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

Re: Bridge

Expand Messages
  • levinjudith
    Something else occurred which I think you might know, the choice to answer retrospectively or in truth. Retrospectively is to refer to a store of what I
    Message 1 of 67 , Apr 3, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Something else occurred which I think you
      might<br>know, the choice to answer retrospectively or in
      truth.<br>Retrospectively is to refer to a store of what I meant or
      said,<br>as a resource, even if it were only yesterday
      and<br>explain more expansively out of that. In truth is to
      go<br>to the source and know now, then explain out
      of<br>that. Obviously the latter, then. On a big
      scale,<br>distorted truth comes about not by misinterpretation but
      by<br>retrospective emphasis, trying to draw truth out of the past
      in<br>other words, which leads to the objective
      faith<br>problem. But here it's just down to letting go
      between<br>posts.<br><br>The subject/object and subject/Object
      relation<br>changes, a clearer picture:<br>subject/Object is
      the<br>mystical stance; subject in Object is mystical
      union;<br>subject in Subject is the existential.<br>This
      should<br>help to explain the self. I lost the solid
      self<br>persona and found the self, which feels to be
      something<br>made up of its own depths and is grounded in
      the<br>subject/Subject relation. This is where my reality is. ("Lost
      in<br>the thought of self," what an admission, glad
      you<br>said it first...)<br><br>Via negativa:
      Years ago I<br>read a tiny book called Mystica
      Theologia, written by<br>a spiritual director, St. Denis,
      teaching someone<br>called Timothy how to find God in
      prayer. As a book it<br>didn't work but as a methodology
      and a practice of my<br>own over years it did work.
      It works because it is<br>designed to pass one
      beyond oneself. As it turned out I<br>took it literally,
      finding I had no option but to do<br>so because I
      couldn't tolerate having to hold God<br>off at an
      aesthetic distance. I had a spiritual<br>director for
      several years and would not speak of my<br>experiences so
      boldly here nor especially speak of union were<br>it not
      for the Church's endorsement at the time. You<br>say
      you do not think of union as the end and I
      agree<br>because union, despite its name, infers at the same
      time<br>that God is held off at an aesthetic distance, so
      I<br>negated myself in the aesthetic space of the
      distinction<br>between subject and Object, held onto the truth as I
      knew<br>it (and must include my caveat here again)
      and<br>withdrew from the church.
    • lycansorb
      Thank you for your warm welcome Ron. You have a fine sight for a very worthy subject. Just spent the past several months in the study of Sorens Fear and
      Message 67 of 67 , Jun 12, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Thank you for your warm welcome Ron. You have a
        fine sight for a very worthy subject. Just spent the
        past several months in the study of Sorens "Fear and
        Trembling" (forgive me I am spelling and grammar impaired).
        Soren captured my interest in college after reading
        Walker Perceys Novels and Philosophical writings. So
        misunderstood by the christian community. What a pity.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.