Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [evforum] God's love?

Expand Messages
  • Owen Jones
    ... Personally, I hate ... Voegelin s use of the term Order is obviously not a reference to a Gestapo like command or ideal. It is the Germanic equivalent
    Message 1 of 26 , Nov 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      --- Martin Pagnan <mmpagnan@...> wrote:

      Personally, I hate
      > beauty. It carries too
      > much emotional baggage. It makes one think of
      > sunsets, beautiful people,
      > and skilled hockey moves ( I am a Canadian). Does
      > God attract? Yes. Like
      > a magnet. Because God is beautiful? I cannot say.
      > Can anyone?


      Voegelin's use of the term "Order" is obviously not a
      reference to a Gestapo like command or ideal. It is
      the Germanic equivalent of the classical Greek concept
      of Beauty. It is God's Beauty that saves. The
      problem of "modernity" is the problem of the
      deformation of aesthetics. For example, the
      "modernist" looks at suffering and pain and "sees"
      only an oppressive evil. He looks at history and sees
      only failed potential. This is evidence of a
      deformation or inversion of the aesthetic vision. The
      well-ordered, the well-formed soul, the well-informed
      soul sees something quite different.

      In classical Christianity, Pentacost is, in a sense,
      the most important feast, because prior to Pentacost
      no one could "see" the truth as it was revealed in the
      Cross and in the Resurrection. The apostles were in a
      state of defeat and despair. With Pentacost, man's
      sense perception and faculties were restored to their
      intended purpose, and the apostles were able to see,
      taste, touch, and hear in such a way that there was no
      longer even any divergence of language. See the
      troparion for the Vespers service for Pentacost. It's
      all about the ability to see things as they really
      are. There is a noetic dimension to this, a noetic
      structure to this transformation, but it is also
      supra-noetic. All is contained in Beauty as the
      highest transcendent category.

      Because there has evolved a gnostic inversion of
      Beauty should not be an excuse to hate Beauty because
      it has taken on emotional baggage. One can say the
      same thing about a lot of things. Kant hated the
      Church because of its "baggage." Locke hated the
      Church because of its "baggage."

      But Christianity is true, or it can only be true,
      because it is Beautiful. Not because it is
      historically sound or proven, or because people's
      lives improve when they believe, or because it has
      been an historical force for good, or even because it
      promises salvation to its believers.

      Likewise, Voegelin's vision of divine presence in
      history is true because it is Beautiful. This is why
      he could say that Mann's intro to Joseph and His
      Brothers was the greatest philosophy of history ever
      written. Not because it is an accurate explication.
      NOr is it why he could write the intro to Vol I of
      Order and History, which you either get or you don't,
      because it is an aesthetic vision. Either you have it
      in you to get it or you don't. You can spend the rest
      of your life studying it, but you either see it or you
      don't. Love is the drawing force or mechanism but
      Beauty is the source and the object of the love.




      __________________________________
      Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
      http://mail.yahoo.com
    • Owen Jones
      ... Voegelin s use of the term Order is obviously not a reference to a Gestapo like command or ideal. It is the Germanic equivalent of the classical
      Message 2 of 26 , Nov 1, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        --- Martin Pagnan <mmpagnan@...> wrote:

        >
        > As to God being Beauty, I cannot say. God, the
        > Trinity, is not in my
        > eye, spiritual eye or other. Personally, I hate
        > beauty. It carries too
        > much emotional baggage. It makes one think of
        > sunsets, beautiful people,
        > and skilled hockey moves ( I am a Canadian). Does
        > God attract? Yes. Like
        > a magnet. Because God is beautiful? I cannot say.
        > Can anyone?


        Voegelin's use of the term "Order" is obviously not a
        reference to a Gestapo like command or ideal. It is
        the Germanic equivalent of the classical experience of
        Beauty, as applied to the historical form of
        existence. You "see" this in the intro to Vol 1 of
        Order and History. You either see it or you don't.
        You can spend the rest of your life studying it, but
        you either get it or you don't.

        Christianity is true, not because it is verifiable, in
        an objectifiable or historical sense, but because it
        is Beautiful. See the troparian for the Pentacost
        Vespers Service.

        It is God's Beauty that saves. Love is the drawing
        force or mechanism.

        So let's not dispense with Beauty because it now
        contains emotional baggage. Kant and Locke hated the
        Church because it contained "baggage." The gnostic
        hates reality as a given because it contains baggage.
        People hate Plato because he is a dead white male!

        As for skilled Hockey moves, a Patristic preacher
        could turn that into an excellent two-hour theological
        discourse on BEAUTY! Imagine. Just as you think Hull
        has missed the puck, he slams it past the goalie!
        Score one for the guy with the best disguised moves.
        Just when you think the game is lost....



        __________________________________
        Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
        http://farechase.yahoo.com
      • <none>
        Seems to me that experience (and any mention) of the beauty of God in the NT is very limited -- think of the rarity of the Beautific Vision -- while experience
        Message 3 of 26 , Nov 1, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Seems to me that experience (and any mention) of the beauty of God in
          the NT is very limited -- think of the rarity of the Beautific Vision
          -- while experience of the love of God is immediate and for everyone.
          I think we have to keep in mind the difference between the beginning
          and the end of our growth toward God, and Mr. Pagnan's emphasis on the
          differences between the God of Plato, the God of Aristotle, and the God
          of Christ shouldn't be underestimated. I think Plato and Aristotle
          provided conceptual tools to illuminate the Hebrew God, but did not
          really add anything, and missed a few things as well.

          Jim Rovira
        • Owen Jones
          How does one see the love of God present in the Cross? That is an aesthetic vision that is a Gift of the Spirit, according to all of the Fathers. Without
          Message 4 of 26 , Nov 1, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            How does one "see" the love of God present in the
            Cross? That is an aesthetic vision that is a Gift of
            the Spirit, according to all of the Fathers. Without
            the transformation of sense perception granted at
            Pentacost, the Cross is a failure, a loss, a tragedy.
            It is only understood as a victory with a
            transformation of vision. This vision takes place in
            the intermediate realm.

            I could get into a long discourse about proper
            Biblical interpretation, but then we would quickly get
            into a topic to be avoided on this forum. But looking
            at it philosophically....

            God's love for mankind is something we either see or
            we do not see. Two people can look at the same thing
            and draw opposite conclusions, because they look at it
            differently, or, to be more precise, the tools they
            are using are either adequate or inadequate to the
            task.

            The problem with classical aesthetics in our own day
            is that we now look at things as either subjective or
            objective, and aesthetics are almost universally
            deemed to be "subjective." You want to get into a
            very quick heated argument with almost anyone? Just
            say that something is beautiful (we are talking about
            a physical object here, like a particular type of
            architectural design). Assert it as so. Assert the
            authority of aesthetics. People will instantly
            bristle. How dare you! That's just your subjective
            opinion! Because they intuitively perceive that we
            are actually talking about something transcendent, and
            matters transcendent are matters of personal taste.
            They are private, they have no universal significance.
            How can a person's private taste be universal,
            without imposing that taste on others by force and
            coercion, thereby depriving them of their rights?

            Paradoxically, they will be right, but for all the
            wrong reasons. It does all depend on how you look at
            things. But that is because, as Voegelin points out,
            there is no "I" there apart from what the "I"
            perceives and experiences, and there is no "there"
            there apart from the "I." There is a metaxy reality.
            Not subjects and objects.



            --- "<none>" <jamesrovira@...> wrote:

            > Seems to me that experience (and any mention) of the
            > beauty of God in
            > the NT is very limited -- think of the rarity of the
            > Beautific Vision
            > -- while experience of the love of God is immediate
            > and for everyone.
            > I think we have to keep in mind the difference
            > between the beginning
            > and the end of our growth toward God, and Mr.
            > Pagnan's emphasis on the
            > differences between the God of Plato, the God of
            > Aristotle, and the God
            > of Christ shouldn't be underestimated. I think
            > Plato and Aristotle
            > provided conceptual tools to illuminate the Hebrew
            > God, but did not
            > really add anything, and missed a few things as
            > well.
            >
            > Jim Rovira
            >




            __________________________________
            Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
            http://farechase.yahoo.com
          • Roberto Buffagni
            For what is worth, I willingly subscribe to Mr. Jones description; and I add that I always thought that in New Testament can be found a very good, if very
            Message 5 of 26 , Nov 1, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              For what is worth, I willingly subscribe to Mr. Jones' description; and I
              add that I always thought that in New Testament can be found a very good, if
              very concise and exacting, exposition of aesthetics according to God.
              It is the Discourse of the Mountain. Until you see the list of beatitudes as
              a list of disgraces, deprivations, handicaps and humiliations, you are not
              looking at the world (and at yourself) in the correct perspective.
              Then, if you step aside and get a better view, bliss - "visio beatifica" -
              opens up, and swallows you.

              -----Messaggio originale-----
              Da: evforum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:evforum@yahoogroups.com]Per conto di
              Owen Jones
              Inviato: martedì 1 novembre 2005 16.09
              A: evforum@yahoogroups.com
              Oggetto: Re: [evforum] God's love?

              The problem with classical aesthetics in our own day
              is that we now look at things as either subjective or
              objective, and aesthetics are almost universally
              deemed to be "subjective." You want to get into a
              very quick heated argument with almost anyone? Just
              say that something is beautiful (we are talking about
              a physical object here, like a particular type of
              architectural design). Assert it as so. Assert the
              authority of aesthetics. People will instantly
              bristle. How dare you! That's just your subjective
              opinion! Because they intuitively perceive that we
              are actually talking about something transcendent, and
              matters transcendent are matters of personal taste.
              They are private, they have no universal significance.
              How can a person's private taste be universal,
              without imposing that taste on others by force and
              coercion, thereby depriving them of their rights?

              Paradoxically, they will be right, but for all the
              wrong reasons. It does all depend on how you look at
              things. But that is because, as Voegelin points out,
              there is no "I" there apart from what the "I"
              perceives and experiences, and there is no "there"
              there apart from the "I." There is a metaxy reality.
              Not subjects and objects.



              --- "<none>" <jamesrovira@...> wrote:

              > Seems to me that experience (and any mention) of the
              > beauty of God in
              > the NT is very limited -- think of the rarity of the
              > Beautific Vision
              > -- while experience of the love of God is immediate
              > and for everyone.
              > I think we have to keep in mind the difference
              > between the beginning
              > and the end of our growth toward God, and Mr.
              > Pagnan's emphasis on the
              > differences between the God of Plato, the God of
              > Aristotle, and the God
              > of Christ shouldn't be underestimated. I think
              > Plato and Aristotle
              > provided conceptual tools to illuminate the Hebrew
              > God, but did not
              > really add anything, and missed a few things as
              > well.
              >
              > Jim Rovira
              >




              __________________________________
              Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
              http://farechase.yahoo.com



              In consideratione creaturarum non est vana
              et peritura curiositas exercenda; sed gradus
              ad immortalia et semper manentia faciendus.
              -St Augustine De vera religione
              Yahoo! Groups Links
            • Martin Pagnan
              Well, Max Weber s enthusiasm sold his views to his students. And, I have no doubt that Owen Jones s sermons on beauty rake in the sheaves, and that is good.
              Message 6 of 26 , Nov 1, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                Well, Max Weber's enthusiasm sold his views to his students. And, I have
                no doubt that Owen Jones's sermons on beauty rake in the sheaves, and
                that is good.

                However, philosophy is love of wisdom. The philosopher needs to know
                what is before pronouncing on the attributes of what is. And then,
                teaching the attributes presupposes that everyone concerned can first
                agree on what is. So, it often happens that a preacher will get away
                with a talk on beauty if those being addressed already believe. However,
                Christ on the Cross is horrific. It has been known to make little
                children cry. It takes understanding, a lot of it, before the goodness
                of the act can be appreciated, but then only through an understanding of
                how horrific sin is that such extreme measures were needed. Most modern
                intellectuals, even those with no anti-Christian sentiments, prefer to
                believe that the story of Christ is a myth, a myth as demarquated by
                Jaspers, Mircea Eliade and Joseph Campbell. That is, it is simply a
                story with a moral. The modern mind cannot grasp that sin can have such
                far reaching consequences so as to require the real God, the Creator, to
                intervene in human affairs. But then, what will it take to make the
                modern mind open its arms to a broader understanding of God?

                Realistically, God is not beautiful.That is, God is not directly
                perceived as such. In fact, God is not perceived; the beatific vision is
                yet to be in secula seculorum. What is it that attracts, therefore? The
                classic answer is Grace. This is, of course, to beg the question. It is
                like saying that what attracts does so using its own resources. This
                leaves the attractee, us, lost to explain. All that is know is that
                "God" is the name that we give in English to the ground of what is.
                Given that it must be, then St. Thomas's edumbrated paths (via negativa,
                via anologica, etc. ) are the tools for attributing to God what He must
                be based on the creation that He gave. And, one of the things that he
                gave is Beauty and Good. And, love as glue. Somehow a believer has to go
                through this type of thinking to get to the point of attributing Beauty
                to God, and then only by way of analogy. After it has been done, of
                course, it is so easy to rest in the idea that God is Beauty, just like
                resting in the idea of Trinity, and drawing endless parallels from the
                idea.

                Owen Jones wrote:

                >How does one "see" the love of God present in the
                >Cross? That is an aesthetic vision that is a Gift of
                >the Spirit, according to all of the Fathers. Without
                >the transformation of sense perception granted at
                >Pentacost, the Cross is a failure, a loss, a tragedy.
                >It is only understood as a victory with a
                >transformation of vision. This vision takes place in
                >the intermediate realm.
                >
                >
                >
                >


                --
                No virus found in this outgoing message.
                Checked by AVG Free Edition.
                Version: 7.0.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.6/152 - Release Date: 10/31/2005
              • Owen Jones
                ... __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
                Message 7 of 26 , Nov 1, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- Roberto Buffagni <roberto.buffagni@...>
                  wrote:

                  > For what is worth, I willingly subscribe to Mr.
                  > Jones' description; and I
                  > add that I always thought that in New Testament can
                  > be found a very good, if
                  > very concise and exacting, exposition of aesthetics
                  > according to God.
                  > It is the Discourse of the Mountain. Until you see
                  > the list of beatitudes as
                  > a list of disgraces, deprivations, handicaps and
                  > humiliations, you are not
                  > looking at the world (and at yourself) in the
                  > correct perspective.
                  > Then, if you step aside and get a better view, bliss
                  > - "visio beatifica" -
                  > opens up, and swallows you.
                  >
                  > -----Messaggio originale-----
                  > Da: evforum@yahoogroups.com
                  > [mailto:evforum@yahoogroups.com]Per conto di
                  > Owen Jones
                  > Inviato: martedì 1 novembre 2005 16.09
                  > A: evforum@yahoogroups.com
                  > Oggetto: Re: [evforum] God's love?
                  >
                  > The problem with classical aesthetics in our own day
                  > is that we now look at things as either subjective
                  > or
                  > objective, and aesthetics are almost universally
                  > deemed to be "subjective." You want to get into a
                  > very quick heated argument with almost anyone? Just
                  > say that something is beautiful (we are talking
                  > about
                  > a physical object here, like a particular type of
                  > architectural design). Assert it as so. Assert the
                  > authority of aesthetics. People will instantly
                  > bristle. How dare you! That's just your subjective
                  > opinion! Because they intuitively perceive that we
                  > are actually talking about something transcendent,
                  > and
                  > matters transcendent are matters of personal taste.
                  > They are private, they have no universal
                  > significance.
                  > How can a person's private taste be universal,
                  > without imposing that taste on others by force and
                  > coercion, thereby depriving them of their rights?
                  >
                  > Paradoxically, they will be right, but for all the
                  > wrong reasons. It does all depend on how you look
                  > at
                  > things. But that is because, as Voegelin points
                  > out,
                  > there is no "I" there apart from what the "I"
                  > perceives and experiences, and there is no "there"
                  > there apart from the "I." There is a metaxy
                  > reality.
                  > Not subjects and objects.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > --- "<none>" <jamesrovira@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > > Seems to me that experience (and any mention) of
                  > the
                  > > beauty of God in
                  > > the NT is very limited -- think of the rarity of
                  > the
                  > > Beautific Vision
                  > > -- while experience of the love of God is
                  > immediate
                  > > and for everyone.
                  > > I think we have to keep in mind the difference
                  > > between the beginning
                  > > and the end of our growth toward God, and Mr.
                  > > Pagnan's emphasis on the
                  > > differences between the God of Plato, the God of
                  > > Aristotle, and the God
                  > > of Christ shouldn't be underestimated. I think
                  > > Plato and Aristotle
                  > > provided conceptual tools to illuminate the Hebrew
                  > > God, but did not
                  > > really add anything, and missed a few things as
                  > > well.
                  > >
                  > > Jim Rovira
                  > >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > __________________________________
                  > Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in
                  > one click.
                  > http://farechase.yahoo.com
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > In consideratione creaturarum non est vana
                  > et peritura curiositas exercenda; sed gradus
                  > ad immortalia et semper manentia faciendus.
                  > -St Augustine De vera religione
                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >





                  __________________________________
                  Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
                  http://mail.yahoo.com
                • Owen Jones
                  Mr. Buffagni is very wise. ... __________________________________ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com
                  Message 8 of 26 , Nov 1, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Mr. Buffagni is very wise.

                    --- Roberto Buffagni <roberto.buffagni@...>
                    wrote:

                    > For what is worth, I willingly subscribe to Mr.
                    > Jones' description; and I
                    > add that I always thought that in New Testament can
                    > be found a very good, if
                    > very concise and exacting, exposition of aesthetics
                    > according to God.
                    > It is the Discourse of the Mountain. Until you see
                    > the list of beatitudes as
                    > a list of disgraces, deprivations, handicaps and
                    > humiliations, you are not
                    > looking at the world (and at yourself) in the
                    > correct perspective.
                    > Then, if you step aside and get a better view, bliss
                    > - "visio beatifica" -
                    > opens up, and swallows you.
                    >
                    > -----Messaggio originale-----
                    > Da: evforum@yahoogroups.com
                    > [mailto:evforum@yahoogroups.com]Per conto di
                    > Owen Jones
                    > Inviato: martedì 1 novembre 2005 16.09
                    > A: evforum@yahoogroups.com
                    > Oggetto: Re: [evforum] God's love?
                    >
                    > The problem with classical aesthetics in our own day
                    > is that we now look at things as either subjective
                    > or
                    > objective, and aesthetics are almost universally
                    > deemed to be "subjective." You want to get into a
                    > very quick heated argument with almost anyone? Just
                    > say that something is beautiful (we are talking
                    > about
                    > a physical object here, like a particular type of
                    > architectural design). Assert it as so. Assert the
                    > authority of aesthetics. People will instantly
                    > bristle. How dare you! That's just your subjective
                    > opinion! Because they intuitively perceive that we
                    > are actually talking about something transcendent,
                    > and
                    > matters transcendent are matters of personal taste.
                    > They are private, they have no universal
                    > significance.
                    > How can a person's private taste be universal,
                    > without imposing that taste on others by force and
                    > coercion, thereby depriving them of their rights?
                    >
                    > Paradoxically, they will be right, but for all the
                    > wrong reasons. It does all depend on how you look
                    > at
                    > things. But that is because, as Voegelin points
                    > out,
                    > there is no "I" there apart from what the "I"
                    > perceives and experiences, and there is no "there"
                    > there apart from the "I." There is a metaxy
                    > reality.
                    > Not subjects and objects.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > --- "<none>" <jamesrovira@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > > Seems to me that experience (and any mention) of
                    > the
                    > > beauty of God in
                    > > the NT is very limited -- think of the rarity of
                    > the
                    > > Beautific Vision
                    > > -- while experience of the love of God is
                    > immediate
                    > > and for everyone.
                    > > I think we have to keep in mind the difference
                    > > between the beginning
                    > > and the end of our growth toward God, and Mr.
                    > > Pagnan's emphasis on the
                    > > differences between the God of Plato, the God of
                    > > Aristotle, and the God
                    > > of Christ shouldn't be underestimated. I think
                    > > Plato and Aristotle
                    > > provided conceptual tools to illuminate the Hebrew
                    > > God, but did not
                    > > really add anything, and missed a few things as
                    > > well.
                    > >
                    > > Jim Rovira
                    > >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > __________________________________
                    > Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in
                    > one click.
                    > http://farechase.yahoo.com
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > In consideratione creaturarum non est vana
                    > et peritura curiositas exercenda; sed gradus
                    > ad immortalia et semper manentia faciendus.
                    > -St Augustine De vera religione
                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >




                    __________________________________
                    Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
                    http://farechase.yahoo.com
                  • Roberto Buffagni
                    Many thanks to Mr. Jones for his compliment (unfortunately, I am only very intermittently and very inconsequentially very wise). A little musing about this
                    Message 9 of 26 , Nov 1, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Many thanks to Mr. Jones for his compliment (unfortunately, I am only very
                      intermittently and very inconsequentially very wise).
                      A little musing about this matter.
                      Theatre has a built - in, powerful analogy. Writer is God, director is King,
                      actor is Man, scene is World, audience is Inner World, beyond the scene is
                      Other World, final result or show is Apocalypse, or Revelation (Baroque Age
                      called it with an ancient, noble name: "theatrum mundi").
                      Theatre, whose scope- for both audiences and artists - is trying to attain a
                      perspective which is more than personal, or no more personal, or really
                      personal (I do not know the English word for "sovrapersonale") is a trade,
                      too, where all human, too human flaws, weaknesses and sins traditionally
                      abound and flourish: envy, pride, meanness, cowardice, betrayal, and of
                      course, the daughters of the Father of Lies.
                      Having spent some twenty years in this trade, I think that in this fatiguing
                      paradox, a deep truth should be embedded: transformation, or, in a heavier
                      word, transfiguration. To get it, you need a lot of sweat and a lot of luck
                      (in another language: Works, and Grace).
                      Of course, we just play at it; and when the curtain is down, we eagerly keep
                      on seeking our damnation (but something, maybe, lingers on the stage).
                      Cordialmente, RB


                      -----Messaggio originale-----
                      Da: evforum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:evforum@yahoogroups.com]Per conto di
                      Owen Jones
                      Inviato: martedì 1 novembre 2005 17.30
                      A: evforum@yahoogroups.com
                      Oggetto: Re: R: [evforum] God's love?

                      Mr. Buffagni is very wise.

                      --- Roberto Buffagni <roberto.buffagni@...>
                      wrote:

                      > For what is worth, I willingly subscribe to Mr.
                      > Jones' description; and I
                      > add that I always thought that in New Testament can
                      > be found a very good, if
                      > very concise and exacting, exposition of aesthetics
                      > according to God.
                      > It is the Discourse of the Mountain. Until you see
                      > the list of beatitudes as
                      > a list of disgraces, deprivations, handicaps and
                      > humiliations, you are not
                      > looking at the world (and at yourself) in the
                      > correct perspective.
                      > Then, if you step aside and get a better view, bliss
                      > - "visio beatifica" -
                      > opens up, and swallows you.
                      >
                      > -----Messaggio originale-----
                      > Da: evforum@yahoogroups.com
                      > [mailto:evforum@yahoogroups.com]Per conto di
                      > Owen Jones
                      > Inviato: martedì 1 novembre 2005 16.09
                      > A: evforum@yahoogroups.com
                      > Oggetto: Re: [evforum] God's love?
                      >
                      > The problem with classical aesthetics in our own day
                      > is that we now look at things as either subjective
                      > or
                      > objective, and aesthetics are almost universally
                      > deemed to be "subjective." You want to get into a
                      > very quick heated argument with almost anyone? Just
                      > say that something is beautiful (we are talking
                      > about
                      > a physical object here, like a particular type of
                      > architectural design). Assert it as so. Assert the
                      > authority of aesthetics. People will instantly
                      > bristle. How dare you! That's just your subjective
                      > opinion! Because they intuitively perceive that we
                      > are actually talking about something transcendent,
                      > and
                      > matters transcendent are matters of personal taste.
                      > They are private, they have no universal
                      > significance.
                      > How can a person's private taste be universal,
                      > without imposing that taste on others by force and
                      > coercion, thereby depriving them of their rights?
                      >
                      > Paradoxically, they will be right, but for all the
                      > wrong reasons. It does all depend on how you look
                      > at
                      > things. But that is because, as Voegelin points
                      > out,
                      > there is no "I" there apart from what the "I"
                      > perceives and experiences, and there is no "there"
                      > there apart from the "I." There is a metaxy
                      > reality.
                      > Not subjects and objects.
                      >
                    • <none>
                      A view of humiliation and disgrace that considers such things beautiful is an odd esthetic indeed, as is a view of the horrors of the crucifixion as
                      Message 10 of 26 , Nov 1, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        A "view" of humiliation and disgrace that considers such things
                        beautiful is an odd esthetic indeed, as is a view of the horrors of the
                        crucifixion as beautiful, as Mr. Pagnan pointed out. We need to be
                        trained to see meekness and humility and disgrace and poverty as
                        blessed states. We do not start out that way.

                        More importantly, however, is the fact that I used the word
                        "experience" in relationship to God's love and not "seeing." We don't
                        "see" the cross, ever. Christ's death on the cross took place in
                        history: we would need to travel back in time to "see" it, or be
                        granted some kind of special, divine vision.

                        What we do experience is the story about the cross. We don't "see" the
                        cross; we are told about it. And that telling takes place in
                        conjunction with the work of the Holy Spirit, who impresses upon us the
                        truth of the story and the love of God through the story. We are
                        drawn, not as to an external object alone, as I was drawn to Escher's
                        woodcuts of the six days of creation at the Orlando Museum of Art last
                        weekend, but both internally and externally. It is in our nature to be
                        drawn, just as it is in God's nature to draw us.

                        There is no very strong esthetic at this point. Remember I'm not
                        denying the importance of an esthetic, but simply that the development
                        of proper esthetic sensibilities is a product of later moral and
                        spiritual development, not the motive behind our initial conversion.

                        I suppose there could be exceptions, of course. But the Christ of
                        prophecy was one with no external beauty to draw us. The real God has
                        chosen the foolish things of this world to shame the wise; the weak to
                        shame the strong. At the beginning I would say our approach to God is
                        anti-esthetic (I'm reminded of Kierkegaard's stages at this point: the
                        aesthetic, the ethical, and the religious -- A and B). As we grow in
                        God we learn what real beauty is. Not before.

                        Jim Rovira
                      • Owen Jones
                        Voegelin s key insight is that, while a man was crucified on a particular hill in Isreal was an historical event, the spiritual meaning of it exists in the
                        Message 11 of 26 , Nov 1, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Voegelin's key insight is that, while a man was
                          crucified on a particular hill in Isreal was an
                          historical event, the spiritual meaning of it exists
                          in the metaxy, not in history. In fact, it is the
                          vision of Christ's resurrection that creates history.
                          So Incarnation, REsurrection, these are not historical
                          events. God does not exist in history. History, as
                          well as the astro physical universe, exists in God.
                          Now, one may have a serious problem with this
                          analysis, but this is Voegelin. And until one
                          understands this issue in Voegelin, well, we are kind
                          of adrift.

                          To be sure, Voegelin is not writing a treatise on
                          aesthetics, like Balthasar. But one can perhaps go to
                          his anemnetic experiments for some clue as to what he
                          is all about regarding the vision thing.


                          --- "<none>" <jamesrovira@...> wrote:

                          > We do not start out that way.
                          >
                          > More importantly, however, is the fact that I used
                          > the word
                          > "experience" in relationship to God's love and not
                          > "seeing." We don't
                          > "see" the cross, ever. Christ's death on the cross
                          > took place in
                          > history: we would need to travel back in time to
                          > "see" it, or be
                          > granted some kind of special, divine vision.
                          >
                          > What we do experience is the story about the cross.
                          > We don't "see" the
                          > cross; we are told about it. And that telling takes
                          > place in
                          > conjunction with the work of the Holy Spirit, who
                          > impresses upon us the
                          > truth of the story and the love of God through the
                          > story. We are
                          > drawn, not as to an external object alone, as I was
                          > drawn to Escher's
                          > woodcuts of the six days of creation at the Orlando
                          > Museum of Art last
                          > weekend, but both internally and externally. It is
                          > in our nature to be
                          > drawn, just as it is in God's nature to draw us.
                          >
                          > There is no very strong esthetic at this point.
                          > Remember I'm not
                          > denying the importance of an esthetic, but simply
                          > that the development
                          > of proper esthetic sensibilities is a product of
                          > later moral and
                          > spiritual development, not the motive behind our
                          > initial conversion.
                          >
                          > I suppose there could be exceptions, of course. But
                          > the Christ of
                          > prophecy was one with no external beauty to draw us.
                          > The real God has
                          > chosen the foolish things of this world to shame the
                          > wise; the weak to
                          > shame the strong. At the beginning I would say our
                          > approach to God is
                          > anti-esthetic (I'm reminded of Kierkegaard's stages
                          > at this point: the
                          > aesthetic, the ethical, and the religious -- A and
                          > B). As we grow in
                          > God we learn what real beauty is. Not before.
                          >
                          > Jim Rovira
                          >





                          __________________________________
                          Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
                          http://mail.yahoo.com
                        • <none>
                          I can appreciate that seeing the ordered nature of the cosmos is an aesthetic judgment (but it is still one we must learn to make -- that is my point), but the
                          Message 12 of 26 , Nov 1, 2005
                          • 0 Attachment
                            I can appreciate that seeing the ordered nature of the cosmos is an
                            aesthetic judgment (but it is still one we must learn to make -- that
                            is my point), but the paragraphs below seem to be using language
                            carelessly. What do you mean by "vision"? Is this a literal seeing?
                            A mystical seeing? Is it different in any significant way from
                            "experience" as I described it? What is the difference between your
                            use of the words "spiritual meaning" and my description of preaching
                            and the drawing of the Holy Spirit? Is it really a "vision" of
                            Christ's death and resurrection that creates history, or the fact of
                            Christ's death and resurrection that creates history -- a fact that we
                            always learn through story? Why is the word "vision" pivotal here?

                            It is unclear to me what we are arguing about. It's also inconceivable
                            to me as well that anyone would say, "I hate beauty." What we call
                            beauty changes, however. Poverty (materially or in spirit),
                            persecution, meekness, etc., are not what the Greeks considered
                            beautiful.

                            Jim Rovira

                            --- Owen Jones <metaxyreality@...> wrote:

                            > Voegelin's key insight is that, while a man was
                            > crucified on a particular hill in Isreal was an
                            > historical event, the spiritual meaning of it exists
                            > in the metaxy, not in history. In fact, it is the
                            > vision of Christ's resurrection that creates history.
                            > So Incarnation, REsurrection, these are not historical
                            > events. God does not exist in history. History, as
                            > well as the astro physical universe, exists in God.
                            > Now, one may have a serious problem with this
                            > analysis, but this is Voegelin. And until one
                            > understands this issue in Voegelin, well, we are kind
                            > of adrift.
                            >
                            > To be sure, Voegelin is not writing a treatise on
                            > aesthetics, like Balthasar. But one can perhaps go to
                            > his anemnetic experiments for some clue as to what he
                            > is all about regarding the vision thing.
                            >
                            >
                            > --- "<none>" <jamesrovira@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > > We do not start out that way.
                            > >
                            > > More importantly, however, is the fact that I used
                            > > the word
                            > > "experience" in relationship to God's love and not
                            > > "seeing." We don't
                            > > "see" the cross, ever. Christ's death on the cross
                            > > took place in
                            > > history: we would need to travel back in time to
                            > > "see" it, or be
                            > > granted some kind of special, divine vision.
                            > >
                            > > What we do experience is the story about the cross.
                            > > We don't "see" the
                            > > cross; we are told about it. And that telling takes
                            > > place in
                            > > conjunction with the work of the Holy Spirit, who
                            > > impresses upon us the
                            > > truth of the story and the love of God through the
                            > > story. We are
                            > > drawn, not as to an external object alone, as I was
                            > > drawn to Escher's
                            > > woodcuts of the six days of creation at the Orlando
                            > > Museum of Art last
                            > > weekend, but both internally and externally. It is
                            > > in our nature to be
                            > > drawn, just as it is in God's nature to draw us.
                            > >
                            > > There is no very strong esthetic at this point.
                            > > Remember I'm not
                            > > denying the importance of an esthetic, but simply
                            > > that the development
                            > > of proper esthetic sensibilities is a product of
                            > > later moral and
                            > > spiritual development, not the motive behind our
                            > > initial conversion.
                            > >
                            > > I suppose there could be exceptions, of course. But
                            > > the Christ of
                            > > prophecy was one with no external beauty to draw us.
                            > > The real God has
                            > > chosen the foolish things of this world to shame the
                            > > wise; the weak to
                            > > shame the strong. At the beginning I would say our
                            > > approach to God is
                            > > anti-esthetic (I'm reminded of Kierkegaard's stages
                            > > at this point: the
                            > > aesthetic, the ethical, and the religious -- A and
                            > > B). As we grow in
                            > > God we learn what real beauty is. Not before.
                            > >
                            > > Jim Rovira
                            > >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > __________________________________
                            > Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
                            > http://mail.yahoo.com
                            >
                          • Owen Jones
                            ... So let s go back to sources. Here is a snippet from an excellent collection of extracts from Plato, Plotinus, Origen and Gregory of Nyssa, with some
                            Message 13 of 26 , Nov 1, 2005
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- "<none>" <jamesrovira@...> wrote:


                              > It is unclear to me what we are arguing about.

                              So let's go back to sources. Here is a snippet from
                              an excellent collection of extracts from Plato,
                              Plotinus, Origen and Gregory of Nyssa, with some
                              pretty good commentary on the subject of beauty and
                              form.

                              "In the same way the person looking at the divine,
                              invisible beauty (pros to theion kai aoriston kallos)
                              will always discover it anew. 321.17" Gregory situates
                              these words in the context of a fountain's "endless
                              stream of water gushing forth," that is, of being at
                              the exact source of this water. Note that this is not
                              a mere fountain but one "large enough to water the
                              earth's surface." Such is the way Gregory has use
                              perceive "divine, invisible beauty;" this fountain
                              imperceptible to senses is presented in the context of
                              a simple "looking," blepo. We may assume that the loud
                              noise or roar of the fountain has a mesmerizing affect
                              upon the beholder. Despite the fountain's sameness
                              (i.e., water), we "will always discover it anew," a
                              paradox of this sameness and the fresh perceptions it
                              brings.

                              The full article can be found here:

                              http://www.bhsu.edu/artssciences/asfaculty/dsalomon/nyssa/beauty.html




                              __________________________________
                              Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
                              http://mail.yahoo.com
                            • Martin Pagnan
                              Yes, I do hate beauty. What honest philosopher could say otherwise? Now, what could I possibly mean by this? Well, to begin with, the claim of aesthetic
                              Message 14 of 26 , Nov 1, 2005
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Yes, I do hate beauty. What honest philosopher could say otherwise?

                                Now, what could I possibly mean by this? Well, to begin with, the claim
                                of aesthetic value, together with appeals to "beauty" as being somehow a
                                criterion of evaluation, has been and is being used as justification for
                                just about anything, from Christianity to New Age drumming and the
                                Satanist Black Mass. The Christian world is burdened with individuals
                                taken up by what they claim is the aesthetic with great emotionalism and
                                enthusiasm to offer new formulae for discarding and adopting new
                                liturgies faster than pop fashion changes women's styles.

                                Appeals to beauty, feigned aesthetic thinking, can be used to justify,
                                defend and promote anything and everything, willy-nilly. Delving into
                                beauty, into aesthetics, without remembering the old wisdom that "beauty
                                is in the eye of the beholder" can lead anywhere. In modern times we
                                have had some very peculiar beholders, who change their criterion of
                                beauty with each successive wave of the Zeitgeist. Each stage has had
                                its proponents: I am thinking of analysers of the aesthetic like
                                Santayana, Croce, Unamuno and Colliingwood. And, one must not forget
                                Heidegger's little work on art? There, beauty is reduced to the
                                practicality of a good pair of reliable boots, as exemplefied by Van
                                Gogh's painting of an old boot.

                                What then is beautiful? The French, during the revolution, saw the
                                efficiency of the guillotine as beautiful, or so they claimed. History
                                would have it that head chops would bring tears of joy and shivers of
                                ecstacy to the crowd. In India the immolation of living wives along with
                                their dead husbands had been seen as a beautiful expression of wifely
                                devotion, despite the screaming. When one of Al Capone's men quickly
                                dispensed of a foe with one shot, Al was heard to say "That was a
                                beautiful shot".

                                I could go on and on. In brief, beauty is not anything of itself. The
                                proof of this is simply how often peoples have changed their opinion of
                                what is beautiful, even to opposing extremes. Beauty is only a mentally
                                invented and assigned attribute of what someone believes to be
                                desireable. It is not really a property of anything. Aristotle's way of
                                saying this was to say that it was neither a separate substance nor a
                                separate form.

                                So, why hate beauty? Well, if you love it, you have no way of knowing
                                where it's going to get you.

                                But, on the other had, if you know something to be good, you should try
                                to learn to see it as beautiful. This is not always an easy thing to do.
                                Remember St. Paul's "I do what I want not and I do not what I want."



                                <none> wrote:

                                >to me as well that anyone would say, "I hate beauty." What we call
                                >beauty changes, however. Poverty (materially or in spirit),
                                >
                                >


                                --
                                No virus found in this outgoing message.
                                Checked by AVG Free Edition.
                                Version: 7.0.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.6/152 - Release Date: 10/31/2005
                              • Juergen Gebhardt
                                Harold Bloom may be wrong in many respects but he is right in regard to what he calls American religion : No other Western nation ... matches our obsession
                                Message 15 of 26 , Nov 2, 2005
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Harold Bloom may be wrong in many respects but he is right in regard to what he calls 'American religion': "No other Western nation ... matches our obsession with religion.The vast majority of us believe in some version of god, and nearly all of this majority actually do believe, that god loves her or him, on a personal and individual basis." The ongoing debate confirms this assessment. Whenever Voegelin had to sit though this type of discussion ,he he became impatient after a while and would aske whether he was allowed to drip a modicum of science into the debate.For the love of God stick to the essential distinction between the the discoursive language of rational hermeneutics and the self-contained language of the specific historical symbolism of the various Christianities. Thanks Jürgen Gebhardt

                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                  From: Martin Pagnan
                                  To: evforum@yahoogroups.com
                                  Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 4:27 AM
                                  Subject: Re: R: [evforum] God's love?


                                  Yes, I do hate beauty. What honest philosopher could say otherwise?

                                  Now, what could I possibly mean by this? Well, to begin with, the claim
                                  of aesthetic value, together with appeals to "beauty" as being somehow a
                                  criterion of evaluation, has been and is being used as justification for
                                  just about anything, from Christianity to New Age drumming and the
                                  Satanist Black Mass. The Christian world is burdened with individuals
                                  taken up by what they claim is the aesthetic with great emotionalism and
                                  enthusiasm to offer new formulae for discarding and adopting new
                                  liturgies faster than pop fashion changes women's styles.

                                  Appeals to beauty, feigned aesthetic thinking, can be used to justify,
                                  defend and promote anything and everything, willy-nilly. Delving into
                                  beauty, into aesthetics, without remembering the old wisdom that "beauty
                                  is in the eye of the beholder" can lead anywhere. In modern times we
                                  have had some very peculiar beholders, who change their criterion of
                                  beauty with each successive wave of the Zeitgeist. Each stage has had
                                  its proponents: I am thinking of analysers of the aesthetic like
                                  Santayana, Croce, Unamuno and Colliingwood. And, one must not forget
                                  Heidegger's little work on art? There, beauty is reduced to the
                                  practicality of a good pair of reliable boots, as exemplefied by Van
                                  Gogh's painting of an old boot.

                                  What then is beautiful? The French, during the revolution, saw the
                                  efficiency of the guillotine as beautiful, or so they claimed. History
                                  would have it that head chops would bring tears of joy and shivers of
                                  ecstacy to the crowd. In India the immolation of living wives along with
                                  their dead husbands had been seen as a beautiful expression of wifely
                                  devotion, despite the screaming. When one of Al Capone's men quickly
                                  dispensed of a foe with one shot, Al was heard to say "That was a
                                  beautiful shot".

                                  I could go on and on. In brief, beauty is not anything of itself. The
                                  proof of this is simply how often peoples have changed their opinion of
                                  what is beautiful, even to opposing extremes. Beauty is only a mentally
                                  invented and assigned attribute of what someone believes to be
                                  desireable. It is not really a property of anything. Aristotle's way of
                                  saying this was to say that it was neither a separate substance nor a
                                  separate form.

                                  So, why hate beauty? Well, if you love it, you have no way of knowing
                                  where it's going to get you.

                                  But, on the other had, if you know something to be good, you should try
                                  to learn to see it as beautiful. This is not always an easy thing to do.
                                  Remember St. Paul's "I do what I want not and I do not what I want."



                                  <none> wrote:

                                  >to me as well that anyone would say, "I hate beauty." What we call
                                  >beauty changes, however. Poverty (materially or in spirit),
                                  >
                                  >


                                  --
                                  No virus found in this outgoing message.
                                  Checked by AVG Free Edition.
                                  Version: 7.0.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.6/152 - Release Date: 10/31/2005



                                  In consideratione creaturarum non est vana
                                  et peritura curiositas exercenda; sed gradus
                                  ad immortalia et semper manentia faciendus.
                                  -St Augustine De vera religione



                                  SPONSORED LINKS Philosophy Philosopher stone Long life battery
                                  Long life tea Long life Long life bulb


                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

                                  a.. Visit your group "evforum" on the web.

                                  b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                  evforum-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                                  c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------



                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • Martin Pagnan
                                  Yes. I should have said that I hate love every bit as much as I hate beauty. It is obvious that in my posting on love I took the wrong tack. Maybe, I will have
                                  Message 16 of 26 , Nov 2, 2005
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Yes. I should have said that I hate love every bit as much as I hate
                                    beauty. It is obvious that in my posting on love I took the wrong tack.
                                    Maybe, I will have to announce that I hate God as well, even though I
                                    still have a remnant of gut feeling that this would be wrong. Hatred of
                                    concepts that are taken for granted is, it would seem, the last recourse
                                    for restoring philosophical analysis. Philosophical openness should be
                                    openness to experience as experienced, just like a physicist must base
                                    his theory on what is observed.

                                    Juergen Gebhardt wrote:

                                    >Harold Bloom may be wrong in many respects but he is right in regard to what he calls 'American religion': "No other Western nation ... matches our obsession with religion.The vast majority of us believe in some version of god, and nearly all of this majority actually do believe, that god loves her or him, on a personal and individual basis." The ongoing debate confirms this assessment. Whenever Voegelin had to sit though this type of discussion ,he he became impatient after a while and would aske whether he was allowed to drip a modicum of science into the debate.For the love of God stick to the essential distinction between the the discoursive language of rational hermeneutics and the self-contained language of the specific historical symbolism of the various Christianities. Thanks Jürgen Gebhardt
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >


                                    --
                                    No virus found in this outgoing message.
                                    Checked by AVG Free Edition.
                                    Version: 7.0.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.7/154 - Release Date: 11/1/2005
                                  • Martin Pagnan
                                    This forum is getting full of good philosophical observations. It must be the weather or the season causing it, I guess. One must learn to hate truth. Goodness
                                    Message 17 of 26 , Nov 2, 2005
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      This forum is getting full of good philosophical observations. It must
                                      be the weather or the season causing it, I guess.

                                      One must learn to hate truth. Goodness also requires a bunch of disdain.
                                      It do not know "truth", nor have I an inkling of what "goodness" might
                                      be. As to what "beautiful" means, I haven't a clue. However, I do
                                      occasionally make a statement that I can feel confortable about saying
                                      that it is true. Does it express "truth"? This makes no sense to me.
                                      There are things that I can say that are "true", but are they the
                                      "truth". Well, I haven't a clue. And, there are things that I can say
                                      are "good", for me and my associates at least. But are they "goodness"
                                      or expressions of some thing called "goodness". Again, I haven't a clue,
                                      and I couldn't care less. As to what is "beautiful", I have no clue.
                                      There are things that attract me, and it is customary to say that such
                                      things are "beautiful" for me, but I am attacted to things that had best
                                      be kept hidden from the rest of you. Thess, few would call "beautiful".

                                      What does the word "beautiful" add? The skill and expert craftsmanship
                                      of an activity, say carpentry, is judged to be worthwhile because it
                                      gets the job done in a desireable way. It may be desireable for numerous
                                      reasons - the product of the activity may be rugged, straight, smooth,
                                      and so on - "desireable" is another one of these words that have no
                                      meaning without a context. For logicians they are called "relational"
                                      words - they get their meaning from the relation that is established by
                                      the user of the word when it is used.

                                      But all of this comes down to a discussion of the ancient problem of the
                                      "one and the many". In current day academa-speak it is the "problem of
                                      universals", which is odd, because universals are not a problem. In fact
                                      they make discourse possible and, they make up thought.

                                      Falling in love with a universal to the point of focusing on it so
                                      intently as to believe that it is more than what it is will lead to
                                      grief, a grief called "nominalism" for philosophy-speakers. And, it is a
                                      way of giving a reality to something that of itself is not. People get
                                      very good at this. Their realities constructed of little more than
                                      symbols divorced from their original sources have been known to become
                                      "philosophies" and "religions". And, this is when they become the
                                      "truth". As which point they are best described by the rest of us as
                                      "dangerous". But, they are "good", "beautiful" and "true" justifications
                                      for many sorts of human endeavors, including occasionally putting a
                                      bullet in the back of neck. It's a "beautiful thing", in some eyes. Yes,
                                      how the designers of the ovens at Auschwitz admired the efficacy of
                                      their designs - they were "beautiful".

                                      Bill Miskelly wrote:

                                      > I'm unqualified to participate on this list so I won't trouble
                                      > everyone with the question (indeed, you may freely delete this without
                                      > reading further), but I did want to ask: how are truth and goodness
                                      > immune from such a critique? Isn't this merely a case of people
                                      > describing as beautiful many things that are beautiful in limited
                                      > respects but not beautiful on the whole? Might one not recognize a
                                      > sort of beauty when hard earned skill and expert craftsmanship come
                                      > together in the execution of one perfectly fired shot hitting its
                                      > target? Wouldn't you simply say that it was indeed a beautiful shot
                                      > in some respects, but one with ultimately horrible consequences?
                                      > Similarly, might we not recognize elements of truth in Marxism even as
                                      > we judge it ultimately false?
                                      >
                                      > Inquisitively,
                                      >
                                      > Bill Miskelly
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >

                                      >
                                      >

                                      ----------

                                      No virus found in this outgoing message.
                                      Checked by AVG Free Edition.
                                      Version: 7.0.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.7/154 - Release Date: 11/1/2005


                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • Owen Jones
                                      ... I was once suckered into getting involved in a cultish charismatic faction in the Episcopal Church. I attended one of their worship ceremonies. I
                                      Message 18 of 26 , Nov 2, 2005
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        --- Martin Pagnan <mmpagnan@...> wrote:


                                        > I could go on and on. In brief, beauty is not
                                        > anything of itself. The
                                        > proof of this is simply how often peoples have
                                        > changed their opinion of
                                        > what is beautiful, even to opposing extremes. Beauty
                                        > is only a mentally
                                        > invented and assigned attribute of what someone
                                        > believes to be
                                        > desireable. It is not really a property of anything.
                                        > Aristotle's way of
                                        > saying this was to say that it was neither a
                                        > separate substance nor a
                                        > separate form.
                                        >


                                        I was once suckered into getting involved in a cultish
                                        "charismatic" faction in the Episcopal Church. I
                                        attended one of their "worship" ceremonies. I think
                                        it was more a case of self-worship. Afterwards, I
                                        said something to the effect that the Church was
                                        beautiful. The response? "All Churches are
                                        beautiful." At that point, I knew I had to get the
                                        heck out.

                                        But a deformation of aesthetics is not an argument
                                        against it. One can say the same for all of the
                                        virtues with a misplaced object. One can say the same
                                        for any transcendent impulse that is deformed into an
                                        immanent object of affection.

                                        On the other hand, one need not reflexively react to
                                        the deformation by becoming a fundamentalist, by
                                        asserting some objectified criterion of beauty.



                                        __________________________________
                                        Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
                                        http://farechase.yahoo.com
                                      • Rhydon Jackson
                                        Responding to Mr. Rovira s questions
                                        Message 19 of 26 , Nov 2, 2005
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Responding to Mr. Rovira's questions
                                          <<
                                          Is it really a "vision" of Christ's death and resurrection that creates
                                          history, or the fact of Christ's death and resurrection that creates
                                          history -- a fact that we always learn through story? Why is the word
                                          "vision" pivotal here?
                                          >>

                                          I recall Voegelin's aphorism "the fact of revelation is its content." I
                                          understand this aphorism to be in pointed contrast to an assertion such
                                          as "the content of revelation is factual." Vision is pivotal because
                                          reflective distance from kinesis discovers the transcendence/immanence
                                          of the flux of divine presence as the empirical basis of
                                          Consciousness-Reality-Language. This suggests to me why history can be
                                          described as Christ writ large, and why Christ can be representative for
                                          humanity, and why V can call the formulation in Chalcedon relying on two
                                          natures "deplorable".

                                          What I've written here indicates an agreement with Father McKane's
                                          comments on the apophatic pole in mystic symbolization. But, while I
                                          agree we do want to remember our unknowing, I think it is also important
                                          to remember our concrete reality. It is always a concrete person
                                          experiencing amicitia through caritas on a personal level who can
                                          apperceive movement in and by the flux. Glen Hughes presentation last
                                          September on Eliot's Four Quartets comes to mind here. But, having
                                          noted this personal pole, I also want to immediately recall that the
                                          symbol 'reflective distance', however much it attends to elements of
                                          concrete personal autobiography, remains the fruit of conscious
                                          opposition to the symbol 'reflective identity'.

                                          Lastly, I was moved by Jürgen Gebhardt's helpful reminder on the
                                          distinction between "rational hermeneutics and the self-contained
                                          language of the specific historical symbolism of the various
                                          Christianities" to seek some science in the Digression on Rescue of
                                          Symbols in In Search of Order. OH 5 and the Immortality essay seem
                                          especially relevant to the recent discussion.

                                          Rhydon Jackson
                                        • <none>
                                          Thanks for the reply, Mr. Jackson. It seems that vision is a metaphor for reflection -- why can we not simply say that? The quotations Mr. Jones supplied
                                          Message 20 of 26 , Nov 2, 2005
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Thanks for the reply, Mr. Jackson. It seems that "vision" is a
                                            metaphor for "reflection" -- why can we not simply say that? The
                                            quotations Mr. Jones supplied were to the point but didn't really
                                            elaborate anything.

                                            The death and resurrection are not revealed events, but historical
                                            events, events that took place in time and space. Their meaning is
                                            revealed, and it seems to me that no amount of reflection can lead us
                                            to this meaning.

                                            Jim Rovira

                                            --- Rhydon Jackson <rhydonj@...> wrote:

                                            >
                                            > Responding to Mr. Rovira's questions
                                            > <<
                                            > Is it really a "vision" of Christ's death and resurrection that
                                            > creates
                                            > history, or the fact of Christ's death and resurrection that creates
                                            > history -- a fact that we always learn through story? Why is the
                                            > word
                                            > "vision" pivotal here?
                                            > >>
                                            >
                                            > I recall Voegelin's aphorism "the fact of revelation is its content."
                                            > I
                                            > understand this aphorism to be in pointed contrast to an assertion
                                            > such
                                            > as "the content of revelation is factual." Vision is pivotal because
                                            >
                                            > reflective distance from kinesis discovers the
                                            > transcendence/immanence
                                            > of the flux of divine presence as the empirical basis of
                                            > Consciousness-Reality-Language. This suggests to me why history can
                                            > be
                                            > described as Christ writ large, and why Christ can be representative
                                            > for
                                            > humanity, and why V can call the formulation in Chalcedon relying on
                                            > two
                                            > natures "deplorable".
                                          • Rhydon Jackson
                                            For Mr. Rovira, I think the trajectory here is to recognise reflection itself as revelation, that is, to recognise Consciousness-Reality-Language as the
                                            Message 21 of 26 , Nov 2, 2005
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              For Mr. Rovira, I think the trajectory here is to recognise reflection
                                              itself as revelation, that is, to recognise
                                              Consciousness-Reality-Language as the mutuality of man and God. I think
                                              a primary difference between Voegelin and Christianity as usually
                                              understood is this recognition by V of a universal distribution of
                                              revelation throughout humanity as history.

                                              I am very happy to be reminded By Mr. Chappell of Polyani's
                                              personal-subjective-objective structure here. It makes me wish I'd
                                              stressed the passion in kinesis a little more explicitly--recall V's
                                              opening to OH 1: participation in being is not a partial involvement of
                                              man, it is his entirety, or, from the Equivalences essay, "Not the
                                              possession of his humanity but the concern about its full realization is
                                              the lot of man." So, kinesis does have this anchor in personal
                                              commitment, in a personal striving for the godd/true/beautiful that
                                              Polyani describes. And, it seems to me here that this personal aspect
                                              can lead into the legitimacy of graditude for the burden of searching.
                                              One signal distinction between gnostic and philosophic responses seems
                                              to be graditude for the partial participation and perspectives we have
                                              by lot.

                                              To Mr. Jones remarks that we are stuck with objectifying language and
                                              must simply struggle to maintain some balance, as the tradition attests,
                                              I totally agree.

                                              Behold the lamb of God. And, have mercy on me a sinner.

                                              Rhydon Jackson
                                            • billr54619@aol.com
                                              Welp, the question of special revelation is where the rubber meets the road , so to speak. Charismatic Christians even have a special term for special
                                              Message 22 of 26 , Nov 2, 2005
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Welp, the question of special revelation is where the "rubber meets the road", so to speak.
                                                Charismatic Christians even have a special term for special revelation - "Rhema", which means the specific word that the Holy Spirit uniquely gives to you, as opposed to "Logos", the eternal and incarnate Word of God.

                                                While this sort of thing does not have to deform, the spiritual vulnerability of this position (as I might say partially with tongue in cheek) is rather self-evident.

                                                Bill Riggs

                                                -----Original Message-----
                                                From: Rhydon Jackson <rhydonj@...>
                                                To: evforum@yahoogroups.com
                                                Sent: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 11:33:57 -0500
                                                Subject: Re: [evforum] RE: God's love?


                                                For Mr. Rovira, I think the trajectory here is to recognise reflection
                                                itself as revelation, that is, to recognise
                                                Consciousness-Reality-Language as the mutuality of man and God. I think
                                                a primary difference between Voegelin and Christianity as usually
                                                understood is this recognition by V of a universal distribution of
                                                revelation throughout humanity as history.

                                                I am very happy to be reminded By Mr. Chappell of Polyani's
                                                personal-subjective-objective structure here. It makes me wish I'd
                                                stressed the passion in kinesis a little more explicitly--recall V's
                                                opening to OH 1: participation in being is not a partial involvement of
                                                man, it is his entirety, or, from the Equivalences essay, "Not the
                                                possession of his humanity but the concern about its full realization is
                                                the lot of man." So, kinesis does have this anchor in personal
                                                commitment, in a personal striving for the godd/true/beautiful that
                                                Polyani describes. And, it seems to me here that this personal aspect
                                                can lead into the legitimacy of graditude for the burden of searching.
                                                One signal distinction between gnostic and philosophic responses seems
                                                to be graditude for the partial participation and perspectives we have
                                                by lot.

                                                To Mr. Jones remarks that we are stuck with objectifying language and
                                                must simply struggle to maintain some balance, as the tradition attests,
                                                I totally agree.

                                                Behold the lamb of God. And, have mercy on me a sinner.

                                                Rhydon Jackson





                                                In consideratione creaturarum non est vana
                                                et peritura curiositas exercenda; sed gradus
                                                ad immortalia et semper manentia faciendus.
                                                ?St Augustine De vera religione
                                                Yahoo! Groups Links






                                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.