/lit/ - Literature

>>19866033
Universality necessitates a particular counterpart. Otherwise, it would be literally, actually, and potentially impossible for anything to come into existence. You are always necessarily adhering to a specific expression of religion. Even if you were expressing everything at once, you would still be an individual expression of everything.

Christianity has the fullest understanding of the Word. In Islam and Judaism He cannot be embodied, in Buddhism He isn't God. It's very hard to explain something like the Zyzz phenomenon for example without understanding that all the Logoi are actually embodied in the world.
>>19865788
I was counter-arguing against this. There will inevitably be an arboreal world order once again because postmodernist ontology and metaphysics and therefore ethics are impossible. Everything is hierarchical by definition insofar as it is related to anything. And there isn't anything without presupposing everything.
>inside of the zeitgest we are all objects, unable to express the real, outside of it -- there is no language to communicate
This is the Father
>yes, BWO doesn't have organs/structure but it is still some signature, a style, if you will. that which is pure-potentiality is before-style. when BWO individuates it takes a certain (meta)colouring. I'd say the zeitgeist-BWO is Hegel's der geist and the personal one is your own path to the higher monadic atmospheres.
This is the Holy Ghost
>so the third option of the intersection: superimposing layers through the crack/fissure in the fabric of the veil. Crack is complex, it is Christ-moment and what is memetically alive and vibrating.
This is false because the veil is not less "real" and the "fissure" need not be complex. Christ redeemed the entire world and everyone can participate in His sacrifice (and secretely that's already happening, sacer + facere "to make sacred").
>>19866599
it's everything, something, and nothing.