Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 40 of 40

Thread: Gods: the Permutations of Transcendency

  1. #31
    Senior Member Carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, March 29th, 2012 @ 11:51 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo - Saxon.
    Ancestry
    English
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    England England
    State
    Wessex Wessex
    Location
    south
    Gender
    Occupation
    [Psychologist]
    Politics
    Patriotic
    Religion
    Pagan
    Posts
    1,940
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts

    Gods Permutations of Transcendence

    The key to the Prolegomena is surely :

    ".....to say that a cosmology that is this-worldly is a solution superior to reliance on any god..."

    Does the Germanic Independence in question need a god? Are we to remain 'only' this worldly?. I suspect not but much will depend on the meaning we would give to 'god'. It is a matter of what is effectively the essence of the Germanic! It is a useful question - which is why, perhaps, it has returned - though not ,of course, how.
    Last edited by Moody; Saturday, February 3rd, 2007 at 03:17 PM. Reason: up-dated thread

  2. #32
    Senior Member Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 10:18 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Albion
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Investigator of Souls
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic Nationalist
    Religion
    Runosophy
    Posts
    1,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts

    Re: Gods: the Permutations of Transcendency

    Quote Originally Posted by Carl View Post
    The key to the Prolegomena is surely :
    ".....to say that a cosmology that is this-worldly is a solution superior to reliance on any god..."
    Again, I am glad that you recognise this too; this is indeed the aspect I picked out for analysis.

    I made the case that this "superior solution" was by definition godless [negating even the Germanic gods] and therefore non-transcendent.

    The question then became the interesting philosophical one [a metaphysical question to boot]: viz., is it possible to have non-transcendental gods and a non-transcendental heaven?

    It is a matter of what is effectively the essence of the Germanic! It is a useful question - which is why, perhaps, it has returned - though not ,of course, how.
    I still think that Jung's Wotan thesis has much to recommend it, as I have mentioned more than once!

    You see, I find materialistic atheism to be antithetical to the essence of Wotanism.
    Wotan [whether he be the Odin of the Norse or the Woden of the English, and however else he may be 'dressed up'] is the god of the Germanic peoples.

    Therefore I find the so-called 'prolegomena' [a term made famous by Kant, of course] to be objectionable.
    I have accordingly constructed arguments against it in this thread, using the theme of transcendence.
    Link to Article on Jung's 'Wotan'
    Last edited by Moody; Saturday, February 3rd, 2007 at 03:19 PM. Reason: up-dated thread
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

  3. #33
    Senior Member Carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, March 29th, 2012 @ 11:51 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo - Saxon.
    Ancestry
    English
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    England England
    State
    Wessex Wessex
    Location
    south
    Gender
    Occupation
    [Psychologist]
    Politics
    Patriotic
    Religion
    Pagan
    Posts
    1,940
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts

    Re: Gods: the Permutations of Transcendency

    I begin, this time, with Heraklitis - a master of brevity in this - and a truthful thinker !

    Yet they lack the skill
    to listen or to speak.


    Fragment 6 .

    .....which is perhaps why I confirmed that Suut would probably not be content with my initial summary. So I am bringing it back in a revised form to reconsider if I have not listened correctly. At first sight I concluded - my goodness! this is a philospher's work!. I may have been thinking with Nietzschean cynicism; it is a prickly hedge, full of qualifications. It even includes the invitation to add yet further qualifications. I am not surprised that there weren't any takers (?).... it is scarcely an ordinary statement intended for ordinary people! Consider it again as revised --

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

    .......It follows to say that -

    A cosmology that is this-worldly......

    ( i.e. rooted in verifiable/falsifiable scientific fact; culturally related as, derived from and commited to, the indemnification of race and the principles of race; blood and geographical entities and the fair claim to geographical, moral, and ethical homogeneic liberty as following from a biological imperative, or any faith system that is demonstratively self-consistent and self-integrated with these this-worldly concerns)

    ......is a solution superior to reliance on a God ( or any god )

    ( that can be neither demonstrated to exist, nor demonstrated to not exist, let alone be of aid in the above scope, to preserve Germanic racial, spiritual, and cultural preservation.....)

    Additions?
    ----------------------------------------------------------------

    It can certainly be seen as an exercise rather than a statement of faith as such. To what extent the qualifications (- which I have included once more in my re-formulation) are themselves essential to the statement, is for Suut to make clear. Without them, it would no longer be the same statement - this is what I hear!

    Can I assume, Suut, that you do, in fact, rely upon 'a God' --- which makes this not a belief-statement but a piece of 'philosophic' rhetoric, a thread-question which in fact lay for months in the gloom of Skadi's bowels? Clearly, a God would have about 'him' an aura of transcendence...even within his believers, his Spark ( Eckhart's funklein or scintilla animae) would retain its own divine transcendence.

    And, on the otherhand, any "Cosmology that is this-worldly" would be itself necessarily rooted in the substance of this world alone - and therefore be denied any possibility of "transcendence" ? --- unless - that is - one might venture further into the new possibility that matter and substance could contain, in some way, a purely Metaphysical Transcendence arising (perhaps) from the very Mystery of Being?

  4. #34
    Keeps your Whites Whiter.
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    SuuT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Subrace
    SkandoNordid/Nordicised Faelid
    Gender
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic MeritAristocracy
    Religion
    Heiđinn
    Posts
    1,467
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Re: Gods: the Permutations of Transcendency

    Quote Originally Posted by Carl View Post
    ...
    .....which is perhaps why I confirmed that Suut would probably not be content with my initial summary. So I am bringing it back in a revised form to reconsider if I have not listened correctly. At first sight I concluded - my goodness! this is a philospher's work!. I may have been thinking with Nietzschean cynicism; it is a prickly hedge, full of qualifications. It even includes the invitation to add yet further qualifications. I am not surprised that there weren't any takers (?).... it is scarcely an ordinary statement intended for ordinary people! Consider it again as revised --

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

    .......It follows to say that -

    A cosmology that is this-worldly......

    ( i.e. rooted in verifiable/falsifiable scientific fact; culturally related as, derived from and commited to, the indemnification of race and the principles of race; blood and geographical entities and the fair claim to geographical, moral, and ethical homogeneic liberty as following from a biological imperative, or any faith system that is demonstratively self-consistent and self-integrated with these this-worldly concerns)

    ......is a solution superior to reliance on a God ( or any god )

    ( that can be neither demonstrated to exist, nor demonstrated to not exist, let alone be of aid in the above scope, to preserve Germanic racial, spiritual, and cultural preservation.....)

    Additions?
    Expertly done: the inquiry can, indeed, now stand alone as pure investigative material; and the questions can be asked that need to be about whether or not the substance of your deconstruction (and elucidation/clarification) is first and foremost an issue of metaphysical interdependence; or, a matter of the indemnification of race and the principles of race; blood and geographical entities and the fair claim to geographical, moral, and ethical homogeneic liberty as following from a biological imperative, and where there is necessary cross over between these apparently antithetical things (meta-physics v. physics), if any, understood within an investigative milieu given its recent placement into the philosophy forum.

    It can certainly be seen as an exercise rather than a statement of faith as such. To what extent the qualifications (- which I have included once more in my re-formulation) are themselves essential to the statement, is for Suut to make clear. Without them, it would no longer be the same statement - this is what I hear!
    Spot on.

    Can I assume, Suut, that you do, in fact, rely upon 'a God' --- which makes this not a belief-statement but a piece of 'philosophic' rhetoric, a thread-question which in fact lay for months in the gloom of Skadi's bowels?
    Yes, I am not an atheist. The whys of the lack of interest in the original post when it was conceived I cannot (and neither can anyone else) speak intelligently on: the conjecture is neither here nor there - but a workable investigation now is.

    Clearly, a God would have about 'him' an aura of transcendence...even within his believers, his Spark ( Eckhart's funklein or scintilla animae) would retain its own divine transcendence.
    We would have to question the traditional notions of Transcendency as being 'out there' - and unpack such a metaphor: where is 'out there'? - "There" implies a location. What is the nature of this location or loci?

    And, on the otherhand, any "Cosmology that is this-worldly" would be itself necessarily rooted in the substance of this world alone - and therefore be denied any possibility of "transcendence" ? --- unless - that is - one might venture further into the new possibility that matter and substance could contain, in some way, a purely Metaphysical Transcendence arising (perhaps) from the very Mystery of Being?
    By all means, continue!
    Last edited by Moody; Sunday, February 4th, 2007 at 08:04 PM. Reason: up-dated thread
    "...The moral man is a lower species than the immoral, a weaker species; indeed - he is a type in regard to morality, but not a type in himself; a copy...the measure of his value lies outside him. ... I assess the power of a will by how much resistance, pain, torture it endures and knows how to turn to its advantage; I do not account the evil and painful character of existence a reproach to it, but hope rather that it will one day be more evil and painful than hitherto..." (Nietzsche)

  5. #35
    Senior Member Carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, March 29th, 2012 @ 11:51 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo - Saxon.
    Ancestry
    English
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    England England
    State
    Wessex Wessex
    Location
    south
    Gender
    Occupation
    [Psychologist]
    Politics
    Patriotic
    Religion
    Pagan
    Posts
    1,940
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts

    Re: Gods: the Permutations of Transcendency

    Quote Originally Posted by SuuT View Post
    .......and the questions can be asked that need to be about whether or not the substance of your deconstruction (and elucidation/clarification) is first and foremost an issue of metaphysical interdependence; or, a matter of the indemnification of race and the principles of race; blood and geographical entities and the fair claim to geographical, moral, and ethical homogeneic liberty as following from a biological imperative, and where there is necessary cross over between these apparently antithetical things (meta-physics v. physics), if any, understood within an investigative milieu given its recent placement into the philosophy forum.
    .... it would be helpful if you unpacked that a bit and made it more approachable.... its language such as this which causes ordinary people such problems.

  6. #36
    Senior Member Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 10:18 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Albion
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Investigator of Souls
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic Nationalist
    Religion
    Runosophy
    Posts
    1,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts

    Re: Gods: the Permutations of Transcendency

    Quote Originally Posted by Carl View Post
    .......It follows to say that -
    A cosmology that is this-worldly......
    ( i.e. rooted in verifiable/falsifiable scientific fact;
    But there is a problem here right away; if something cannot be 'verified', does that mean that it is 'false'?

    What is the 'principle of verification'?
    And how is this 'principle of verfication' itself verified?
    This creates a vicious infinite regress with each verifier having to be varified ad infinitium.

    Also, scientific facts are only facts because they are always open to falsification.

    Therefore, how can something be "rooted" in that which is always falsifiable?
    The theories of relativity and evolution could both be falsified by science in the future - so how can they "root" us?

    culturally related as, derived from and commited to, the indemnification of race and the principles of race;
    To "indeminify" is said to mean;
    1) to compensate for damage or loss sustained, expense incurred, etc.,
    2) to guard or secure against anticipated loss; give security against (future damage or liability).
    Its synonyms are 'recompense', 'reimburse', 'repay'.

    Is this the right use of science?
    For, cannot science be used to also falsify race and to unverify the principles of race?
    Isn't race also a Spiritual concept that must transcend the merely scientific if it is to have meaning?

    Or are you so committed to science that if scientists are able to prove that race is invalid as a scientific theory, then you will drop race as a concept [like some have dropped the gods]?

    or any faith system that is demonstratively self-consistent and self-integrated with these this-worldly concerns)
    But surely "faith" by definition is beyond this-worldly concerns?
    If all were 100% verified then we would have no need of faith!

    Quote Originally Posted by SuuT View Post
    We would have to question the traditional notions of Transcendency as being 'out there' - and unpack such a metaphor: where is 'out there'? - "There" implies a location. What is the nature of this location or loci?
    Not necessarily; it rather sets up an opposition to the Cartesian assumption that all begins from within the ego, and that - consequently - man is ultimately trapped in the bubble of his own ego.
    This is the blind alley which philosophy has been led down, ultimately into solipsism, radical relativism and ultimate nihilism.

    We therefore change perspective from an Egoistic one to a Transcendent one, and concentrate on our being-in-the-world and the Eternity that is the Universal Mind and the Higher Forms which has long preceded our species, and will long outlive us too.

    It is this ultimately non-human metaphysic that man glimpses when he contacts his gods.

    Then and only then does he imbue life with meaning and escape the vapidity of individualism and selfish egoism.
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

  7. #37
    Senior Member Carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, March 29th, 2012 @ 11:51 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo - Saxon.
    Ancestry
    English
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    England England
    State
    Wessex Wessex
    Location
    south
    Gender
    Occupation
    [Psychologist]
    Politics
    Patriotic
    Religion
    Pagan
    Posts
    1,940
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts

    Re: Gods: the Permutations of Transcendency

    Quote Originally Posted by Moody View Post
    But there is a problem here right away; if something cannot be 'verified', does that mean that it is 'false'?

    What is the 'principle of verification'?
    And how is this 'principle of verfication' itself verified?
    This creates a vicious infinite regress with each verifier having to be varified ad infinitium.

    Also, scientific facts are only facts because they are always open to falsification.

    Therefore, how can something be "rooted" in that which is always falsifiable?
    The theories of relativity and evolution could both be falsified by science in the future - so how can they "root" us?
    Something along these lines occured to me as well. There is within the original Preface a central thesis with a double set of qualifying clauses. Even before we arrive at these clauses, we are landed in an impossible predicament from which I find it very hard to meaningfully procede.

    "..... a cosmology that is this-worldly is a solution superior to reliance upon any God..."

    is , in effect, questioning the proposition -

    "A 'This-Worldly' Cosmology is 'Superior' to a Divine Faith" .

    I see the former as primarily rooted in the substance or material of this world; any secondary metaphysical elaboration will necessarily be dependent on the primary substance. Worldly 'beings' would therefore appear to precede Being -- and Being itself would be dependent on prior existence of such beings. Or am going to far ?

    And I agree that to subject a divine faith to 'scientific proving' is inappropriate almost by definition. It is an improper approach to the divine and an improper use of science.

    As to the comparison of these two (above), we are left attempting to co-evaluate the ThisWorldly and the Divine! I cannot myself see how this can be done without the devaluing and invalidation of either one or both. They belong to differing Realms. I think it to be akin to arguing for the superiority of apples or pears! It all depends.

    Perhaps Heidegger has a solution. When he muses that 'only a God can save us' , perhaps it is that only a God is truely capable of being within each realm ( and indeed, in every realm) without any hint of discomfort. But as to the nature of such a God, I ask : is it possible for us to even speculate?

  8. #38
    Senior Member Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 10:18 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Albion
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Investigator of Souls
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic Nationalist
    Religion
    Runosophy
    Posts
    1,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts

    Re: Gods: the Permutations of Transcendency

    Quote Originally Posted by Carl View Post
    I see the former as primarily rooted in the substance or material of this world; any secondary metaphysical elaboration will necessarily be dependent on the primary substance. Worldly 'beings' would therefore appear to precede Being -- and Being itself would be dependent on prior existence of such beings.
    I would take it that inert 'matter' is the primary substance, and that this precedes organic life - at least, according to the scientific outlook.
    To Heidegger, the scientific view-point neglects to answer the question of Being ['why is there Being rather than Nothing?].
    Philosophy too, has skirted around this question, according to him.
    No doubt Heidegger believes that this question must be fully understood [let alone answered] before new gods can arise.
    But does this necessarily affect the old gods who I claim still live?
    My interest here is in keeping the old gods alive, and not throwing them out with the Christian-secular bath-water.

    And I agree that to subject a divine faith to 'scientific proving' is inappropriate almost by definition. It is an improper approach to the divine and an improper use of science.
    Yes - Kierkegaard recognised that the 'leap of faith' is necessary to religion; but such a leap may also be necessary to us as thinking-beings too, whether we consider ourselves religious or not.
    Science itself may be indecent in that it refuses to leap.
    And one can never learn to fly from walking. One must learn to leap first.

    As to the comparison of these two (above), we are left attempting to co-evaluate the ThisWorldly and the Divine! I cannot myself see how this can be done without the devaluing and invalidation of either one or both. They belong to differing Realms. I think it to be akin to arguing for the superiority of apples or pears! It all depends.
    Perhaps Heidegger has a solution. When he muses that 'only a God can save us' , perhaps it is that only a God is truely capable of being within each realm ( and indeed, in every realm) without any hint of discomfort. But as to the nature of such a God, I ask : is it possible for us to even speculate?
    Actually, I am starting to think that Kant had the answer with his transcendent idealism.
    Given that we very much constitute the world via our own 'forms of consciousness', our metaphysical notions [concepts of gods, souls, parallel planes of existence, eternal returns, et al, as well as the Kantian categories of time/space, causality etc.,] are necessary for the very possibility of us having experience.
    This is not to say those things are merely brain-spun; they are necessary and metaphysical [and so a priori], but they are also an inescapable part of experience.
    Therefore belief in gods etc., is not mere 'superstition'; it is as necessary to our existence as is our belief in space/time, cause/effect etc., etc.,

    Once we understand this, we can get back to our Germanic gods with a good conscience and allow the symbolic order to reassert itself in all its Odinian rage.
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

  9. #39
    Keeps your Whites Whiter.
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    SuuT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Subrace
    SkandoNordid/Nordicised Faelid
    Gender
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic MeritAristocracy
    Religion
    Heiđinn
    Posts
    1,467
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Re: Gods: the Permutations of Transcendency

    ...It follows to say that a cosmology that is this-worldly i.e. rooted in verifiable/falsifiable scientific fact; culturally related as, derived from and committed to, the indemnification of race and the principles of race; blood and geographical entities and the fair claim to geographical, moral, and ethical homogeneic liberty as following from a biological imperative, or any faith system that is demonstratively self-consistent and self-integrated with these this-worldly concerns, is a solution superior to reliance on a God, or any god, that can be neither demonstrated to exist, nor demonstrated to not exist, let alone be of aid in the above scope, to preserve Germanic racial, spiritual, and cultural preservation...




    There is within the original Preface a central thesis with a double set of qualifying clauses. Even before we arrive at these clauses, we are landed in an impossible predicament from which I find it very hard to meaningfully procede.

    "..... a cosmology that is this-worldly is a solution superior to reliance upon any God..."

    is , in effect, questioning the proposition
    Yes! This is the metaphysical ‘snare’ of the thought fragment: we are forced at once to confront Physical Cosmology, Metaphysical Cosmology, Esoteric as well as Religious Cosmology – and posit, as the Greeks did, a question as to the essential difference between this, and ‘that’ world; the Greeks had their conclusion... But, let us not forget the “why?” of the thought fragment: …culturally related as, derived from and committed to, the indemnification of race and the principles of race; blood and geographical entities and the fair claim to geographical, moral, and ethical homogeneic liberty as following from a biological imperative, or any faith system that is demonstratively self-consistent and self-integrated with these this-worldly concerns…

    Somehow, this statement has gone unnoticed: … or any faith system that is demonstratively self-consistent and self-integrated with these this-worldly concerns, is a solution superior to

    The thought fragment assumes that such faith systems are indeed possible – and welcomed.

    "A 'This-Worldly' Cosmology is 'Superior' to a Divine Faith" .

    In so far as the indemnification of race and the principles of race; blood and geographical entities and the fair claim to geographical, moral, and ethical homogeneic liberty as following from a biological imperative are ‘more’ “this-worldly” than they are “other-worldly”, a Physical Cosmology surpasses other permutations in its ability to be of aid in Germanic racial, spiritual, and cultural preservation...


    to subject a divine faith to 'scientific proving' is inappropriate almost by definition. It is an improper approach to the divine and an improper use of science.

    …any faith system that is demonstratively self-consistent and self-integrated with these this-worldly concerns, is a solution superior to reliance on a God, or any god, that can be neither demonstrated to exist, nor demonstrated to not exist, let alone be of aid in the above scope, to preserve Germanic racial, spiritual, and cultural preservation...


    Within the thought fragment, it is not an issue of pitting faith against science: it is expelling – or asking to expel, rather – faith systems that are inconsistent to and with Germanic racial, spiritual, and cultural preservation. This forces us again into a confrontation with all Cosmologies, and extracting that which aids best in the afore mentioned preservation. The thought fragment proceeds from the assumption that Physical Cosmology can better answer to “this-worldly” concerns.



    … perhaps it is that only a God is truely capable of being within each realm ( and indeed, in every realm) without any hint of discomfort. …



    Would it follow that such a god has unified the ‘planes’ of existence? And what could we conclude if we assume human union with such a god to be possible?
    Last edited by SuuT; Tuesday, February 6th, 2007 at 09:32 PM. Reason: spelling
    "...The moral man is a lower species than the immoral, a weaker species; indeed - he is a type in regard to morality, but not a type in himself; a copy...the measure of his value lies outside him. ... I assess the power of a will by how much resistance, pain, torture it endures and knows how to turn to its advantage; I do not account the evil and painful character of existence a reproach to it, but hope rather that it will one day be more evil and painful than hitherto..." (Nietzsche)

  10. #40
    Senior Member Carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, March 29th, 2012 @ 11:51 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo - Saxon.
    Ancestry
    English
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    England England
    State
    Wessex Wessex
    Location
    south
    Gender
    Occupation
    [Psychologist]
    Politics
    Patriotic
    Religion
    Pagan
    Posts
    1,940
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts

    Gods: the Permutations of Transcendency

    Quote Originally Posted by SuuT View Post
    ...It follows to say that ... A cosmology that is this-worldly [i.e. rooted in verifiable/falsifiable scientific fact; culturally related as, derived from and committed to, the indemnification of race and the principles of race [ ; ] blood and geographical entities and the fair claim to geographical, moral, and ethical homogeneic liberty as following from a biological imperative,

    or any faith system that is demonstratively self-consistent and self-integrated with these this-worldly concerns -

    -- is a solution superior to reliance on a God ( or any god) [that can be neither demonstrated to exist, nor demonstrated to not exist, let alone be of aid in the above scope, to preserve Germanic racial, spiritual, and cultural preservation...]

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

    Somehow, this statement has gone unnoticed: … or any faith system that is demonstratively self-consistent and self-integrated with these this-worldly concerns, is a solution superior to.....


    The thought fragment assumes that such faith systems are indeed possible – and welcomed.

    Well, I must say that I do find this quite a valuable "find" -in the sense that the clause was there 'from the beginning' - and yet not picked up before. Could it be that we have been so concerned in raising up the old God that we have significantly overlooked the very real possibility of a purely metaphysical or 'transcendental' re-interpretation of the God concept itself? Well, not really - in the sense that it was always part of the possibility of any resolution to the question originally raised. Heidegger was certainly equivocal on the matter of God - I am still not really clear what manner of God it is that will "save us" ( -Heidegger's own interview.)He was of course buried in the church - but this was largely a local and family matter - he showed little need to gravitate back towards that faith. I suspect that any 'solace' or meaning was to be found somewhere within the Mystery and Grace of Being itself . [-- any thoughts there?]



    And then,of course, there is Nietzsche - whom I assume would have us move beyond all need of 'gods' (?) and towards a future in which 'man' is moved beyond himself by resources that are already here-abouts. But insofar as these already partake of any transcendence within them, this would not deny the possibility of transcedence also in the future. That which is to become - must already be , in some way, already unter Wegs.

    There is something of a Paradox here. The issue relates to Metaphysics; it need not necessarily be seen purely in terms of Materialism. So long as the Metaphysic is left open, beings that are may still nevertheless contain the possibility, or indeed, the necessity, of 'an inner' transcendence.

    Things keep their secrets.


    Quote Originally Posted by SuuT View Post
    Within the thought fragment, it is not an issue of pitting faith against science: it is expelling – or asking to expel, rather – faith systems that are inconsistent to and with Germanic racial, spiritual, and cultural preservation

    The thought fragment proceeds from the assumption that Physical Cosmology can better answer to “this-worldly” concerns.
    And yet, an apparently Physical Cosmology may also be open to Metaphysical interpretation and possibilities in Time. Who is there to finally define what it is to be?


    But here I will open a new derivative thought, is not that idea above the beginning of an Ethik of that which should be and should become ?



    Quote Originally Posted by SuuT View Post
    Would it follow that such a god has unified the ‘planes’ of existence? And what could we conclude if we assume human union with such a god to be possible?
    They have always believed that the God is within in any case, as Spark or Fire. When the 'God' that moves between the Realms lends sufficient understanding of 'his' movement, then the bridge that must be over-crossed lies already before.

    There is no returning for those that shall become.....
    but that time is not yet. Unless sufficient clearing be made, the gods that would save will surely remain in concealment.

    from Suut's Preface

    --or any faith system that is demonstratively self-consistent and self-integrated with these 'this-worldly' concerns ---

    In many ways this entire exercise has been one of testing the limits of divinity as such. It is true to say that Moody has already identified the conflict between 'faith' and the 'this worldly'; what need is there for faith in a world that is entirely rationalized or scientific. If all the parameters of our existence are already mapped out and understood, there is little room for the need of any leap of faith - or any withdrawing from a worldliness of the world into the awesome and heilig. But we know, it is not like that. We know that even Suut confesses 'a god ' - holds out hope therefore for (in) a being that is , at first sight, not at all this worldly. ( Would not any god possess at least some manner of transcendence?)

    Moreover, Moody has also made it clear that far from looking for new gods - it might well yet be possible to turn again, in some way, to a re-appearance from concealment of an earlier god. And in the Nietzschean sense, we are not any more looking now for the return of the Lord God, creator of the universe, of the church; we can well believe that such times have indeed past away in all reality. In a world now nihilistic and 'destitute' through the grip and failure of metaphysics and the "loss of gods" within our communities, we are left at the mercy of a rampant worldly technology and the " extinction of divine radiance... in world history".

    But Heidegger's idea of the gods, who appear in the fourfold nature of the world, is that they too are beings, divinities, who are not dead at all - but await, in concealment, for their time to shine again. It may not be in our power to command, in any sense, for them to return. We suffer the destitution of our culture and age until such time as their re-appearance as shining forth is again timely. The section in Heidegger's own interview ( first published 1976) makes very clear his own thinking :

    ""Philosophy will not be able to bring about a direct change of the present state of the world. This is true not only of philosophy but of all merely human meditations and endeavors. Only a god can still save us. I think the only possibility of salvation left to us is to prepare readiness, through thinking and poetry, for the appearance of the god or for the absence of the god during the decline -- so that we do not, simply put, die meaningless deaths, but that when we decline, we decline in the face of the absent god........

    We cannot get him to come by thinking. At best we can prepare the readiness of expectation......the preparation of readiness could (therefore) be the first step. ""


    Now it is true that others have since questioned this apparent fatalism in the face of the worldly destitution that is upon us. But, there are things that can be done .... that are being done. A recogition of our plight is surely one of them. And indeed, a turning to the readiness and to the presence of any clearing in which the radiance may still appear....
    Last edited by Moody; Wednesday, February 14th, 2007 at 05:36 PM. Reason: merged consecutive posts

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Similar Threads

  1. Asking the Gods
    By Dagna in forum Germanic Heathenry
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: Wednesday, April 22nd, 2009, 07:45 PM
  2. A World With Many Gods
    By Ćlfhere in forum Cosmology & Mythology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Sunday, May 28th, 2006, 07:47 AM
  3. State of the Gods
    By Blutwölfin in forum Germanic Heathenry
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: Sunday, March 12th, 2006, 02:03 AM
  4. Gods and Half-Gods Fathered by Odin, Listed in the Skáldskaparmál
    By Blutwölfin in forum Cosmology & Mythology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Sunday, February 12th, 2006, 04:07 PM
  5. Symbols of the Gods
    By Blutwölfin in forum Cosmology & Mythology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Thursday, November 24th, 2005, 08:25 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •