Exactly what are your qualifications for pronouncing my lack of knowledge
of "those larger things"? In any case, since the opening clause of my
sentence is in the subjunctive, I have made no judgment at all about
whether "those things" exist. My assertion is based on the lack of any
way to make "larger things" (existing or not) ENTAIL a value beyond other
things (whatever they might be).
As for your second rant, Christianity is not monolithic, and I do not think
you are able to speak for all versions of it, but it is quite possible to value
immanence over transcendence.
Unless and until you read what I actually said, perhaps you might avoid
the apparent need to reject it as if you had Truth at hand.
Date sent: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 22:24:52 -0400
Send reply to: "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum." <[log in to unmask]>
From: Ken Armstrong <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Pachel rings a bell backwards
To: [log in to unmask]
--On Tuesday, April 29, 2003 7:03 PM -0400 Nancy Gish - Women's
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Even if those "larger things" were to exist, it would not mean that they
> are more important than the immediate.
On what do you base this assertion? You don't know what those larger
things are, but you know what their place in the architecture of existence
> Christianity dwells on incarnation (as Eliot did in one key claim), then
> it is very much the immediate and incarnate that matters.
Yes, well, that is one part of the message of Christianity, isn't it,
interestingly or not. And it matters, does the incarnate in that view,
quite because it exists in a larger context; or, in that same view, if it
didn't exist in such a context, it wouldn't matter at all; or it would
only matter, i.e. not really "not much," but _not at all_. But because it
doesn't not exist in a larger context, it doesn't matter, so much.