Ancient Debunking of the Western Myth of Dialogue

The Westerners cherish the rationalist myth of dialogue, and have enforced it on the rest of the world too.

The answer comes from … the 4th Century B.C. (after some, only from the 2nd), and was expressed by China’s greatest philosopher, who is not Confucius, but his Taoist rival, Chuang Tzu :

The Phenomenology of Religious Experience

Once more from Evdokimov (the italics are still his) :

The spiritual life is an event in the interior of the spirit. Seen from the outside, it easily lends itself to misunderstandings and to frequent confusion with psychism. Thus psychologism formulates this classic question, which is beside the point, namely: “Does there exist a correspondence between the subjectivity of religious experience and the objectivity of its object?”

Proof of God

Paul Evdokimov again :

Every compelling proof violates the human conscience and changes faith into simple knowledge. That is why God limits his almighty power, encloses himself in the silence of his suffering love, withdraws all signs, suspends every miracle, casts a shadow over the brightness of his face. It is to this kenotic attitude of God that faith essentially responds. It keeps and will always keep an element of darkness, a crucifying obscurity, a sufficient margin to protect its freedom, in order to guard its power to say no at any moment and to build on this refusal. It is because a man can say no that his yes can attain a full resonance; his fiat is then not only in accord, but on the same dizzy level, of free creation as the fiat of God.

Lost in 2008

The Good Atheism

The Eastern Orthodox writer Paul Evdokimov writes :

According to the Bible, the fool is free to say in his heart: “There is no God.” However, the meaning of the negation changes according to the level of depth and suffering in the one who denies. That is why “Perfect atheism (perfect here means lived even to suffering) is at the top of the ladder, on the second last step before perfect faith,” as Dostoievski affirms. When, far from formless indifference, atheism and faith are carried to “perfection”, they can meet together above senseless talk, in the silent combat of the angel with Jacob, and of grace with despair. Consistent atheism, burning with suffering, knows its own paradoxical cross. At the end of his life, on notes scribbled at the height of his madness, Nietzsche wrote his definitive name–the Crucified. Likewise the atheistic Great Inquisitor made fun of materialism and positivism, but he attained his true grandeur in his passion for man. His no, in spite of himself, would almost participate in the love of God for man, though he is not conscious of this. Perhaps passion for man goes beyond a certain level that is merely human. Is not the essence of the divine heart this same passion, and would there not be here one of those mysterious “passages to the limit” [i.e., `liminal stages' --ed.]? Perhaps it is necessary to be a saintly “philanthropist”, in the manner of God, in order to feel the deep correspondence. There exists a purifying atheism, according to the words of Jules Lagneau, “that salt which hinders belief in God from corrupting itself”. In this function of protection and safeguard, it cooperated with grace. That is why the Christ of the Legend of Dostoievski is silent, and kisses the face of the Great Inquisitor contracted with suffering.

The Lost Art Of Contemplation (I)

Contemplation is today synonym with passivity. At the most, is something of the sentimental-esthetical kind, by and large tolerated and tolerating. Contemplating means sitting there and doing nothing, maybe looking at something, or just daydreaming… The contemplative does no harm to anyone, but neither does he any good.

But it was not always so. The 20th century Christian mystic Simone Weil writes :

“One of the principal truths of Christianity, a truth that goes almost unrecognized today, is that looking is what saves us. The bronze serpent was lifted up so that those who lay maimed in the depths of degradation should be saved by looking upon it.” (my underlining)

Or, as someone else once said, “a Christian is a potential mystic, while a mystic is an actual Christian”…

It’s funny that militant atheists disparage Christians by calling them “mystics”, while Christians themselves continue to reject the term as improper to their religion ! So mysticism has gone down the drain too, along contemplation, leaving behind a world ever discontented of itself, but never willing to do the slightest effort to … just look toward something else.