In the modern condition - aiming at Final Participation - most Men realise that truth is something chosen. Truth is no longer compelled upon us from outside; truth active and us passive.
Our modern truth can only be active - if we are not active, there will be no truth.
What is not realised, or denied, is that there is only one reality.
So the situation really-is that there is only one reality, and we must choose it.
The modern sin of pride is manifested in assuming that because we must choose truth, therefore we can invent truth. And because modern truth is invented, then we can deny truth.
I don't quite follow this. Are you distinguishing truth from reality, and if so what is the difference? If not, what does "choosing" mean when there is only one possible choice?
ReplyDelete@Wm - I'm catching at an idea here - from Arkle originally. The thing seems to be that when we manage to be in the state of Final Participation, when it happens - there is a simultaneous feeling that everything is both our choice, and reality, and that there is a kind of inevitability or destiny about it.
ReplyDeleteAll at once - whereas people usually split them up and see conflict. People are aware of infinite possible choices; OR that reality is arbitrary and may be constructed - Or that reality is unitary and imposes itself upon us; OR that there is an inexorable fate that we cannot resist - or that anything might happen at any moment and the future is constructed.
I think the truth depends upon a 'dynamic' relational way of thinking that comes to us spontaneously, but which we over-ride with (what I think of as) static categories. If everything is life is known to be a temporary 'cross section' from what is in reality an ongoing process that stretches back to eternity; then the categorical way of thinking is recognised as false.
We just-are IN life; and the first question is whether we want to participate in its creation or not (and that is a real question - I can easily understand why someone would prefer not, because to participate entails the burden of consciousness).
The salvation question is whether this on going creation is Good or Bad, something we ally with or oppose/ exploit. Again, this is a real question - I can imagine a sincere anti-theist who believes it has all been a terrible mistake and opts-out...
But the usual anti-good position is primarily dishonest - in which one's motivations are lied about. But this is excused on the basis of rejecting the morality of creation. SO evil is about *using* creation on the excuse of rejecting creation - it is a parasitic activity, and therefore (across eternity) Must Be opposed and suppressed by those who support creation.