Sacral dimension

The schizoid ambient mentality, anxious to expel the christian ‘sacred’, would like to relegate it into a sacristy. With an appropriate label confining it in its disconcerting exception! So every thing could be free of worries and return to its profane normality.

With due respect to Auguste Comte, the ‘positivist’ state is not less ‘theological’ than the preceding ones. It is even more theological than ever. Just otherwise! The ‘theological’ state was marking differences, the ‘positive’ one removes them, since, from now on, man is made a god in the place of God. From now on, ‘human’ science become a ‘divine’ one. This subtle reciprocity is unceasingly occulted. It plays on a conflicting bottom of non declared competition. It is an obscure dramatic game of something like a ‘theomachia’. In the meantime, anthropos does not cease putting the affairs in order with theos.

The human reality is only through the sacral difference. Consequently is man creator of sacred dimensions. The sacral dimension is very closely inherent in humanity; so where can it find its expression when a particular ‘culture' or an `era' wants to ignore or to deny it? Unless it reasserts itself in the realm of the ‘Other’ of  the authentic faith, the sacred dimension is invested or reinvested in its thousand and one avatars: reason, nature, life, history, party, science, evolution, revolution… Isn’t it true that a god is expelled only to give birth to another one? What remains in art, in philosophy, in life and in death without their religious dimension?

Denied theology does not replace theology. Just the opposite is true. The most extreme efforts of modernity cannot manage to occult the irreducible dramatic human condition. Here the sacral drama is played it in a gaping manner. There is something like a negative ‘negative theology’. Gaping, indeed, can never be circumvented. It can just be hidden behind this other form of theology which is called anthropology. It even happens that this one is doubly theological, first, positively, by singing the glory of man who wants to be god, and negatively, by stuttering in hollow the transcendence and the figure of the inexpressible mystery.

In its cleanness the sacral reality is an unusable pure ‘that’, a pure form of the sacral difference as it affects any human spirit. This sacral structure of the spirit derives quasi-naturally towards a ‘what’ in materialistic expressions in the direction of fetishism and idolatry.

The sacral dimension before ‘what-it-is’, in the purity of its ‘that’, is at the same time the support and the space of reception of the authentic ‘faith’. The faith, indeed, is in the order of the achievement of the personal and interpersonal reality, that of the ‘absolute concrete’, that of the person as sacred.

For what, for which, is man ready to die? Designations can vary. But in fact there is always a deep reality above all the others and which exceeds us. And this reality is sacral of nature.

goto