++> Frank Masingill wrote to D. Martornana
   ++> on "Chardin"
 
 FM> Bear in mind that at the close of _The Phenomenon of Man_ he
 FM> entertains his critics who take him to task for leaving out the
 FM> immense problem of evil.  He says that the phenomenon he has under
 FM> the microscope [I'm paraphrasing now] or more descriptively, macroscope
 FM> "resembles nothing so much as it resembles the way of the Cross."
 FM> This is where I see the kinship with Eckhardt who could speak
 FM> the language of those who are unable to function spiritually in any
 FM> language that is not either "holy" or "scientific."
 
 FM> But even the specific "content" of these thinkers is not what is
 FM> primarily attractive for me.  It is, to place it in somewhat religious-
 FM> sounding language their respect for the mystery of a reality so keenly
 FM> present to the consciousness they find within themselves - or, in other
 FM> words a certain "sovereignty of God" if one will only accept that
 FM> symbol as representative of that same mysterious reality that does not
 FM> deign to share with mortality all of what is immortal or "lasting."
 FM> Although having no Roman Catholic background whatsoever I have been
 FM> thrown into contact on occasion with some Jesuit scholars in the various
 FM> disciplines and was amazed to find the absence of the need to
 FM> compartmentalize as between the sacred and the secular or to be
 FM> eternally doctrinalizing and thus able to give full and complete
 FM> attention to the subject matter of their science whether it be the
 FM> history of Latin America or the field of astronomy.  Some of them,
 FM> like Eckhardt, undoubtedly have no hesitation (unlike me because
 FM> I'm unable to reach their stature) in engaging in the expected
 FM> ritual while not really according it have any value except for
 FM> the edification of the peasant whose consciousness cannot reach
 FM> beyond the literal.  Whoever has pulled me out of THAT literalist
 FM> quagmire I count among my mentors and among these are some who
 FM> were giants for me.
 
     You've said a lot that I could only think on. I'm sure the
     primary issues of knowledge and search language, focus, and
     where we stance comfortable to digest being, will be touched
     upon in future postings. I find it a major challenge to word
     my mind into sharable packets, often dependent on spontaneous
     coinage of expressions that perhaps sound better than their
     effectiveness.
 
 
 DM>> His moving bridge construct between science and God was beautiful,
 DM>> even elegant ...but fragile. That he would attempt such a bridge,
 DM>> WITHOUT demanding faith, is what caught him in the corner of my
 DM>> eye (and the raised brow of his church)!
 
 FM> Here again is that barrier of such an immense gap between our
 FM> understanding of the meaning of "faith."
 
     Yes! some day in some way we might explore this immense "FAITH"
     gap-   It may be just simple definition but some itch in my curiosity
     senses it .....more.
 
 FM> I cannot say, David, that I "catch such people in the corner
 FM> of my eye" because their humble embracing of the scientific
 FM> spirit inside of the mystery that is almost a synonym for ultimate
 FM> reality speaks to a rare kind of honesty and "willingness to look"
 FM> that races my blood, still.  Such people do not grow on every tree.
 FM> I'm thinking not only of Chardin but also of Buber, Berdiaev, Law,
 FM> St.  John of the Cross, the Buddha and others.
 
   Tried St. John of the cross (beyond my comprehension), liked Buber,
   Merton, & Buddha (though more than I could digest across different
   versions) ......... not yet familar with Law or Berdiaev).
 
     As also expressed to Day Brown, I am perhaps burdened more by
     "distrust" .....not for the mind trying to be clever so much as
     the one being humble. My blood can also race BUT with humor and
     caution. I am more than willing to pick up an idea or insight but
     rarely to take away any more than what fits snug into my own pages
     of knowing. As said, Chardin was one RARE exception. Whereas you
     sample forth the allusion of some stars not needing to compartment,
     my take on hearing or reading the same style of folks, sees them
     heavily such into distinct foci (but that may be the result of long
     nurtured mind-habit preconceptions). Not as even-up in academic
     foundations and life experience styles, distances between our thinking
     may well reflect almost alien-ish mind mechanisms of "concludance"-
     and only a "tolerance to learn" even permitting our careful exchanges.
     In a real world (non cyber) we would likely not be intellectually
     introduced to any sharing of minds...........
 
     ...the mind is a terrible thing to trust !
     ...especially when it feels good - - - !!! ... o-o Dave
                                                     ^
--- Maximus/2 3.01
---------------