After my fusillade against traditional western occult philosophy (which, I also suspect, could land some decent strikes against certain eastern philosophies as well), I feel like it is necessary for me to outline my own metaphysical constructions. As I said before, foremost the flesh must determine our explorations. I hold by this as the major tenet of my philosophy. I firmly hold that Divinity must be immanent and present at all times, in all things. Indeed, I argue that in order for a concept like Divinity to actually refer to anything, it must refer to something entirely present in the world.
Of course, I recognize the difficulty with such an assertion. If divinity is a thing in the world, where is it? The response, as stated above, that it is in all things, everywhere, at all times, seems, well, easy and useless. What does it honestly mean to refer to Divinity if everything is, by its nature as a thing objectively present, Divine? Well, in a practical sense, I think it means absolutely nothing. Everything, being equally Divine, is stripped of any intensity, and left in the same state as a world evacuated of Divinity. I don’t mean to say that Divinity requires a contrast, indeed, the Divine should be that to which no contrast is possible. What use is there in comparing the Divine against the Profane, if the Profane, in order to exist, by its nature as existent, is infused with Divinity?
Here, then, lies the volta. The subject, that which is not object, but, existent and contained with the objective world holds the key, and thus my fascination with the flesh. The primary action of the subject is to infuse the flesh with being. Being, existing, as a state, requires an a priori subject. What does it mean to be, without a being already present to grasp such being? The objective world, merely existent, is not aware of itself or the relations contained therein. The objective world is purely formal, governed by relations according to the natures of the objects contained. Those objects act only as they must in accordance with their natures and the natures of the other objects pressed upon them. As such, mere objects cannot be in the same sense as subjects. They have no being inherent to them, merely presence in relation to other objects. Objects have no in-themselves and for-themselves, only systems of relations which tie them to other objects in a coherent total unit. All objects, absent of the subject, represent a single unity of relation, devoid of any individual being.Objects possess no interior states. In contrast to the vast interiority of the subject, this is the defining characteristic of the object.
The flesh, mere object, does not, nor cannot experience nor possess Divinity, as experience is, by its nature, embedded within the subject, an interior state. The subject infuses and transforms the flesh from mere object to total subject. All of the flesh, the body, through the action of the subject is transformed from mere thing to total experience and invested with interiority, with states which are no longer merely objective and formal. The rebuttal that all interior states are the result of mere objective relations is quite obviously facile, as formal relations fail to describe the experience of those objective relations by the subject. The subject, then, is, by its nature as such, transcendent.
The primary action of the subject transforms itself from mere flesh to total being. The flesh represents the lens through which the world is experienced, and as such, the vehicle of the subject, though the subject, save under duress, does not recognize the flesh as mere vehicle, but as a totality of being. Indeed, it is this totality of being which, I believe, describes the normative state of the subject. It is within this total being, this primary act of existence as performed by the subject, that Divinity can be grasped. Divinity is an experiential thing, embedded within the nature of the subject as possessing interior states. Divinity, then, is an interior state (that which is Divine may describe a being, but Divinity is the attribute possessed by the Divine as an interior state, and may be grasped by other subjects as relating to the Divine). The effulgence of Divinity is directly linked to the effulgence of the subject. Where the subject presses itself against the objective world, and doing so, renders a transformation upon it, Divinity is present and recognizable. Indeed, the resultant implication seems to be that Divinity is linked purely with being in itself, as reliant upon the a priori subject.
I recognize a certain deistic bent with this argument, and I admit that I am fairly uncomfortable with that. I flex against the Divine as mere presence, and yet I wonder if the distinction of the Divine as pure being is strong enough. The Divine is not an object, but a form of being, resting upon the nature of the subject as being. I feel, as well, like there is much more to be done to in order to resist dangerous elisions between the nature of subject and the nature of the Divine (yet are such elisions dangerous? Are they elisions at all?). There is something uneasy, to me, in the implication that all subjects are, by their natures, Divine. I happily ascribe transcendence to the subject as its most basic and primary act, yet I shudder at following through with Divinity.
Clearly, I have a great deal of work left to do, as this represents a relatively short period of personal reflection when weighed against the mass of merely my own life, let alone the grand sweep of history, and yet I feel like it is a more honest starting point than most which I have encountered within my readings.