing. Avoiding or criticizing leftist media and culture also offers no safeguard against the media and culture.

And none of what I have outlined above addresses unforeseen challenges, misfortunes, and tragedies in the form of accidents, illnesses, war, economic collapse, or what have you.

When all is said and done, I view family life in this world as an ideal. It is an ideal that I must approach with the right motivations and into which I invest a great deal of effort. Naturally, I wish to protect my son from evil and guide him toward salvation. However, despite my best intentions and motivations, I know I cannot fully protect my son, nor can I ensure his salvation.

I can do my best to make the world a positive, nurturing, loving place, but I have to accept that the world often works in the opposite direction. I also have to accept that this is "the best that can be done".

Also, I can do my best to make my son aware of Jesus’s offer and encourage him to accept it, but I cannot, as a parent, make that choice for him. Neither can Jesus. The choice is his. Such is the nature of freedom. Such is the nature of his personal agency and "power."

All I can do after I have honestly done my best is have faith – faith that my son will align with Truth on his own. Faith that I will be able to help my son should I depart this world before him. Faith that my time with my son will not be restricted to our time together in this world.

There are a thousand more things I could say or should say, but I'll leave it there for now.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Note added: Though I allude to it indirectly in the post above, I make no explicit mention of the roles of consciousness, freedom, and agency, all of which are vital. I also do not go into detail about our generally overinflated notions of our power to influence the future and future generations.

Those who dismiss all or most of what I have noted above and adamantly adhere to the "power" of bringing up children in an explicitly Christian family or Christian society or any other external factor would do well to consider individuals like the one in the image below -- a rather infamous American nuclear engineer who, until recently, worked for the US government. I'm sure most are familiar with the story, so I won't go into it here. However, some may not know that said individual is the son of two Southern Baptist missionaries -- missionaries!

Something to mull over concerning the supposed power of Christian externals on the future and future generations.

<<Previous