Falsification of history

who would win in a fight, an blank slate or two stone tablets with ten lines written on them

When a tribesmen undergoes a teenage initiation ritual into manhood and goes back to the women of the village and ritualistically beats his mother, to sever the connection from “women and children”, the world he previously inhabited, into manhood and the male community, maybe that is not actually a "death and rebirth" in its own right, but in the eye of the beholder, because you recognize something vaguely christ-like in it. Something primitively proto-christian, something aiming at Christ but failing. Maybe what you are recognizing is not the thing, but where it aims at.

Maybe “death & rebirth” is not the fundamental monad underlying a universal “religious format”, but the words “death and rebirth” have themselves a certain inescapable meaning to you, because you live in the shadow of Golgotha, and you will never be able to truly comprehend death without that association.

Maybe any attempt to do so much be fully chosen deliberately, not as a Descartian “laboratory” free of any moral association, but must necessarily be a conscious rejection of Christ.

Maybe that has implications.

Maybe you can't reject the tabula rasa theory of mind and embrace biology, history, beauty, truth and vitality without embracing Christianity, and acknowledging it as your legitimate predecessor, and yourself as its heir.

If all attempts at Descartian tabula rasa shit are false, and we are indeed chained to the world and to history, then maybe the reason they are false is that their claim to Monad, objectivity, precedence before all else, is false, by way of it being a deliberate reaction to Christianity - all of which is not formally admitted, and a shameful open secret, which it is considered in bad taste to talk about. I.E. they are not their own separate thing, a theory built ex nihilo, but dependant on that which they reject. I.E. building on top of it while formally rejecting it. I.E. satanism is fake and gay, and powerless to do anything but rage impotently at its creator.

Maybe you can never appreciate foreign traditions etc from this hypothetical nul-point, but only from a Christian perspective, simply as a matter of historical consequence. Maybe regardless of its positivist truth value Christianity is in your blood, and you couldn't reject it even if you fully understood what you were doing?

I.E. the postmodern problem and positivism is all an attempt to build a worldview from nothing, and all of the talk of interpretation and bias and flaws of human perspective etc, is all just a big cope to avoid seizing your inheritance and the duties that come with it.

Maybe history as we understand it is an offshoot of Christianity and Christianity not a kind of flawed history, and to attempt to separate them breaks them fundamentally. Maybe this is why history class is considered “boring” in school.

Maybe you can't just harvest the fruits of Christianity with regards to the intellectual tradition of the west, the discipline of history, etc, and discard the seeds and just expect the fruits will last you forever on their own, and are not needed in the future to run your fruit factory. So you end up having to grow mold that vaguely tastes sweet, colour it red, and call it "strawberry flavour", because you have no seeds to grow more strawberries.

Maybe now you have an industrial production of what we can reasonably call the Anti-strawberry because you rejected your inheritance of strawberry seeds and your duty to sow them for the future.

Maybe you have created a complete inversion of strawberry, and worship the Anti-strawberry out of pride, and not because it is superior to the strawberry.

Maybe the common ground that we famously lack to communicate effectively and discuss and resolve political issues, and to have a cohesive culture, is not an arbitrary thing - maybe the common ground a particular Thing, and not merely any one thing out of many interchangeable things. Maybe it is a physical, objective, historical reality. Maybe it is Real, and specific, and unique.

Maybe the very idea that it is arbitrary in the first place is the problem, and it never was.

Maybe you shouldn't embrace Christianity as an arbitrary solution for the common ground problem, but because it isn’t arbitrary?

Maybe ideology itself is the arbitrary and interchangeable, and this is the real conflict?

Maybe the ultimate question is simply, the Kierkegaardian either/or of embracing the world as meaningful or rejecting it as arbitrary?

Maybe the prodigal son today does not fear that his father will reject him, but rather in pride does not respect his father's authority and judgement, and will not subject to judgement exactly because he deems himself unworthy of forgiveness, and thus pretends his authority supersedes the father?

Look I'm just asking questions.