Echo Loquation

God provided the Word so that the Void, having no voice of its own, might at least have an echo.

Advertisements

Androgyny

Those with a vague, almost genderless appearance are not androgynous.  They are neither male nor female in appearance.  Androgyny is the positive possession of both male and female characteristics so that one appears both characteristically masculine and characteristically feminine in a kind of unity of opposites; a plenitude of opposites, since both are present in their fullness.  Androgyny is not a middle ground between genders but a higher synthesis.  That which is generally mistaken for androgyny is really subgenderly.  Furthermore, it is doubtful that a female could ever possess this quality.  It seems to be found exclusively in a small minority of males.  To the extent that a woman becomes more masculine, she also becomes less feminine. An “androgynous” female is really just an ugly female.  To put it in sci-fi terms: only a male child can be the Kwisatz Haderach.

Thoughts on the Plotinian Great chain of being

The moment we lose touch with our immediate ontological superiors, when we cease to reverence and worship them, we are then cut off from the great chain of being.  This great chain is existence and life itself.  What life can we have apart from it?

One generally does not worship God, one worships one’s idea of Him.  When ordinary, pious people worship God, they worship, in their mind, some kind of divine guardian watching over their lives, i.e. they are really worship their own daemon and tutelary spirit.  This is right.  By instinct alone the ordinary, pious people merge into the great chain of being.  Can one with a higher, intellectual conception of the Deity really presume to worship Him directly, to worship Him alone?  I neglect that which He has placed directly above me, and so I am cut off from the great chain.  There is no contradiction whatsoever between worshiping God, the ultimate existent, and worshiping the divine intermediaries he has placed over us.  The great Jewish lie has consisted precisely in convincing of us of an opposition where none existed.  On the contrary, we have nothing from God apart from what descends to us from Him, and that which descends, descends along this great chain―this is Providence.  Who could object to this but a “spiritual atomist”, one who sees distance and discontinuity where there is only pure continuity, obstacles where there are only signposts?

Moral Virtue?

Moral virtue is an oxymoron.  Virtue is always aristocratic, in the etymological sense.  It belongs to the best, and not to the kindest or the most sociable or the most conformist.  It is the privelage of the few, not the mores of the many.  It is prowess and skill, not universal duty.  Morality is immediate.  The moment one chooses to be moral one is, eo ipso, already moral.  It is obligatory.  There is no merit or honor in the discharge of an obligation.  Virtue is mediate.  One attempts at it, but its actual acquisition depends on the success of one’s venture.  It is totally voluntary.  From virtue spring merit, honor, and even riches.

Guilt as the Illusion of Separation

My guilt lies precisely in this, that I do not admit my guilt. Naturally, I sin. I am an imperfect being. The scandal isn’t so much that I sin, but that I do not acknowledge my sinfulness and turn to the only one capable of repairing it. I resolve to repair my guilt on my own, but when one owes a debt one does not pay it to oneself. So little is asked of us, and yet we insist on doing so much. We are utterly dependent on Him for our existence. We need only be made aware of this fact and the absurdity of attempting to act apart from Him is made apparent. No course of action can actually be taken apart from Him, and so we labor under an illusion whenever we resolve to do anything “on our own”. We are never on our own.

Apperceptional Election

Christianity does not condemn other faiths because it regards their ideas as false and their practices dangerous, it regards their ideas as false and their practices dangerous because it is obliged to condemn them―a troublesome inheritance from the “chosen people”.  The price of “knowing” that one is elect is to know that others are not.