/lit/ - Literature

>>15172583
>That white light as transcendent nothingness
I am curious as to why you consider it a nothingness, even in a Jungian sense the archetypes are fundamentally things, just merely that must be realised temporally so the use of the word strikes me oddly. In the sense that that whiteness does not actually exist? As if we were to use Jungian ideas if it does not exists then neither does any other archetypal experience which all together is the sum of life, in so far as one can say that logically.

>Jung's historical task seemed to side with pluralism and coherentism (Quine/Hume), each religion breathing life into the forms of symbolic patterns which give it their life.
I don't think that religious manifestation of a fundamental nature of living elements to be, or at least I can't see how that becomes pluralism/coherentism in the senses Quine and Hume meant it. It may be similar or borrow parts but I am again at a loss as to the use of these names.

>The problem I have is trying to escape Platonic dualism--the world "out there" is "me" insofar as I express myself in it
Platonically, aren't you always there, and is there not always a perfect idea of your thereness there?

>Christ in general makes me nauseous, I can't read something like Matthew without this ridiculous weight pressing on me. He honed in on the everlasting, made it his crown, I just can't spend so much time at that level. Too much piety makes me zoned out, mysticism is a vapor which is threatening to my life, and I hope I don't need to engage in it in the future.
Of course many Christians are bad, but if they are true to doctrinal teaching and they follow it with their life you cannot say they are bad people, maybe dumb but not bad. However your emotional reaction to the figure of Christ is not normal. I'm not going to pry but have you ever done or experienced anything which you would consider to be absolutely anti to Christian belief or morality? Like if you were to accept Christianity it would involve a great deal of effort around that past experience.

>>15172601
Would you call Hegel or Heidegger a pagan for this?

>>15172629
Well it was after all Heidegger that brought back such a medieval god-reverence in the immediacy of him, to modern times. That everything is foregrounded in a constant, of which Heidegger was able to say much about but of course not answer in total- that would be insane. This religious aesthetic you speak of is not an aesthetic in an scientific(liberal)-existential sense to Heidegger, as like something you choose or have any control over or is merely contained in your head as it were, but is something fundamental to the experience of life. Life is fundamentally religious, death is sacred, Being is sacred and so forth. And everything, all human moods and values are grounded in Being. A systematic uprooting of theological terms and ideas and a supplanting them in new soil, deistic, but still theophany, that is in the sense of "Being as Physis as Kosmos".