I've contemplated this with respect to being a true warrior.
If it is true that the way of the warrior lies in the resolute acceptance of death (Musashi) then the way of the warrior must primarily exist on a supermaterial plane. We have no flame because too few of us are true believers, and therefore true warriors.
It's not the whole answer, but I think aesthetics are at least part of this. We can't design churches like community centers and then be surprised when they're treated as such.
I would argue that the first step towards establishing a sense of the sacred is training the body. It's hard to feel any sort of connection to the divine if we're weak, chronically sleep deprived, and drugged on sugar and seed oils.
Yes, respect for our bodies is central. You might enjoy my article 'A Liturgy of Death':
"Mishima determined to break out of the prison of his mind through a radical project that focused totally on his physicality. He endeavored to incarnate his spirit through a furious engagement with sun and steel - breaking and reforming his body on an altar of weights in the blazing light of day."
This is exactly it. Going back to your original point, the thing that our "movement" is missing is the discipline and will power to execute. Barbell training is the most practical and powerful way to build these skills.
In order to regain that divine spark, first our churches must be emptied of all distractions. That means that the modern world should be put away. That starts with the modern church band, the drum's, the guitar and the microphones. Next we should reintroduce the choir and the organ and piano . Next, we should make hallow, our altar again, then consecrate our sanctuary.
After that, we should rededicate our congregations, getting rid of the unholy (the rainbow brigade that has infiltrated our church) ones, and then offer the sacrifices of time, thought, and tithes.
Only once the church has been cleansed, can we reach out to our communities again.
What will the vitalist right’s omen be? Dasha babbling incoherently while channeling her Delphic spirit on Red Scare saying “I totally support the slogan ‘billions must die’”
What will their be their sacred space? Club Tropical excellent.
What will their be their ontology? No being behind doing.
What will be their fruits? Total extinction if the Kali Yuga.
Everything i have learned researching actual history (not the drivel shoved down our gullets in public school) leads me to believe that almost all revolutions have been funded by nefarious sources. This is perhaps why a revolution that would actually improve life for "the people" fails. Lack of the massive funding for such a revolution is the problem, and coincidentally, one of our virtues. So, there is that.
The simmering conflict between Nietzsche and Christ among the DR obviously needs to be resolved (either through conversion or schism) before any constructive activity can begin on a large scale. Small scale work among like minded groups is a good start, but the metaphysical contradictions will stop any grand plans for right wing ascendancy.
Fortunately, the winner is already decided: "Who is so great a god as our God?"
Further, as Fr. Seraphim Rose said, the Nietzschean cry that God is dead is none other than the deepest desire for true communion with Him. Anyone who desires the Truth will have no choice but to join themselves to Christ, or persist in fatal error.
Forgive my somewhat harsh assessment of your views, but I consider this entire comment to be self-conceited poppycock.
Self-conceited in that it demonstrates the cocksure smugness commonly associated with ideological fanaticism; and poppycock in that it is complete nonsense.
As a point of focus to begin, in Orthodox thinking, as per St Paul, we also are temples God. This is where the body is trained, through spiritual discipline, through checking the plank in our own eye, the Eucharist, worship practices, Scripture and other study, prayer, etc
An interesting question, is the sacred realizable in space? In other words, is it truly the space which sets the stage for stepping into the sacred?
The assumption is that sacred space is formed from an act of intention. I have my doubts about that.
In order to comprehend what one might consider the sacred, it is necessary to acquire an experience that introduces one to the sacred. In order to evaluate such immersion, one must find, or develop the language capable of conveying such.
The abrahamics, as primarily temporal, political institutions borrowed their language from their predecessors without ever developing mastery of that borrowed legacy, thus their dilemma today.
Better than assuming that somehow the abrahamics, which includes Christianity, once had a relationship with the sacred, and that it must be returned to, would be an honest recount of the origins, assuming of course that anyone is actually capable of such. From a point of such honesty, perhaps it might be possible for the abrahamics to determine whether or not they ever valued congress with the sacred, and how to proceed from there.
One must not confuse the trappings with the substance, nor can one imitate a meeting with the sacred via special effects.
Some important questions: Is it truly possible to institutionalize relationship with the sacred?
Is any meeting with the sacred truly up to you?
Can anyone truly claim to define this experience to the extent of codifying it for others?
1) Constantine is the creator of the Christian church. He admitted to fusing existing elements into his new church, in order to increase it's appeal.
2) Scholars, searching for authentic Christian elements, have found none.
What were the known religious and mystical influences at this time?
1) Gnosticism
2) Hellenism
3) Paganism
Upon searching the Christian record, one discovers a hidden truth, that the mysticism of the church, for the first 1,000+ years is Platonism, of which Gnosticism can be understood as a form.
This system was rejected by Aquinas, but never replaced by anything other than the doctrine of faith, which is not a mysticism.
Thus my point that Christianity does not comprehend the sacred. In order to commune with the sacred, one must have developed a language. This is the purview of a vibrant mysticism.
So, those antecedents who had the language and were borrowed from were those three listed above.
I've contemplated this with respect to being a true warrior.
If it is true that the way of the warrior lies in the resolute acceptance of death (Musashi) then the way of the warrior must primarily exist on a supermaterial plane. We have no flame because too few of us are true believers, and therefore true warriors.
It's not the whole answer, but I think aesthetics are at least part of this. We can't design churches like community centers and then be surprised when they're treated as such.
Couldn't agree more.
We all know that Orthodox and gothic Catholic churches were the best
I would argue that the first step towards establishing a sense of the sacred is training the body. It's hard to feel any sort of connection to the divine if we're weak, chronically sleep deprived, and drugged on sugar and seed oils.
Yes, respect for our bodies is central. You might enjoy my article 'A Liturgy of Death':
"Mishima determined to break out of the prison of his mind through a radical project that focused totally on his physicality. He endeavored to incarnate his spirit through a furious engagement with sun and steel - breaking and reforming his body on an altar of weights in the blazing light of day."
https://becomingnoble.substack.com/p/a-liturgy-of-death
This is exactly it. Going back to your original point, the thing that our "movement" is missing is the discipline and will power to execute. Barbell training is the most practical and powerful way to build these skills.
In order to regain that divine spark, first our churches must be emptied of all distractions. That means that the modern world should be put away. That starts with the modern church band, the drum's, the guitar and the microphones. Next we should reintroduce the choir and the organ and piano . Next, we should make hallow, our altar again, then consecrate our sanctuary.
After that, we should rededicate our congregations, getting rid of the unholy (the rainbow brigade that has infiltrated our church) ones, and then offer the sacrifices of time, thought, and tithes.
Only once the church has been cleansed, can we reach out to our communities again.
Absolutely agree.
What will the vitalist right’s omen be? Dasha babbling incoherently while channeling her Delphic spirit on Red Scare saying “I totally support the slogan ‘billions must die’”
What will their be their sacred space? Club Tropical excellent.
What will their be their ontology? No being behind doing.
What will be their fruits? Total extinction if the Kali Yuga.
Yes, very good
Off the top of my head:
Everything i have learned researching actual history (not the drivel shoved down our gullets in public school) leads me to believe that almost all revolutions have been funded by nefarious sources. This is perhaps why a revolution that would actually improve life for "the people" fails. Lack of the massive funding for such a revolution is the problem, and coincidentally, one of our virtues. So, there is that.
The simmering conflict between Nietzsche and Christ among the DR obviously needs to be resolved (either through conversion or schism) before any constructive activity can begin on a large scale. Small scale work among like minded groups is a good start, but the metaphysical contradictions will stop any grand plans for right wing ascendancy.
Fortunately, the winner is already decided: "Who is so great a god as our God?"
Further, as Fr. Seraphim Rose said, the Nietzschean cry that God is dead is none other than the deepest desire for true communion with Him. Anyone who desires the Truth will have no choice but to join themselves to Christ, or persist in fatal error.
Forgive my somewhat harsh assessment of your views, but I consider this entire comment to be self-conceited poppycock.
Self-conceited in that it demonstrates the cocksure smugness commonly associated with ideological fanaticism; and poppycock in that it is complete nonsense.
As a point of focus to begin, in Orthodox thinking, as per St Paul, we also are temples God. This is where the body is trained, through spiritual discipline, through checking the plank in our own eye, the Eucharist, worship practices, Scripture and other study, prayer, etc
https://abwoon.org/the-aramaic-jesus/
An interesting question, is the sacred realizable in space? In other words, is it truly the space which sets the stage for stepping into the sacred?
The assumption is that sacred space is formed from an act of intention. I have my doubts about that.
In order to comprehend what one might consider the sacred, it is necessary to acquire an experience that introduces one to the sacred. In order to evaluate such immersion, one must find, or develop the language capable of conveying such.
The abrahamics, as primarily temporal, political institutions borrowed their language from their predecessors without ever developing mastery of that borrowed legacy, thus their dilemma today.
Better than assuming that somehow the abrahamics, which includes Christianity, once had a relationship with the sacred, and that it must be returned to, would be an honest recount of the origins, assuming of course that anyone is actually capable of such. From a point of such honesty, perhaps it might be possible for the abrahamics to determine whether or not they ever valued congress with the sacred, and how to proceed from there.
One must not confuse the trappings with the substance, nor can one imitate a meeting with the sacred via special effects.
Some important questions: Is it truly possible to institutionalize relationship with the sacred?
Is any meeting with the sacred truly up to you?
Can anyone truly claim to define this experience to the extent of codifying it for others?
In your account, who was the 'sacred' legacy borrowed from?
Consider:
1) Constantine is the creator of the Christian church. He admitted to fusing existing elements into his new church, in order to increase it's appeal.
2) Scholars, searching for authentic Christian elements, have found none.
What were the known religious and mystical influences at this time?
1) Gnosticism
2) Hellenism
3) Paganism
Upon searching the Christian record, one discovers a hidden truth, that the mysticism of the church, for the first 1,000+ years is Platonism, of which Gnosticism can be understood as a form.
This system was rejected by Aquinas, but never replaced by anything other than the doctrine of faith, which is not a mysticism.
Thus my point that Christianity does not comprehend the sacred. In order to commune with the sacred, one must have developed a language. This is the purview of a vibrant mysticism.
So, those antecedents who had the language and were borrowed from were those three listed above.
The answer is obvious lol. What an odd predicament to be in? God truly has a fascinating sense of humor.