A binary theologian, a ‘virgin,’ sodomites and phonies, and an elderly pederast walk into a bar, what is the highly unlikely outcome though probable interpretation?
—
Christian is a Philosopher that comes from Belgium. What identifies him the most and above all is simplicity, for everything is better with “vanilla ice cream.” Perhaps, for this reason, his intellectual passion is criticism and irony, in the sense of trying to reveal what “hides behind the mask,” and give birth to the true. For him, ignorance and knowledge never “cross paths.” What he likes the most in his leisure time, is to go for a walk with his wife.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: There’s an old Roman Catholic Christian fundamentalist phrase, “God wills it,” which is said Deus Vult in the original Latin. In 1096, it was the chant for the First Crusade. Many modern Roman Catholics harbour a wish to attain a crusaders mindset in combatting everything un-Christian/non-Christian/not them. They name groups after it, publications under it, and, in this sense, harken back to a time when Roman Catholics waged holy war. They want holy war in a time of global secularization and the rise of women. The extraordinary psychological and ideological insecurity is telling. In fact, studies have been produced, wherein psychopaths are known to want to become CEOs and the like; they’re drawn to these professions. However, lesser known, a highly ranked profession on the list of careers preferred by psychopaths: Clergy. It’s all highly informative. I take this long winding path due to our prior writing on this subject matter of the Roman Catholic Church and an apparent trembling upper lip based on our words from lots of disgruntled readers. You were trained within the Vatican, as a non-Catholic, under the auspices of Opus Dei in an expensive Opus Dei schooling, working on a Ph.D. in metaphysics in Rome, while meeting the hierarchy and, thus, knowing the structural dynamics of the Roman Catholic Church from the inside for an extended amount of time. In short, you can be, by some minds’ qualitative metrics, seen as a sincere threat. Gnoseology deals with metaphysics, epistemology, ontology, logics, empirics, consciousness, and being, as a start. This means, as well, the foundations of the Roman Catholic Christian faith or religion, not simply a new basis on knowing. In some sense, your freemasonic personal history, Opus Dei familial story, Jewish origin, academic training within Rome, and the like, created one of the most potent brews for critical commentary. As an aside, for those reading, if within a Roman Catholic relationship, community, or family happening to feel oppressive or coercive or restrictive to personal boundaries and freedoms, or an individual distant and questioning the theology and their faith, there are options to transition out of the Roman Catholic Church, including various atheist, agnostic, freethinker, and humanist organization, even theist and atheist Satanic organizations with some political activism. You can find atheist resources at https://www.atheistsites.net. Your local freemasonic hall would happily invite a tour or a new membership. Humanists International has a directory of humanist organizations at https://humanists.international/about/our-members/. The Satanic Temple has plenty of local chapters listed at https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/join-us. You can learn a bit about the public knowledge basics of freemasonry at https://beafreemason.org/. There is a revivalist movement around Paganism. You can find those online, whether neo-Pagan, humanistic Paganism, and the like. Secular and humanistic versions of religious organizations exist all over the world. Of course, wonderful feminist organizations are everywhere, too – simply Google “Feminism” or “feminist organizations,” etc. You’ll find your way. So, know, you’re not alone, have options, already have the internal strength within you, and can find a fit based on personal temperament and psychological profile – find what works for you, not what’s forced on you. You can always email me at Scott.D.Jacobsen@Gmail.Com. Back to Gnoseology, how is “supreme wisdom” defined here, as in “The Devil’s Chaplain: God Cannot Create the Nothing”?
Dr. Christian Sorensen: In my opinion, the supreme wisdom is certainly something not explicitly verbalizable or writable through any type of content ; and much less has a sacred, universal and immutable character. The reason for the aforementioned, has to do with a purely logical order, since intelligence always seeks to find answers in confrontation with the unknown. Therefore, if the supreme wisdom was represented by some kind of knowledge, in terms of anything identifiable with the truth, it would necessarily have resolved to some extent the process of intellectual search ; at least with partially cognitively constructed responses, capable of actually appeasing the sensation of existential emptiness. If the above, would have been in such manner, then supreme wisdow, could have summoned towards an intersubjective noetic consensus, and should have redounded in favor of commonwealth; all of which could not be more anachronistic and further from reality. In consequence, I consider that rather it’s related to a hypothetical place, than with an inductive or deductible knowledge, which instead I would denominate : as somewhat found in another place ; in the sense of being vinculated to a hollow space, and that will make possible a synthetic spiral chain of antithetical premises. Furthermore, what is going to be recognized empirical and commonly as this species of wisdom, especially from a fundamentalist religious perspective, as occurs with the Roman Catholic Church, would regard more with a formula to perversely legitimize physical and psychological abuse of conscience, by emphasizing notably the sexual connotation of these ; and through sickly focusing on gender discrimination of them, since what most obsesses the power structure of catholicism, is the repression and subjugation of the screams of silence deployed from their corrupt control networks, which is not at all surprising for their limited intelligence, but that nevertheless stuns for their stupidity without limits; because not even the pontiff emeritus, manages to hide its puerile attempt at seduction with the most helpless victims.
Jacobsen: What are the limits of the experimental-empirical method? What are the limitations of the hypothetico-deductive method? Those defined within the sphere of “individual scientific disciplines.”
Sorensen: I consider that both methods have limitations that are equivalent, since they operate circularly and tend to reverberate tautologically on similar points. Said circularity, would hardly admit a cyclical dynamics, due to the fact that it does not incorporates a tertiary and integral term : capable of representing a higher synthesis around its hypothetical approaches on behalf of the particular terms induced, and of the generalities deduced from the discursive conclusions. Regarding the experimental empirical method, which is a reduction of the deductive hypothetical method, applied in the field of individual sciences, the bias is even greater ; since the hypothetical statements are not going to be able of being empirically refutable. Likewise even if they were, only their character of falsehood and of provisional validity, could be affirmed with certainty.
Jacobsen: How is this individual reason “becoming consciousness along time”?
Sorensen: The individual reason, will become consciousness along time, in what I am going to denominate conscious reason; and as such would be recognized in the inverse process of « zeitgeist », regarding which, there is a greater gradient in favor of unquestionable answers as counterpose to what would be unanswerable questions. In consequence, consciousness is going to installed, at the moment in which a discontinuity or cut occurs at the level of discursive synthesis ; and as an outcome, of what I consider integral or comprehensive antithetical terms. According to the last, opposites would return and convert again in thesis, in order to constitute questions of problematic nature.
Jacobsen: The “macro or universal reason” as a “permanent consciousness.” How is this functioning in relation to the “consciousness along time”? Why the asymptotic revelation in time? Does this mean accessibility for all beings with reason to this unfolding?
Sorensen: The macro or universal reason unfolds, because from my point of view, this is only relative to consciousness along time, but is never vinculated with respect to permanent consciousness ; since in the dimension of the latter, time would only be absolute: that is to say, identical to what is understood as an omnipresent temporality. Its revelation, for his part, seen from a dimension of temporality, is asymptotic , because this reason from its ontological evolution; would be in a permanent process of retractive compression and extensive decompression, without having a determinable origin or end. The being with reason, on the other side, would be completely interdicted during this revelation or unfolding; since the being with reason and the last, would flow as two parallel lines, and only phenomenologically, that is to say hypothetically, would converge at some supposed vanishing point.
Jacobsen: Why is there this logical break between the theological mythologies and the theology? How does this play out in a critical analysis of the creation story of Roman Catholicism with a dying and resurrected God-man, a virginal birth, and a variety of miraculous occurrences within the narratives?
Sorensen: In my opinion theology, is essentially mythological and therefore antithetical to reason, since the means to approach it, always concerns faith, which represents necessarily a supernatural gift from God ; and in consequence, absolutely denies what the will to power could be. Indeed then, it’s a present, that God confers as a theological virtue ; in order to accept unwaveringly, religious beliefs, as dogmas. The logical break is twofold, because in its origin, it is imperatively based on faith and not on reason; and due to the fact, that commutes the myth for ideas with the pretense of being clear and distinct, when actually they are just allegorical and fabulous speculations, devoid of all logical consistency and of any coherent meaning. Actually, not only transgresses logical principles of identity, non-contradiction and exclusive third party ; but also brutally distorts and subverts reality. Through this sort of magic mechanism, this violates all sense and judgement of reality ; even going to the point of considering the person of Jesus as a demigod, and his apostles as saints, when historically deep down, they were just a sectarian group of phonies, who did nothing but to sodomize each other. Or even, to venerate a woman as a virgin, when in reality what she did was to hide in the crowd, so as not to be publicly stoned to death ; for being a fornicating adolescent, who felt overwhelmed by her low passions. And as if the above were not enough, in order to put a finishing touch , the immaculate, gets married with an elderly man, who today would have been accused of pederast ; but to whom the Roman Catholic Church scandalous and aberrantly, venerates to this day, as a holy and chaste male.
Jacobsen: How is the light peering into the Roman Catholic, and even Islamic, theological worlds now?
Sorensen: In the Roman Catholic theological world, par excellence, the light is a sort of halo, that penetrates through the hole of a cavern, in order to project inside it, not only monstrous images and deceptive shadows ; but also to circulate the figures of people tied to each other and queuing, to be dragged and thrown into an abyss unseen, by a hierophant who dupes them with the surrounding darkness.
Jacobsen: What is the idea behind a single universal subject that’s there and an eternal becoming of what will arrive? Are there any forerunners to this idea?
Sorensen: The background of said idea, unlike what some precursors such as Spinoza proposed, is that what exists, and which represents representatively the single universal subject ; has a pulsatile expanding and retracting cyclicity, whatsoever in no case, would be equivalent to a periodic circularity. Therefore the above, could never be understood, as a subjective process of ontological repetition. Quite the contrary, it should be comprehended, as a process of spiral movements, where it would only be possible to discern, the folding points at every turn with respect to which, it could only be affirmed that they are coincident with the moments repeated in each of the turns. The deductible therefore, would be a subjectivity that remains asymptotically unfinished, in the twilight of time and in the becoming of eternity.
Jacobsen: What is the basic formulation of this “trinitarian logic”?
Sorensen: Trinitarian logic, fundamentally expels from the symbolic universe of the subject, understood as individual reason ; the concepts and the idea of antithesis and opposition, respectively, regarding being and not-being. The above means, that both : concepts and idea, would act operationally in unison. In consequence, negation as such, would not exist ; and only the potentially becoming of something, in terms of somewhat that interrupts its being for beginning anything else, might occur. Therefore then, what I will name the tertiary term, will not be more than the generalization of a continuous sum of infinite deductions, in the discursive process of reasoning ; that would enable to admit, a conclusive synthesis as hypothetically valid, but not necessarily as an empirically formal truth.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Dr. Sorensen.
Sorensen: I expect that not only the angel snuggles up: but also the nun.
—
Photo by Vladimir Šoić on Unsplash
