Re: Great Gods vs. Transcendent Principles

From: Alex Ferguson <>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 15:45:50 +0100 (BST)

> Anyways, "transcendent" and "immanent" are two terms of a dichotomy
> (used to conceptualise the cosmos and its spirituality), NOT a hierarchy
> of the Absolute versus the Mundane.

True; but allow me a little abuse of terminology...

> The Absolute Realm is a continuum (in relation to
> these concepts), and the Middle World is a manifestation of Absolute Reality,
only separated therefrom by the
> limitations of our perceptions (and the binary processes of our minds).

The Absolute is not really so much a realm as a point, so far as anyone not in communion with it is concerned. You can't distinguish between _anything_ in it, without being so. (And if you are, we can't ask you any longer.) I'm trying to draw a distinction between this, and the "transcendent" in a slightly broader sense, that of everything beyond the "scope" of ordinary magic or worship.

> > > rather than being part of any Mystical
> > > Ultimate, so you could argue about whether such people were "True
> > > Mystics" as such.
> Therefore, the High Gods actually ARE part of the Mystical Ultimate IMO.

Not really. Let's say one "achieves identity with the high power of death" (or aether, or whoever). That's not really the same as "achieving the Mystical Ultimate" in any "objective" sense, though it _is_ a likely end result of certain "mystical" practices (so if you define "Mystical Ultimate" _sub_jectively...).

Powered by hypermail