Cells that act like unique, adaptable organisms...

[Simon Adams]

Simon - I think you have mistaken an evolution of ideas-values for an evolution of the collective subconscious itself, the latter being what I am referring to as the process revealed in scripture. It is an evolution of how humanity has experienced the world. This process is discussed in the writings of quite a few 20th century thinkers, such as Owen Barfield, Jean Gebser, Heidegger, Jung, Teilhard de Chardin, Rudolf Steiner. Perhaps you are familiar with one or two of those names and can use as a reference point. It can be discerned in the evolution of language, art, science-technology, and culture over the millennia.

A very simple and crude summary - there was a time when humanity did not experience any I/Self, only a group consciousness where psychic processes were dispersed throughout the cosmos and Earth environment. Then the collective subconscious evolved to the mode of ego consciousness, where the I/Self was experienced and sharp distinctions could be made between one's Self and the world (yet there was still a polar unity between Self-World). Eventually we come to the rational consciousness in which I/Self becomes totally detached from the world and is experienced as a completely private realm, while the public realm is experienced as completely devoid of spirit-mind (apart from other private bubbles of consciousness).

Under this view, the Christ incarnation event is a sort of fulcrum point of human history in which Spirit had completed its descent into the 'physical' I/Self and the latter is set to the task of reuniting with the 'astral' Spirit. It is about each individual human experiencing the reality of Christ within, not simply as an intellectual understanding but as a voluntary and fully conscious alignment of will, feeling and thinking. The ideologies you mention seek to find solutions to the isolation-alienation of I/Self and corresponding void of meaning through external powers, or fall into the abyss of nihilism, rather than seeking meaning from Christ within.

There are clearly changes that happen in the cultural psyche around 40 000 years ago when the Venus figures, cave art etc takes off, again in the axial age, again with the rise of christianity etc. How much these changes happen within the space of shared culture versus within the collective subconscious itself is an interesting question, and I’m certainly open to there being a kind of evolution of consciousness.

However this way of seeing things reminds me of when I moved from atheism to eastern religions, and I decided that religions were like a groove that was carved into the collective consciousness, one which people would slip into with a little push, and only eastern religions tried to look behind the grooves. Of course what you are suggesting is very different to this, and I have no doubt the likes of Teilhard de Chardin and Owen Barfield have deeper insights into these things than me. Nonetheless, from where I am now, when this perspective is transposed onto scripture, it gives me the feeling I get from (the small bit I’ve read of) Jung, which is a kind of flattening of everything into one dimension. It feels like the colour has been taken out of a painting, with god becoming some aspect or director of the human psyche.

I probably sound a bit ignorant, but my understanding has lead me to be content and at ease with myself, in a way I haven’t since I was a small child. It’s far from perfect and has a long way to go still, and there are plenty of mysteries I don’t have the first clue about. The way I connect to the christ within is through simple things, such as lifting my heart and mind to god, being aware of my day, saying sorry for the things I got wrong, saying thank you, and being quiet. If you have a similar way of emptying yourself and inviting god into that space, but which frames this around collective phenomena, then who am I to criticise!

[Lou Gold]

Simon - I think you have mistaken an evolution of ideas-values for an evolution of the collective subconscious itself, the latter being what I am referring to as the process revealed in scripture. It is an evolution of how humanity has experienced the world. This process is discussed in the writings of quite a few 20th century thinkers, such as Owen Barfield, Jean Gebser, Heidegger, Jung, Teilhard de Chardin, Rudolf Steiner. Perhaps you are familiar with one or two of those names and can use as a reference point. It can be discerned in the evolution of language, art, science-technology, and culture over the millennia.

A very simple and crude summary - there was a time when humanity did not experience any I/Self, only a group consciousness where psychic processes were dispersed throughout the cosmos and Earth environment. Then the collective subconscious evolved to the mode of ego consciousness, where the I/Self was experienced and sharp distinctions could be made between one's Self and the world (yet there was still a polar unity between Self-World). Eventually we come to the rational consciousness in which I/Self becomes totally detached from the world and is experienced as a completely private realm, while the public realm is experienced as completely devoid of spirit-mind (apart from other private bubbles of consciousness).

Under this view, the Christ incarnation event is a sort of fulcrum point of human history in which Spirit had completed its descent into the 'physical' I/Self and the latter is set to the task of reuniting with the 'astral' Spirit. It is about each individual human experiencing the reality of Christ within, not simply as an intellectual understanding but as a voluntary and fully conscious alignment of will, feeling and thinking. The ideologies you mention seek to find solutions to the isolation-alienation of I/Self and corresponding void of meaning through external powers, or fall into the abyss of nihilism, rather than seeking meaning from Christ within.

There are clearly changes that happen in the cultural psyche around 40 000 years ago when the Venus figures, cave art etc takes off, again in the axial age, again with the rise of christianity etc. How much these changes happen within the space of shared culture versus within the collective subconscious itself is an interesting question, and I’m certainly open to there being a kind of evolution of consciousness.

However this way of seeing things reminds me of when I moved from atheism to eastern religions, and I decided that religions were like a groove that was carved into the collective consciousness, one which people would slip into with a little push, and only eastern religions tried to look behind the grooves. Of course what you are suggesting is very different to this, and I have no doubt the likes of Teilhard de Chardin and Owen Barfield have deeper insights into these things than me. Nonetheless, from where I am now, when this perspective is transposed onto scripture, it gives me the feeling I get from (the small bit I’ve read of) Jung, which is a kind of flattening of everything into one dimension. It feels like the colour has been taken out of a painting, with god becoming some aspect or director of the human psyche.

I probably sound a bit ignorant, but my understanding has lead me to be content and at ease with myself, in a way I haven’t since I was a small child. It’s far from perfect and has a long way to go still, and there are plenty of mysteries I don’t have the first clue about. The way I connect to the christ within is through simple things, such as lifting my heart and mind to god, being aware of my day, saying sorry for the things I got wrong, saying thank you, and being quiet. If you have a similar way of emptying yourself and inviting god into that space, but which frames this around collective phenomena, then who am I to criticise!

My experience is similar to yours Adam and it came from surrendering to the Jesus, Mary and Cross within my own heart. This is also a way of emptying, inviting in and connecting with God. It also makes complete sense (to me) of Jesus saying, "Tell them I am movement and rest." My way of Heart made me appreciate other ways even more than before. All paths gained in value and I knew which one is mine.

[AshvinP]

Simon - I think you have mistaken an evolution of ideas-values for an evolution of the collective subconscious itself, the latter being what I am referring to as the process revealed in scripture. It is an evolution of how humanity has experienced the world. This process is discussed in the writings of quite a few 20th century thinkers, such as Owen Barfield, Jean Gebser, Heidegger, Jung, Teilhard de Chardin, Rudolf Steiner. Perhaps you are familiar with one or two of those names and can use as a reference point. It can be discerned in the evolution of language, art, science-technology, and culture over the millennia.

A very simple and crude summary - there was a time when humanity did not experience any I/Self, only a group consciousness where psychic processes were dispersed throughout the cosmos and Earth environment. Then the collective subconscious evolved to the mode of ego consciousness, where the I/Self was experienced and sharp distinctions could be made between one's Self and the world (yet there was still a polar unity between Self-World). Eventually we come to the rational consciousness in which I/Self becomes totally detached from the world and is experienced as a completely private realm, while the public realm is experienced as completely devoid of spirit-mind (apart from other private bubbles of consciousness).

Under this view, the Christ incarnation event is a sort of fulcrum point of human history in which Spirit had completed its descent into the 'physical' I/Self and the latter is set to the task of reuniting with the 'astral' Spirit. It is about each individual human experiencing the reality of Christ within, not simply as an intellectual understanding but as a voluntary and fully conscious alignment of will, feeling and thinking. The ideologies you mention seek to find solutions to the isolation-alienation of I/Self and corresponding void of meaning through external powers, or fall into the abyss of nihilism, rather than seeking meaning from Christ within.

There are clearly changes that happen in the cultural psyche around 40 000 years ago when the Venus figures, cave art etc takes off, again in the axial age, again with the rise of christianity etc. How much these changes happen within the space of shared culture versus within the collective subconscious itself is an interesting question, and I’m certainly open to there being a kind of evolution of consciousness.

However this way of seeing things reminds me of when I moved from atheism to eastern religions, and I decided that religions were like a groove that was carved into the collective consciousness, one which people would slip into with a little push, and only eastern religions tried to look behind the grooves. Of course what you are suggesting is very different to this, and I have no doubt the likes of Teilhard de Chardin and Owen Barfield have deeper insights into these things than me. Nonetheless, from where I am now, when this perspective is transposed onto scripture, it gives me the feeling I get from (the small bit I’ve read of) Jung, which is a kind of flattening of everything into one dimension. It feels like the colour has been taken out of a painting, with god becoming some aspect or director of the human psyche.

I probably sound a bit ignorant, but my understanding has lead me to be content and at ease with myself, in a way I haven’t since I was a small child. It’s far from perfect and has a long way to go still, and there are plenty of mysteries I don’t have the first clue about. The way I connect to the christ within is through simple things, such as lifting my heart and mind to god, being aware of my day, saying sorry for the things I got wrong, saying thank you, and being quiet. If you have a similar way of emptying yourself and inviting god into that space, but which frames this around collective phenomena, then who am I to criticise!

Well I can say my personal experience was similar. I was very hesitant to accept the evolutionary view of spirituality. It goes against all of the formulations of doctrine I thought were essential to the Christian faith - hard divide between Creator-created, salvation by grace and faith alone (no room for 'works'), fixed period of revelation in scripture from Genesis-Revelation, Christ as unique historical figure who cannot be tied to the pagan mythology, etc. The evolutionary view seemed so foreign to what was preached and I wondered how it was even possible that so many people missed it for so long.

It took me a few years of seriously getting into thinkers like Jung, Barfield , etc., listening to people like Peterson and BK, and going back to the scripture with as few presuppositions as possible before it started to click for me. Now, with that rather slight change in metaphysical-spiritual perspective, I wonder how it's possible that anyone does not see it. It may come off as an academic exercise, especially when I relay it here, but I find it much less academic than traditional Christian "apologetics". I find the traditional doctrine to be really one-dimensional and flattened out, stripped of all mythic mystery, sanitized of participatory imagery, removed from the realm of personal experience and development.

I realize not all traditions are created equal here, so if you come from Orthodox or RC background the experience has probably been better than run of the mill American protestant tradition. But still, so much depth and richness of scripture is left unmined in the static historical perspective. It's as if Christian philosophers and theologians have concluded we have figured out all there is to figure out from the Bible and now it's just a matter of debating which church father, medieval thinker and modern era philosopher we should side with.

If we are monists and naturalists, then we cannot remain consistent and accept that theology-philosophy is essentially different from science in this regard. We can see clearly how the medieval pre-scientific paradigm was completely transformed by the Copernican-Newtonian revolution, which was then completely transformed by the GR-QM revolution, and now the GR-QM paradigm will be completely transformed by whatever unfolds from here on out. For each paradigm shift in metaphysics-science-theology, there was only a handful of thinkers who were on the vanguard and thinking decades or even centuries ahead of everyone else. Why would it be any different today?

[Simon Adams]

My experience is similar to yours Adam and it came from surrendering to the Jesus, Mary and Cross within my own heart. This is also a way of emptying, inviting in and connecting with God. It also makes complete sense (to me) of Jesus saying, "Tell them I am movement and rest." My way of Heart made me appreciate other ways even more than before. All paths gained in value and I knew which one is mine.

Yes I know I have found mine too, my base where I plant my feet. There are still other traditions that I find authentic in their context, some Hindi traditions and most buddhist traditions for example have some deep insights, which seem more credible to me than some fundamentalist protestant christian groups. I’ve even become so ‘orthodox’ that I’m cautious of the gnostic elements of the Gospel of Thomas, but the phrase you quote there is a good example of something that fits in with the rest of it.

[Simon Adams]

Well I can say my personal experience was similar. I was very hesitant to accept the evolutionary view of spirituality. It goes against all of the formulations of doctrine I thought were essential to the Christian faith - hard divide between Creator-created, salvation by grace and faith alone (no room for 'works'), fixed period of revelation in scripture from Genesis-Revelation, Christ as unique historical figure who cannot be tied to the pagan mythology, etc. The evolutionary view seemed so foreign to what was preached and I wondered how it was even possible that so many people missed it for so long.

It took me a few years of seriously getting into thinkers like Jung, Barfield , etc., listening to people like Peterson and BK, and going back to the scripture with as few presuppositions as possible before it started to click for me. Now, with that rather slight change in metaphysical-spiritual perspective, I wonder how it's possible that anyone does not see it. It may come off as an academic exercise, especially when I relay it here, but I find it much less academic than traditional Christian "apologetics". I find the traditional doctrine to be really one-dimensional and flattened out, stripped of all mythic mystery, sanitized of participatory imagery, removed from the realm of personal experience and development.

I realize not all traditions are created equal here, so if you come from Orthodox or RC background the experience has probably been better than run of the mill American protestant tradition. But still, so much depth and richness of scripture is left unmined in the static historical perspective. It's as if Christian philosophers and theologians have concluded we have figured out all there is to figure out from the Bible and now it's just a matter of debating which church father, medieval thinker and modern era philosopher we should side with.

If we are monists and naturalists, then we cannot remain consistent and accept that theology-philosophy is essentially different from science in this regard. We can see clearly how the medieval pre-scientific paradigm was completely transformed by the Copernican-Newtonian revolution, which was then completely transformed by the GR-QM revolution, and now the GR-QM paradigm will be completely transformed by whatever unfolds from here on out. For each paradigm shift in metaphysics-science-theology, there was only a handful of thinkers who were on the vanguard and thinking decades or even centuries ahead of everyone else. Why would it be any different today?

I can definitely understand you finding more depth in this psychologised christian interpretation over the literalist US protestant tradition, even some elements of the catholic church there seem to be a kind of mix of fundamentalism and politics that just makes no sense to me (even though they quote the same words I believe etc).

In terms of the way our scientific understanding has developed, I think it’s important to understand what the christian tradition does say, and what it doesn’t. If we’re talking body versus soul, then it was always monist at some level, the difference being about properties (which doesn’t conflict with BK type idealism, GR, QM etc). If we’re talking about the universe versus god, then yes that is closer to a dualism, although there is a way in which god is always transcendently present, and sometimes immanently present. This is an important distinction, pretty much all the things BK, Jung, Buddhism etc talk about (as well as all of science) are the elements at the base of Jacobs ladder.

It’s of course more complicated than that as we are made in the image of god, and so there are elements of one that are a reflection of the other. I would also agree that some of the theology and philosophy is a bit over fixed in a way that’s appropriate for scripture but not for philosophy, such as with Aquinas in the parts of the catholic church. However there are reasons for that, part of which is some of the fundamental errors that crept into philosophy with people like Descartes, and then became compounded as people reacted against those to the other extreme. Some of these things really are beyond what we can conceptualise outside of symbolism and mystic experience, so a slightly clunky framework without fundamental errors can be a ‘safe harbour’. But both the Catholic and Orthodox churches are engaged in trying to find ways to understand the aspects that are approachable, Merton’s insights from Buddhism are pretty much orthodox to catholics, and Orthodox Palamite views around panentheism are accepted as valid ways of seeing things to Catholics. I think there is certainly space to replace the mechanistic cartesian way of understanding nature that exists in some parts, with a more fundamentally conscious, organic and spiritual universe. There will always be protected areas though, where the risk of diffusing the important elements is bigger than anything that can be learnt.

I would also say that there is an important role for being part of a community. There is wisdom in the tradition that isn’t always logically obvious, but comes from centuries of experience. There is something very significant happening at the mass, a hidden mystery which encompasses all of scripture in an vital way.

[AshvinP]

Well I can say my personal experience was similar. I was very hesitant to accept the evolutionary view of spirituality. It goes against all of the formulations of doctrine I thought were essential to the Christian faith - hard divide between Creator-created, salvation by grace and faith alone (no room for 'works'), fixed period of revelation in scripture from Genesis-Revelation, Christ as unique historical figure who cannot be tied to the pagan mythology, etc. The evolutionary view seemed so foreign to what was preached and I wondered how it was even possible that so many people missed it for so long.

It took me a few years of seriously getting into thinkers like Jung, Barfield , etc., listening to people like Peterson and BK, and going back to the scripture with as few presuppositions as possible before it started to click for me. Now, with that rather slight change in metaphysical-spiritual perspective, I wonder how it's possible that anyone does not see it. It may come off as an academic exercise, especially when I relay it here, but I find it much less academic than traditional Christian "apologetics". I find the traditional doctrine to be really one-dimensional and flattened out, stripped of all mythic mystery, sanitized of participatory imagery, removed from the realm of personal experience and development.

I realize not all traditions are created equal here, so if you come from Orthodox or RC background the experience has probably been better than run of the mill American protestant tradition. But still, so much depth and richness of scripture is left unmined in the static historical perspective. It's as if Christian philosophers and theologians have concluded we have figured out all there is to figure out from the Bible and now it's just a matter of debating which church father, medieval thinker and modern era philosopher we should side with.

If we are monists and naturalists, then we cannot remain consistent and accept that theology-philosophy is essentially different from science in this regard. We can see clearly how the medieval pre-scientific paradigm was completely transformed by the Copernican-Newtonian revolution, which was then completely transformed by the GR-QM revolution, and now the GR-QM paradigm will be completely transformed by whatever unfolds from here on out. For each paradigm shift in metaphysics-science-theology, there was only a handful of thinkers who were on the vanguard and thinking decades or even centuries ahead of everyone else. Why would it be any different today?

I can definitely understand you finding more depth in this psychologised christian interpretation over the literalist US protestant tradition, even some elements of the catholic church there seem to be a kind of mix of fundamentalism and politics that just makes no sense to me (even though they quote the same words I believe etc).

In terms of the way our scientific understanding has developed, I think it’s important to understand what the christian tradition does say, and what it doesn’t. If we’re talking body versus soul, then it was always monist at some level, the difference being about properties (which doesn’t conflict with BK type idealism, GR, QM etc). If we’re talking about the universe versus god, then yes that is closer to a dualism, although there is a way in which god is always transcendently present, and sometimes immanently present. This is an important distinction, pretty much all the things BK, Jung, Buddhism etc talk about (as well as all of science) are the elements at the base of Jacobs ladder.

It’s of course more complicated than that as we are made in the image of god, and so there are elements of one that are a reflection of the other. I would also agree that some of the theology and philosophy is a bit over fixed in a way that’s appropriate for scripture but not for philosophy, such as with Aquinas in the parts of the catholic church. However there are reasons for that, part of which is some of the fundamental errors that crept into philosophy with people like Descartes, and then became compounded as people reacted against those to the other extreme. Some of these things really are beyond what we can conceptualise outside of symbolism and mystic experience, so a slightly clunky framework without fundamental errors can be a ‘safe harbour’. But both the Catholic and Orthodox churches are engaged in trying to find ways to understand the aspects that are approachable, Merton’s insights from Buddhism are pretty much orthodox to catholics, and Orthodox Palamite views around panentheism are accepted as valid ways of seeing things to Catholics. I think there is certainly space to replace the mechanistic cartesian way of understanding nature that exists in some parts, with a more fundamentally conscious, organic and spiritual universe. There will always be protected areas though, where the risk of diffusing the important elements is bigger than anything that can be learnt.

I would also say that there is an important role for being part of a community. There is wisdom in the tradition that isn’t always logically obvious, but comes from centuries of experience. There is something very significant happening at the mass, a hidden mystery which encompasses all of scripture in an vital way.

And that's the kicker - how do we know what is being "protected" are truly the "important elements"? We simply take it on authority from various philosophers and theologians who came before us. Their assumptions are deeply ingrained in our habits of mind. I am suggesting that when we go back to scripture from the spiritual evolutionary perspective, a perspective which only became widely possible in the 19-20th centuries, although was prefigured in certain great minds who came earlier, what once were the "important elements" will appear to be precisely the elements which are now holding us back from fuller experience of the Divine Logos alive within us.

As a loose analogy, think of the transformation from Newtonian mechanics to GR - it was not simply a transformation of ideas around the edges, but the very concept of "space" was discovered to be radically different than what it was previously thought to be. In many ways, these transformations are actually leading us back to wisdom previously experienced in communal settings of the early Church and Middle Ages, which was then subdued by the rationalist-dualist era. Yet now, because of that modern era, we are also in a position to experience and know that wisdom even more deeply within our individual souls. Much like this guy:

“Were not our eyes profoundly of the sun
How could they behold the light?
Were not our strength from God's own being won.
How could we feel so in Things divine delight.”
-Goethe

Happy Easter!

[Shaibei]

After Melchizadek offered his sacrifice, he made a blessing on Abraham. Years later, god asked Abraham to return to Moria (the site of the future Temple in Jerusalem) to make another sacrifice. Abraham’s son Isaac travelled with him and when they arrived Abraham gave Isaac the wood for the sacrifice to carry to the place where it would take place. When Isaac asked where the lamb for the sacrifice was, Abraham answered “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering”. By itself the story of Abraham being asked to sacrifice his son makes no sense. It seems strange and cruel, despite the fact that God did not ask Abraham to go through with it. However this is clearly an incredibly important part of the story – this is when god made his “everlasting covenant” with Abraham through which “all nations will be blessed”. As the writer Scott Hahn points out, because the Hebrew text did not contain punctuation, another reading of Abrahams statement to Isaac could be written as “God will provide himself, the lamb, for a burnt offering”.

Interesting. There's an ancient Jewish commentator named Rashi who interpreted it as follows. After Isaac asks Abraham where is the lamb for a burnt-offering, "Abraham said: 'God will provide Himself the lamb for a burnt-offering, my son", for this Rashi says the punctuation should be:
"'God will provide Himself the lamb, for a burnt-offering my son", so he did tell him he was the offering. Any way This is not the simple interpretation of the verse, since in the Hebrew source, though there is no punctuation, there are musical punctuations.
In any case, in a strange way it is these various ways of interpreting verses - with not only the direct meaning but also with allegoric, imaginative comparisons and "inner meanings", which turned the biblical text into something completely different - that gave rise to the ways of interpretation of psychoanalysis. Freud wouldn't' be to happy to be conscious about this

[Lou Gold]

Yet now, because of that modern era, we are also in a position to experience and know that wisdom even more deeply within our individual souls. Much like this guy:

“Were not our eyes profoundly of the sun
How could they behold the light?
Were not our strength from God's own being won.
How could we feel so in Things divine delight.”
-Goethe

Happy Easter!

And to know fundamentally without doubt that this deepening of wisdom is beyond East-West and ideological or philosophical or religious differences.

Happy Easter for All

[Simon Adams]

And that's the kicker - how do we know what is being "protected" are truly the "important elements"? We simply take it on authority from various philosophers and theologians who came before us. Their assumptions are deeply ingrained in our habits of mind. I am suggesting that when we go back to scripture from the spiritual evolutionary perspective, a perspective which only became widely possible in the 19-20th centuries, although was prefigured in certain great minds who came earlier, what once were the "important elements" will appear to be precisely the elements which are now holding us back from fuller experience of the Divine Logos alive within us.

I’m fairly sure that what is holding me back from a fuller experience of the divine logos is in me. There are phases of dryness on the journey, as St John of the Cross described so well, but in general the habits of mind that actually help me connect and give me peace are the traditional ones. I think we reject these because we see bad examples of them that speak loudly, rather than outdated element of understanding.

The problem with revisionst understandings is always about how well they fit with that onto that which they are transposed. Many of the early church fathers knew the apostles, spent time in their company. This stuff was so important to them, that everything else in their lives was directed towards it. They all willingly went to their deaths based on the understanding they received from the apostles. If you accept the fundamental precept that Jesus was the incarnation of the logos, then no matter how ignorant those around him were of the advances we have made in understanding the mechanics of nature, the fact remains that they all reported a message of the importance of ritual;

I tell you, unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For My flesh is real food, and My blood is real drink.

56Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood remains in Me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent Me and I live because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on Me will live because of Me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven.

He stressed the importance of the rock he laid on earth so much that he renamed one of his disciples. These are signs of what was and is important. The grounding so that our feet can be on solid ground, whilst we ponder the mysteries. It’s so easy to stand on shaky ground, where we end up spending more time and effort trying to fix other people’s problems than our own. If you step back, that’s never going to be a sustainable model for society. Let alone a route to truth.

As a loose analogy, think of the transformation from Newtonian mechanics to GR - it was not simply a transformation of ideas around the edges, but the very concept of "space" was discovered to be radically different than what it was previously thought to be. In many ways, these transformations are actually leading us back to wisdom previously experienced in communal settings of the early Church and Middle Ages, which was then subdued by the rationalist-dualist era. Yet now, because of that modern era, we are also in a position to experience and know that wisdom even more deeply within our individual souls. Much like this guy:

“Were not our eyes profoundly of the sun
How could they behold the light?
Were not our strength from God's own being won.
How could we feel so in Things divine delight.”
-Goethe

Happy Easter!

Happy Easter! A son of man went down into hell, took all our bad karma with him, and clung to the good with such fierce spirit and love that it couldn’t hold him down. Even with my small experiences of hell, I can see that this is an unimaginable triumph, it’s like the Battle of Thermopylae, but the Spartans winning. Even if he understood how to reconcile GR and QM, it would be insignificant next to that which sustained him on such a journey. This is what we celebrate today. A triumph of love, courage and humility over all the philosophies of the world.

[Lou Gold]

Happy Easter! A son of man went down into hell, took all our bad karma with him, and clung to the good with such fierce spirit and love that it couldn’t hold him down. Even with my small experiences of hell, I can see that this is an unimaginable triumph, it’s like the Battle of Thermopylae, but the Greeks winning. Even if he understood how to reconcile GR and QM, it would be insignificant next to that which sustained him on such a journey. This is what we celebrate today. A triumph of love, courage and humility over all the philosophies of the world.

Yes! The Great One as the Son of Man went to Hell for three days and rose proving that the Sons of Man can do it. What a Perfect vision. A triumph of love, courage and humility over all the philosophies of the world. Worthy of endless celebration.