kondzior
5 Sep 2013
Life / Homosexuality in Polish Culture [231]
Your error is to think that something does not exist, or that it is "reasonable" to suppose it does not exist, unless it can be proven. This impasse leads to paradox once you realize that nothing can be proven. What happens to reality then? It goes without saying then the existence of a something is completely independent on our ability to prove it.
Of course, truth can in fact be perceived directly, by the intellect. When i determine that Beethoven is greater then Britney Spears i'm not relying on scientific inquiry, or discursive proof of any kind. I have no special device that allows me to "capture" the relevant information, no immediate effect can be discerned which would at least point to its "existence", except for the experiences of others. Now, it seems to me that it is precisely those individual perceptions that are dismissed a priori as relative, but only up to a certain point. We do not call the perception of the scientist who observes his theory through experimentation to be subjective and relative, even though technically speaking all perceptions are subjective. Be that as it may, it seems that it is only those subjective impressions that call upon the direct intercession of the intellect that are deemed to be "relative". What this shows is that the modern mentality is prejudiced against qualitative impressions, and not subjectivity in itself. What the modern scientists wants to do is arbitrarily isolate an object from its qualities as experienced by the mind, and then examine the thus denatured object as if its existence was not predicated upon our ability to perceive it in the first place! Thus, when confronted with a musical composition, the scientist believes he can understand the nature of the composition by measuring the vibrations of the particles, or by examining the subatomic structure of the instruments that generate the music. He might even decide to study the structure of the music, but only from a technical point of view. At not point will he ever consider the composition in itself, for what truth can one hope to find in "individual" perceptions?
The difference is that one is a distortion of the other, which means you can elevate normal sexuality to its transcendent dimension, where as homosexuality is forever doomed to be a dispersion of principal unity. This does not give one the right to persecute or mistreat homosexuals, but it ought to be clear why societal institutions, the function of which ought to be in principle purely "sanctifying" (and have always been in all traditional societies) cannot be made to conform to every imperfection of the human form. The problem of homosexuality from a traditionalist point of view is summed up succinctly in this article:
tracksinthewitchwood.blogspot.it/2011/04/homosexuality-and-integral.html
The author seems to understand the non-dualistic stance of tradition, but then becomes confused because he still hasn't grasped the basic premise of the emanationist argument, which is the same argument that explains the existence of evil in general and not just imperfections of the human form like homosexuality:
sophia-perennis.com/evil.pdf
Thus, homosexuality is a manifestation of an universal contrary, which is metaphysically necessary at the level of the relative, but is a distortion of an universal principle.
Proper and improper are subjective, therefore both are natural.
Your error is to think that something does not exist, or that it is "reasonable" to suppose it does not exist, unless it can be proven. This impasse leads to paradox once you realize that nothing can be proven. What happens to reality then? It goes without saying then the existence of a something is completely independent on our ability to prove it.
Of course, truth can in fact be perceived directly, by the intellect. When i determine that Beethoven is greater then Britney Spears i'm not relying on scientific inquiry, or discursive proof of any kind. I have no special device that allows me to "capture" the relevant information, no immediate effect can be discerned which would at least point to its "existence", except for the experiences of others. Now, it seems to me that it is precisely those individual perceptions that are dismissed a priori as relative, but only up to a certain point. We do not call the perception of the scientist who observes his theory through experimentation to be subjective and relative, even though technically speaking all perceptions are subjective. Be that as it may, it seems that it is only those subjective impressions that call upon the direct intercession of the intellect that are deemed to be "relative". What this shows is that the modern mentality is prejudiced against qualitative impressions, and not subjectivity in itself. What the modern scientists wants to do is arbitrarily isolate an object from its qualities as experienced by the mind, and then examine the thus denatured object as if its existence was not predicated upon our ability to perceive it in the first place! Thus, when confronted with a musical composition, the scientist believes he can understand the nature of the composition by measuring the vibrations of the particles, or by examining the subatomic structure of the instruments that generate the music. He might even decide to study the structure of the music, but only from a technical point of view. At not point will he ever consider the composition in itself, for what truth can one hope to find in "individual" perceptions?
Please learn to discern the difference between divine and distorted.
The difference is that one is a distortion of the other, which means you can elevate normal sexuality to its transcendent dimension, where as homosexuality is forever doomed to be a dispersion of principal unity. This does not give one the right to persecute or mistreat homosexuals, but it ought to be clear why societal institutions, the function of which ought to be in principle purely "sanctifying" (and have always been in all traditional societies) cannot be made to conform to every imperfection of the human form. The problem of homosexuality from a traditionalist point of view is summed up succinctly in this article:
tracksinthewitchwood.blogspot.it/2011/04/homosexuality-and-integral.html
A man and woman who unite sexually in a sacred manner are re-creating and re-enacting the divine wholeness, the divine androgyny, and can have a "paradisal vision" of the unity that existed before the breaking apart of things, or before things came to be in "two-ness"
The author seems to understand the non-dualistic stance of tradition, but then becomes confused because he still hasn't grasped the basic premise of the emanationist argument, which is the same argument that explains the existence of evil in general and not just imperfections of the human form like homosexuality:
sophia-perennis.com/evil.pdf
The Absolute by definition includes the Infinite - their common content being Perfection or the
Good - and the Infinite in its turn gives rise, at the degree of that "lesser Absolute" that is Being,
to ontological All-Possibility. Being cannot not include efficient Possibility, because it cannot
prevent the Absolute from including the Infinite. Possibility has so to speak two dimensions, one
"horizontal" and one "descending" or one "qualitativ" and one "quantitative," analogically or
metaphorically speaking.
Good - and the Infinite in its turn gives rise, at the degree of that "lesser Absolute" that is Being,
to ontological All-Possibility. Being cannot not include efficient Possibility, because it cannot
prevent the Absolute from including the Infinite. Possibility has so to speak two dimensions, one
"horizontal" and one "descending" or one "qualitativ" and one "quantitative," analogically or
metaphorically speaking.
Thus, homosexuality is a manifestation of an universal contrary, which is metaphysically necessary at the level of the relative, but is a distortion of an universal principle.