"THE POSSESSED"

I have been doing a word study from the Jewish Encyclopedia which I will share hopefully later today. But by way of introduction, I would like to consider the pejorative word, "reactionary."

It is supposed to be a law of physics that, "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." Since our acts and our thoughts are necessarily lodged in the physical body, it is small wonder that we cannot escape this law. The sense of this law would lead to the Greek philosophy of, "Prime Mover." I am of course being reactionary here; but my point is that we are all inherently reactionary in almost every aspect of our being. I recall thinking I was quite the original thinker and poet when I was in college. When a fellow student pointed out that I was like thousands of other people at the time, I was of course insulted. However, the thought that, You are nothing special, does not necessarily or logically follow, and of course my critical friend had only one motive for pointing out my lack of originality in my pride, which was of course to exalt his own superior position; largely the result of his high flow of testosterone coming against mine. Nobody won the fight of course but I am grateful for what turns out to be a useful correction.

Therefore, to use the word "reactionary" to describe opponents is highly suspect, as much so as in the example above. Criticism and putdowns are all of course reactionary and would not exist without some perceived offense/action, which is also derivative. But I'm not here suggesting physical reductionism or metaphysical slavery to the past. But as the "default mode," it is virtually ubiquitous; and especially noxious when exhibited by people who are convicted by their own convictions, which is invariable when we are not convicted by the Holy Spirit, that is, the Prime Mover who actually hovered over the waters not so long ago to bring order out of the chaotic primordial soup if you will. I might refer here to Teilhard du Chardin, which was the default mode for Flannery O'Connor later in her life, also studied intensely by me during my latter years in Shimer College. Of course his philosophy is a binary reaction to the Bible and to Darwin both and I would rather concentrate on the Original,at least today, rather than the multitudinous ripple effects of Creation and Imitation.

Philosophy and metaphysics, like religion and politics, are almost totally reactionary, if not to God Himself, then to the idea of God/Prime Mover. There is the distinct possibility that some of us have never had an original thought in our entire existence -- and are content if not happy with that. The real answer to the question however I have to defer to someone with real authority and real knowledge, not myself and my biased opinion. I used to try very hard to be original, but I have retreated to the point where I had to settle with being unique, at least statistically and genetically but I would also say supernaturally in ways beyond human understanding.

What I'm getting at is that the current political and religious debates are not any different than they were in the time of the Greeks and the original Hebrews, that none of them, socially, politically, or spiritually have been solved in the least. Our technology is at best an extension of our five extremely limited senses. We probably have more than five, but there is no way to nail that down because of our physical limitations. And those who proclaim Reason, or Science, as some type of "new" Absolute or new gods or Omega point also have to contend with Dr. Freud's assertion that rationalism and intellectualization are predominantly defense mechanisms, used primarily by those who consider themselves superior to the rest of us. That would include Freud himself of course, whichhe may have discovered during his own psychoanalysis. Again we have loads of reaction, but nothing original at all. This also gets back to the dilemma of Sartre, Camus, and the influence of church history on both of them. Absurdist and existentialist thought is also a reaction to an excessive and unhealthy Rationalism/Scientism of the Enlightenment which proved its vast limitations almost from its inception. UnHoly Terror!!! So we are really most inclusive in our thought when we use the word, "reactionary." And yet we use it to dishonor our opponents when we use a reaction itself to form criticisms that are in no way original to us.

More later. Meantime, meditate on this reaction to Jesus Christ: "This is a hard saying. Who can accept it?"
Why so?