Sacred Symbology: Introduction 1b: An Analogy

Sacred Symbology: Introduction 1b: A Premise by Analogy

In this part b of an introduction to the Sacred Symbology of Passing by Nehushtan.

I want to ground our assumptions on a premise by the use of an analogy.

1. One, nothing that is common to the world works. Something is wrong with it. That we might be complacent and smug in thinking that we and the all we know, our usual and reflexive way of thinking, is right. That we might be deceived and headed for a conclusive fall, along with the world itself.

Part of this comes from intuition and part comes from the fact. Do we have reason to be happy in what we know and the certainty with which we know it? Should be really thinking we are complete and in need of nothing? Should we be entirely comfortable? If so, should we think that this condition is realistic given our circumstances being a limited, contingent creatures, without exhaustive knowledge and capable of being deeply deceived and not knowing it?

On the other hand, should we think it is somehow normal that we have these almost supernatural abilities to store, retrieve and handle knowledge, but that we are in a position where we never seem to have full access to the depth of knowledge, in both its empirical quantity and transformative power, that our abilities would seem made for? If we think that there is nothing wrong with us, humanity or the world in which we find ourselves, then there is nothing more I or anyone else can say. We can’t be taught. If we do sense a degree of dissatisfaction with our human condition, then let’s go on to step two.

2. I don’t care which Christian theological tradition you are a part of. Given that there is something wrong with us and the world that we don’t want to be a part of forever, does this not especially apply to our beliefs, most important beliefs about how we would go about avoiding the inheritance of such corruption when we no longer have bodies? Given that there is this deep dissatisfaction, isn’t it reasonable to say that it comes from a natural limit on our abilities for us to know those things which would cause us to escape death? From a natural condition that creates a limited connection with anyone who holds such knowledge that is not subject to death? Is not transcending through the limitations of the world in respect to knowledge the cure for such corruption? For both the interests of the person who receives it, for the purpose of remaining alive and this person who would give it, for the purpose of his love for us? Would not such an exchange mean that our selfish desire to remain alive is not turned to love for such a person, and is His loving act for us not returned to Him for His glory?

I am of course extending my point out to its logical conclusion for theology, but all I am immediately saying in respect to epistemology is that the cure for all this is Transcendence, particularly Transcendent Knowledge. For now, this simply means moving away from the bad, away from the way of the world, and into the good and another world.

3. If we want to escape corruption, its escape is by means of incorruption, which means that it is something that we can’t’ have unless it is supplied from the outside of our corrupt world paradigm in which we are uncomfortable. If it is supplied, it must be supplied by someone outside of that paradigm. If it is someone outside of this paradigm and in the other one, that person must be immune and above and non-contingent of any paradigm other than a Transcendence one. What is supplied can’t be more of the same corruption, but must be that which is quintessentially incorrupt, and not subject to death and decay. The only thing the mind is capable of thinking of which would fit that category is something completely immaterial, perfect, but is also capable of attaching itself inside us to that part of us which is immaterial and immortal, not organically part of this paradigm, yet lacking the genetic inheritance to the incorrupt paradigm necessary for our eternal compatibility with it. This is, of course, Transcendent Knowledge or qualitatively real knowledge of things above our world. Yes, it’s the Holy Spirit’s objective internal presence, but if He is not thought of as a supplier of a specific kind of knowledge first He will then be easily thought of as either a force who does not personally communicate anything transformative or one who communicates without any particular content that identifies Him as Holy, thereby being still product of this paradigm and not the other.

What we want to do is redefine the popular view of Transcendence, with epistemology at its center.

4. The dilapidated and crumbling schoolhouse is a model for this redefinition. It has an:
   1. interior space. The space where we live and with which we must deal.
   2. An exterior space where we, still living, want to go, but also a
   3. wall separating us from it, which is a part of the building.

Of course, we are speaking of a paradigm of handling knowledge when we speak of the building. We are not speaking of a physical building, or physical exterior or a concrete separating barrier between them, but the building is an epistemological structure that sets limits on knowledge or presents it in a way either advantageous or bad.

Don’t’ worry, I am not going to be both a theological proctologist and become the very important yet dirty thing that I examine, and spend a lot of time on the technical and historical details about epistemology.

Epistemology is simply the study of the nature and scope of knowledge, in practical matters concerning itself with how people learn and believe. As for the building analogy, the structure sets the parameters of our knowledge of the outside, first in as much as that structure demands that the knowledge we claim to have of the outside comes by inference not sight since the exterior is a place we can only see mentally and that it rises to the quality demanded not by that structure, but specific bits of knowledge we find inside that came demonstrably from the outside. By the clues, signs, evidence, and traces of that outside world found within the structure, which is also the abstract environs of our spirits, and primarily near to the foundation wall.

That wall represents that part of the epistemological structure, the parameters of our knowledge of God, nearest to the outside and most important of the structure of the epistemological building, that has the greatest power to deceive us and keep us happily inside, or let us, by faith, see and communicate with the outside.

We have certain parameters on the type and degree of knowledge about the exterior within the building determined by the limitations of the world and ourselves. The exterior is knowledge of that world which is not of the type and degree of the knowledge of the interior space but is the original article of which the interior only can contain analogous objects. The things we find in the interior are analogous or instructive of what lies on the outside and are not the things themselves. Symbols of it, if you will, but placed inside by someone or something on the outside.

We will not find rest until we somehow, through knowledge transcendence, are able to connect in our minds, to become conscious of, the outside through the limitations of knowledge placed before us. We must look for knowledge inside the building, but not further into the interior of partitioned rooms, where there are only the imaginations of the occupants that are comfortable with it and have made a home there, with their persoanlly created objects.  We look to the area of the wall separating us from the outside and what we can find there. Perhaps even putting our ear to it and listening for sounds emanating from the world beyond. Or look for things around the perimeter of that wall that are foreign of the interior and suggest something personal left behind by the creator of the building.

This maker of the building is the purpose of everything in this search for Transcendence: to connect with another intelligence out of the building paradigm but also that which is responsible for it. To get the attention of that intelligence, and find a way so that we can pass notes to each other through the wall, form a relationship, and get that His or It’s help for our passage out.

More specifically, we want to find, if it exists, the real founding premises and conclusions for religious knowledge, more specifically Christian religious knowledge. Religious faith and religious feeling around a God of Truth. This is effected through the use of what may be called “symbolic transpondence”.

We want to clearly sketch out this method, contrast it to the historical approach to these matters, find a single quintessential biblical artifact that that best exemplifies this approach as ordained by God for communicating with Him and spend the rest of the Site here in biblical exeges is establishing it as dominant.

If you are already a believer, I think it’s important not to have no misunderstanding about the implications of a successful argument on these matters. What is at stake in a fight over what defines the founding principles of Christian theology, and your responsibility for them. I don’t want you to click away from PBN and feel at ease with throwing it away or putting it on a shelf with all the other books that got you nowhere and left you dead center as you were.

My intention, perhaps in a way that has never been done before, and certainly with presuppositions that have never before been successfully yoked into service for such matters, is to completely overthrow your whole notion of what Christianity is all about.