![Cultish delusions [1213x1351 - 182KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/qHDfBL.jpg){kind=link}
While all things have their Principle in the Essence of God, there are contingencies that are nonetheless important insofar as they, even in their temporal / horizontal mode, have implications on our vertical relation with God. And so such causes and effects, such reasoning, is still important and must still be considered.
There comes a level, though, at which I’m supposed to simply trust that they’re taken care of. I guess that’s what I am getting at. It isn’t some absolute boundary. It’s an iconographic one.
I only need to include certain details; adding more detracts from the Tradition.
Iconographic, huh?
is the world. God is the Centre. The world is the circle. The line / radius connecting Centre to periphery is the vertical mode of relation we have discussed. Any movement along the circumference will necessarily be orthogonal to the vertical axis. It is this movement along the circumference that constitutes the world we know, the manifested or emanated world. Because we are in this world (though not of it, since we are connected by the radius to God Himself), we know God primarily by this circumference, just like an invisible Centre is known by the circle drawn around it. The existence, being, and even perfection of this Centre are known to beings along the periphery by and through this periphery, primarily.
Incidentally, this is also why 's thinking is fallacious; he asserts all things are motion, or are in motion - this is like saying there exists a circle, but without a Centre.
Yeah, this is a good model. Given spacetime, the Incarnation of Jesus Christ is the central, pivotal Event, and all prior and subsequent events happen relative to This. And That is itself The Ultimate Icon of the relationship between the Created (circumference) and the Uncreated (Most Holy Trinity). Our entire calling as the Image of God is to represent all of this to the World - in whatever capacity He’s given to us.
So given that our entire purpose is as Holy Icons, here’s wherein lies the “problem” that ARM is bumping into that he perceives as “making a bunch of excuses” and that I’ve described as “tacking because to everything.”
An Icon is not a Photograph.
What an Icon has, that a photograph loses, is a certain representational essence - by using simplified abstracted forms to represent a Saint, or a Holy Event, we are arriving at an Essence which is qualitatively different, somehow, than taking a photograph of it. They are images of the same Object; but the Icon has a merit of its own which is lost in a photograph.
(post is archived)