*

---

/ Ngz >  alt.philosophy, alt.religion.apologetics /
/ Forum >  TOL - Philosophy ~ Religion / 15Sept02 /

 Prologue -> A writer writes. Right? After all, if a writer
doesn't write, how can he be a writer? The most he can be is a
used-to-be-a-writer. So let me put it another way; the writer
is never so happy as when he writes. Right? Okay then. Let's
just backup a notch, and start here instead:
.
 Dear Cyber-Saints, strap on your safety belts for this one,
cause this epistle will stretch your credibility beyond the
breaking point. This one will be a wild roller-coaster ride
through the Twilight Zone. This one will rock you and shock
you and - [the enthusiastic one is here rudely interrupted by
some strange buzzing noises] - Huh? What's that? ... WUT!?!?!<
.
[the highly offended one requires a long time-out after being
UNIVERSALLY insulted by the cyber-saints. Then, after a coffee
and smoke, and some news of Canada Day celebrations, the much-
miffed one forces himself to remember that a writer writes ...
But he is not at all in the proper mood for this anymore.]
.
 ... Grrrrr ... [insert much tragic but silent fumings] ... So
I'm told that *many* of you are apparently of the opinion that
*ALL* of my little epistles are a trip into the Twilight Zone.
Ha ha. VERY funny. Go ahead, make my day. Now if only I could
find an appropriate way to thank you all. Hmmmmmm
.
 [brief pause for the cause]
.
 Oh, I know! We interrupt our regularly scheduled sermon in
order to bring you this special ... ummm ... this special ...
errrr ... this special ... whatever it is  -->
.
 So one of my favorite philosophers is a very clever fellow
named Colin Wilson, and I have been reading his wonderful books
for ages. There is not one of them that fails to show me some-
thing I didn't see on the previous reading. That is the mark of
all truly great books. Anyway, one of my favorite CW books is
called 'The Outsider'; and it may well be the one that he is
best remembered for. Now I don't know why everybody else likes
it, but I'm pretty darn sure it's not for the same reason why
I like. So I'll tell you why this book fascinates me.
.
 'The Outsider' is basically a study of various outsiders (ie.
men who are "outside" the usual ebb and flow of human life);
chiefly those of a more literary persuasion. Some of these men
are truly remarkable creatures; men such as Sartre, Camus,
Hemingway, Dostoevsky, Blake, Nietzsche, and so forth. Now the
curious thing about these outsiders is that they all seem to
have only one thing in common. And that one thing is that they
couldn't quite nail down that one great problem that concerned
them. A typical example of the failed outsider might be T.E.
Lawrence; who (as most of you know if you've seen the movie)
got himself wasted while cruising around on a motorcycle.
Fortunately, and chiefly thanks to Wilson, all of these
seemingly wasted lives are not in vain, for each one
contributes something that carries the inquiry forward.
.
 So that's basically what this book is about. I'd say that it's
just the thing if you're up for some serious mental chewing.
But for me, the most fascinating part of the book is the few
pages that he devotes to George Fox. Now I'm not at all in
complete agreement with Wilson on all that he says here about
Fox, but I'm overjoyed that even this 'new existentialist'
acknowledges Fox as one of the very few among the successful
outsiders. Of course, I have my own ideas about why this is
so, and I don't think that Wilson fully appreciates the
implications of Fox's success as an outsider. But that's
another (and much longer) story; and we cannot go that way
now, as we are pointed (I hope) in another direction.
.
 In the postscript to The Outsider, Wilson makes this curious
statement: "I have taken more than ten years to create my 'new
existentialism', and it seems to me that I am working upon the
most interesting problem in the world, the *only* interesting
problem" (p.323). The problem, as he puts it on the same page,
is "to use the mind in such a way that we become detached from
this world of the natural standpoint, able to criticize it
and analyze it". Now when he puts the matter in just these
particular terms, it seems to me that we are dealing here with
the problem of awareness. What are criticism, analysis, and
detachment but different forms of heightened awareness?
.
 What I am suggesting here is that Wilson's mind/will problem
is basically *the same problem* that preoccupies me (ie. the
problem of perception and interpretation). You can see how
these two approaches lock together once you realize the
significance of the fact that perception is intentional.
... Oh, oh. I can see that I'm losing some of you now, so let
me hasten to assure the reader that this thing will NOT develop
into a long and boring essay on existentialism. ... Although
it would certainly serve all of you right if it did! :)
.
 Anyway, what I wanted to point out to you specifically
is Wilson's passion for the *only* interesting problem. I
suspect that this is the way it is for most philosophers
and theologians. They are massively concerned with this one
particular problem (whatever it happens to be), and so they
work on it for awhile (exhausting the possibilities, as it
were), and when they have done all that they can, they move
on to the next problem (which is immediately transformed,
of course, into the *only* interesting problem). Now Wilson
is lucky in that his particular problem is a very big and
fascinating one, but normally this approach tends to limit the
range and scope of the philosopher's vision and interests, I
suppose, although the truly great philosophers can sometimes
rise above these self-imposed restraints.
.
 Lord Russell, for example, started out with a colossal
interest in the logical foundations of mathematics, and he
hacked away at that tree until he had literally exhausted
himself (physically, emotionally, and spiritually) from the
effort. After that he quit philosophy; and who can blame him.
I get exhausted just thinking about 'Principia Mathematica';
actually reading it is quite beyond my meager intellect.
Imagine carrying three heavy tomes (each about ten pounds)
everywhere you go, day after day, month after month, year after
year; that's only a fraction of the effort involved here.
.
 Fortunately for us all, Russell came back to philosophy; and
this time he did it right. He was interested in everything, and
he no longer wrote chiefly for the philosophical pharisees, but
rather for the general public. And it is precisely this potent
combination of universal interest and universal communication
that makes him the most important and influential philosopher
of the twentieth century. In other words, Russell teaches
us that our philosophical (and prophetic) concerns must be
universal in scope, unlimited in range, and fearless in
execution. Even as believers we should never say that the vital
and pressing problem of the interpretation of the New Testament
is the only (or even the most important) problem for the
prophet to hack away upon. There are other problems that are
just as urgent and interesting. There are other matters of
concern that should also be addressed.
.
 For example, it has been some two thousand years now since the
prophet from Nazareth walked upon the dry earth of Palestine,
and then sacrificed himself for love's sake, and I think
it's safe to conclude that the world-class religion called
Christianity (as it is currently constituted) has been, and
remains, a colossal failure. Like it or not, the global village
of the twenty-first century is a post-modern, post-Christian
world. Now this failure of religion is not so much due to the
unfitness of the Faith as it is the logical conclusion of
eighteen centuries of ongoing corruption at the hands of an
endless series of scribes and pharisees (most of whom were,
and are, well-intentioned baboons).
.
 In other words, Christianity has failed to live up to its
promises simply because the original prophetic faith of the NT
is nowhere to be found among today's world-friendly and prophet
-hating churches. Think about that. What's the one thing that
*all* the churches have in common? ... They all despise the
prophets! Obviously there's a strong reason behind this, for
without the prophets there can be no Christianity worthy of
that name. And the proof of this is that it is the so-called
Christian nations that lead the world in the promotion of fear
and greed (the basis of all economic and political activity).
.
 Thus all the world's problems can be ultimately reduced to
just one: the problem of love (or, to be precise, the problem
of the lack of love). Everybody wants to love and be loved.
Right? It's only natural, after all. So whence comes this
obvious shortage of love in the world? ... Now this is what
I call a serious problem. Maybe even the most serious, most
interesting, most vital problem that faces the world today!
If we can't solve this problem of love (ie. the lack thereof),
then we're all cooked; and all the wealth of the rich, and all
the power of the corporations, and all the world's interesting
problems will go down in flames ... along with the rest of us.
.
  - one who serves at the pleasure of the Lord - textman ;>
x

"O my soul.
Look out through my eyes.
Look at the things you made.
All things shine."

-- from 'The Thin Red Line' by James Jones

*

Goto More Minors

---

textman
*