| meaning flows from accountability and consequence. To deny either is to deny all. What "deeper" meaning are you talking about? These are great points and questions, and I'd like to address them directly a bit differently than I first did. Before, I was thinking about meaning abstractly, in a sense, as the story most people have about themselves. I agree that a significant meaning must flow from accountability and consequence. Consequences are, of course, not only important to you in the way that your story about yourself might be. Consequences are also important to the people and environment impacted by them. I didn't think of it at first, but those are actually quite spiritual concepts, as I understand spirituality. I associate them quite closely with, if I can say it simply, god's interest in the greatest good for all concerned. Meanings, as most people express them, detached from accountability and consequence, are closer to dinosaur derrieres than what you were talking about. That was not well-expressed on my part as I went first back to Becker's formulation of causa sui issues. I think Rahner's comment about "the mystery of God remaining eternally a mystery" helps us avoid the dead-end of god being an immutable ego-self. You are right to resist god being made in the image of mass group transference on the part of humans. We know god can't be reduced to an ego-self as we understand it, because a true god must undoubtedly be beyond our conceptions and formulations. We do the best we can, but in the end we must admit we are only offering our analogies with grave weaknesses and fatal flaws. It is small consolation in some ways, but better I believe than pretending god is readily accessible and at our disposal. To consider your question about deeper meaning will take a bit more thought. I could say the obvious, and may end up saying it anyway. But I prefer to sit with it a bit and see if I actually have a conviction or conception of it inside somewhere. |
