I wrote this reply to Dave (from the blog Big Story Guide) in Word, and it would not paste to the reply in the comments, so I am just puttng it in a post.
(The revision -already – of “Absolution” will be out soon. I changed the name of it to: “The Moment of Dicisive Significance: A Heresy”. I am proofing it as we speak.)
Here’s the reply to Dave’s comment found under my earlier “Exerpt from Absolution” post:
The “Not politically..’ thread, I was never really comfortable with. It was just a kind of pure emotional reaction. Just maybe to let people know Im human, maybe. Lol
I suppose the point of an alternative reading is that, in a manner of speaking, there is no value in it. Perhaps, one could say, it is utterly fact. The use of a bolt, say, depends upon what it is needed for, and while one could say the value of a bolt is to secure pieces fastened by a screw, that this is the ‘true value’ of a bolt, one could just as well say the value of a bolt is to add a hexagonal metallic shine to a canvas.
Or, the value in it is in its capacity to upset.
In fact, just a post or so ago, someone replied as to why he should be interested in what I posted. And I replied, basically, because the expression of the question is the fact of being invested in the real ideological paradigm. Lol. And so his her question reflects how he is caught up in it, expressing a desire not to be, and asking if anyone knows of a solution to get out of it. I said, sorry, you are doomed. Because the reason he would ask me that question is itself a reflection of the condition of reality, and no one can choose to escape reality. So his question is but a necessary condition for the writing of the essay; which for real estimations would then be complete nonsense (for how would I have known he was going to ask the question? Answer: because I already asked it.)
In a way, this is what I am talking about in the book. There really is no value in reading it or understanding it because that would imply that I am writing it to teach someone something. In fact, the Scribd version you are reading is a pre-edit, and the published version I am proofing right now, has a Preface, a Preface to the Introduction, and Introduction and a Note on Orientation, all before we even get to the Prologue. The repetitive pre-body sections defy the common method of what a book is supposed to do. And, I felt that the Scribd version had left out some necessary guides for the rest of it.
I talk about the book as an ‘object oriented view through the Gospels’, and so I felt I should tell people what I mean by that in one of the pre-sections. In it, I describe how some might take it as meaning something similar to having a goal in mind, like I am oriented upon an objective. But this is not what object oriented means. Likewise, I say that I am not concerned with causing or conveying any meaning for the purpose of any sort of transformation to occur, and that I am not trying to prove anything. I am simply laying down the facts of the matter. Like a line of computer code, those who understand it will already understand, and the operation will be verified in their experience.
The value of the book thus is found along a different teleology, a different purpose-goal-value than real estimations. I know; it sounds crazy. But also a reason for the book is to show the ridiculousness of certain philosophical approaches by bringing them to their extended conclusions, extensions that most philosophers will not make because it would defeat their purpose (value) of their making the particular argument. Reality and subjective concerns are the short game; conventional (regular; common) reality is based in a primary human thinking subject, what I call in the book the ‘transcendental agent’ or ‘the agent of transcendence’, but in philosophy is often called the ‘phenomenal subject’ or the ‘centrist subject’. Real subjects are mostly concern with their own Being, and measure everything by it, by the real teleology.
The long game concerns a different teleology.
I wont discuss various Bible verses with you here because I feel I have already put forth the arguents and examples concerning what you are asking in the book. I feel, though, if you read what is there, instead of imposing your sense of what is correct, if you read it for what it is saying instead of constantly referring it to ‘what you know as true’, then you will be able to understand at least what I am suggesting. Then, whether you agree with it or not will have a more thorough basis.
I might suggest, though, that perhaps if you still wish to continue reading it, perhaps you might better see what it is the book is portraying if you place yourself in the position of the Pharisees. The meaning might show itself in relief if you read it with that view in mind.
My point really is that we all know the traditional version of the meaning of the Bible. It is not a secret. I am not arguing that it is false or that people should not believe it. But there is a different meaning that arises from it also.
FYI: If it helps; the summary of the book that I put on the inside fold of the Jacket goes like this:
“The Moment of Decisive Significance” is an object oriented exploration of the Gospels. Counter to the reductionist philosophy of the Enlightenment from at least the past 200 years, I argue two irreconcilable routes upon objects. An object is a universal Being. Likewise, contrary to the Modernist extreme that allows for Post-Modern alienation and its eruption into plurality and multi-vocality, I see that the discourse of the Enlightenment and its colonialist politics have merely drawn a more substantial partition between inclusion and exclusion. The Enlightenment supposed to be able to reconcile these routes; the reconciliation is the route of the Enlightenment. This essay is the description, as well as an example, of an alternate route, similar to what some authors have called the ‘dark enlightenment’.”