• About
  • Books

memoirandremains

memoirandremains

Tag Archives: Nietzsche

What is a human being, if you extirpate love?

04 Friday Jun 2021

Posted by memoirandremains in Love, Psychology, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

astorge, Extirpate, love, Nietzsche, Psychology, Psychopath

In The Criminal Psychopath, Jurimetrics. 2011 Summer; 51: 355–397, Kiehl and Hoffman provide a thorough summary of the history, diagnosis, and treatment of the psychopath, particularly with a view to amount of crime committed by this relatively small proportion of the population.

It raises the interesting issue of the degree to which the condition is the result of a brain disorder and the interaction with this brain in its environment. There is apparently some evidence that the condition has a genetic component, and perhaps it is a peculiarly vulnerable brain in connection with the “right” environment which leads to the exhibition of utter moral inability. Plainly performing standard experiments by tormenting and mistreating children in rigorously similar manners to see whether the condition can be induced regularly would be evil. Therefore, one needs to consider proxies, such as the condition shows some responsiveness to treatment if the treatment early enough in life.

That there is correspondence between the condition and certain brain function is interesting: But note that the information cited shows the functioning of the brain: their brains function differently. When faced with moral situations the parts of their brain which were involved differed from “you and me.” But what does that exactly prove? The argument that the brain is causing this condition actually contains a hidden premise: that all thought must begin from the brain, not pass through the brain.

For a moment take a different body part: the psychopath and the mother with her child both use their hands, but the use is strikingly different. No one believes that the mother hand causes her sweet caress.

Reddit Turned an MIT AI Into a Psychopath. What Is It Doing to Your Brain? | Inc.com

Now a mother with broken hands could not caress in the same manner. The status of her hand both limits and permits certain behavior, but it does not cause her behavior.

But when it comes to the brain, it is easy to believe that the brain is causative. This is because the functioning of rest of the body relies heavily upon the functioning of the brain. In particular, the use of the brain in thought could imply that the brain is directing the thought.

But need that be so? If one adds as an element of the human being a mind, it is no difficulty to concluded that the minds of two different men would use their brains in a different manner: just as the psychopath murders and the doctor heals with the hand.

If we posit that information flows from the body toward the mind and the mind toward the body, effects can move in both directions. (The precise nature of mind and body is not the issue. Although at present I am very intrigued by Dembski’s Being as Communion (information is the ultimate base, not matter) and Thomas’ hylomorphism which seems to resolve Descartes’ hard cleavage interaction problem.) Thus certain types of brains would have effects without being the univocal cause.

Another element in the article which intrigued me was “His very disconnectedness is his mask. We cannot see him because we assume all humans have the connections that bind us, and because the psychopath’s very lack of those connections allows him to mimic them.” The psychopath, to use the Ancient Greek term, is a-storge: he lacks human connections. The fact of storge among other humans creates the framework which the psychopath exploits: “One explanation is that being exposed to the frailties of normal people in group therapeutic settings gives psychopaths a stock of information that makes them better at manipulating those normal people. As one psychopath put it, ‘These programs are like a finishing school. They teach you how to put the squeeze on people.'”

They bear a resemblance to Nietzsche’s Nobility who know themselves better than all others and are willing to command and exploit. They also exhibit the final end of depravity in Romans 1.

What should think of them. The authors were hopeful there were ways to get the psychopaths to slow down a bit on their crime spree of life. But there really wasn’t any element of hope.

“As one psychotherapist wrote, his psychopaths in treatment ‘have no desire to change, … have no concept of the future, resent all authorities (including therapists), view the patient role as … being in a position of inferiority, and deem therapy a joke and therapists as objects to be conned, threatened, seduced, or used.'”

That reference to the “future” stuck out. It is not merely that they have no concept of future punishment, they have no mechanism for hope. Perhaps they can move by hungers, I want this-then-that, but would be based upon a present hunger. I might plan to fulfill my hunger, but not be different.

Authorities obviously are merely impediments to be beaten or seduced. That is easy enough. But without the future, without hope. That again is a state described in Paul as the depth of lostness, “having no hope without God in the world.”

Now we come to this character: no authority, no hope, no future. Such a man is ultimately depraved.

It is the cognitive capacity of a man without love: because love is built around the future. Love does not exult in oneself, but puts another first. Love becomes a sort of authority for the other’s good becomes paramount.

Kuyper, Common Grace 1.17: The Two Trees

18 Friday Sep 2020

Posted by memoirandremains in Abraham Kuyper, Genesis

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Abraham Kuyper, Common Grace, Health, Nietzsche, Tree of Life

In chapter 17, Kuyper considers the nature of the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. 

He considers at some length the question of the trees being a symbol and the extent to whether they were given to strengthen faith and the nature of faith.

But the point which occupies the majority of this chapter concerns the dichotomy of the two trees: one tree of life, one tree of wisdom. He parallels the two trees to the two aspects of human life, a physical life and an intellectual or spiritual life.

The tree of life – in Paradise – would have stood as a pointer to an eternal life, which we will obtain in the New Earth. But in Paradise, Adam still needed to eat and sustain life. But there is a promise of something more than the maintenance of life.

The tree of knowledge was to provide another sort of good.

He here makes some fascinating observations. The pair in the Garden were expected to desire to eat from the tree to sustain their physical life. But, when it came to knowledge, they were explicitly forbidden to seek such knowledge from natural means. They were to refrain from that tree.

The knowledge which God had for them came first from refraining to take and obeying the command. They were too seek that knowledge not from the tree but from God.

Then, having fallen by their reversal of God’s instruction for the trees, they were faced with the prospect of continual physical life – should they have taken from the Tree of Life. That would have been a catastrophe beyond measure.

Where then does this leave us. Alone in the world, remembering those trees:

Today the extravagant sinner still grasps for all that nature offers him to strengthen his body weakened by sin, so that he can all the more freely indulge his appetite for sin. The urge to do this springs up of its own accord. Sin gives a feeling of weakness, also in relation to the body. And the first thing the sinner does is to seek not the welfare of his wounded soul, but the renewal of strength for his weakened body. And what then was more natural than that fallen man, feeling God’s wrath upon him and threatened in his existence, was in the first place intent on taking from the tree of life and seeking in its fruit the strengthening of his life?

This quotation reminds of how Nietzsche spoke of the “last man,” pathetic and obsessed with health:

The earth is small, and on it hops the last man, who makes everything small. His race is as ineradicable as the flea-beetle; the last man lives longest….

One is clever and knows everything that has ever happened: so there is no end of derision. One still quarrels, but one is soon reconciled—else it might spoil the digestion.

One has one’s little pleasure for the day and one’s little pleasure for the night: but one has a regard for health.

And so the irony of our state: in seeking to be gods, we became small and weak — even the smallest strand of virus, a necklace of amino acids so small as to be incomprehensible may fell us. And we spend are small lives obsessed with health.

We become monsters

12 Friday May 2017

Posted by memoirandremains in Image of God, imago dei, Psychology, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

David P. Goldman, image of God, Nietzsche, Psychology, Self-Invention

One big idea unifies all of Nietzsche’s offspring — the Marxists, the Freudians, the French Existentialists, the critical theorists, the Deconstructionists, the queer theorists — and that is the right to self-invention. That is the cruelest hoax ever perpetrated on human beings, for we are not clever or strong enough to reinvent ourselves. To the extent we succeed, we become monsters.

David P. Goldman on self-invention

Unchaining the Sun

15 Tuesday Dec 2015

Posted by memoirandremains in Culture, Thesis, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Carl Trueman, Gnosticism, Nietzsche, Personality a Construct, Thesis, Unchain

So when it comes to transgender people mewling and puking about how Wolscht is trivializing their cause, let me put this as simply and gently as I can: When you decide that categories of identity are merely psychological and that reality is constituted by language, you consequently have neither the right nor the ability to call a halt to the Promethean process which you have unleashed just because some of the results prove to be distasteful to you and unhelpful to your political cause. Indeed, whining like a bunch of, ahem, six year old girls is not going to help you at this point.

You do not believe me? Then perhaps it is time to call the spirit of Nietzsche’s Madman once more from the grave: You who have so derided any notion of human nature and external authority, do you now have the courage to face the world for whose birth you yourselves were the midwives? You who have “unchained the sun from this earth,” can you now live with the consequences of your own actions—where all things, even chronological age, must surely give way before the will to power? Face the reality you have made, where Mr. Wolscht is the Nietzschean Übermensch—or, to be precise, the Überkleinesmädchen—of the new order.

Read the rest of Trueman’s article.

The Crisis of Word and Truth

17 Thursday Jan 2013

Posted by memoirandremains in Apologetics, Carl F Henry, Genesis, John

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Apologetics, Carl F Henry, Derrida, Genealogy of Morals, Genesis, God Revelation and Authority, John, Literature, Logos, Nietzsche, Of Grmmatology, Poetry, Robert Frost, Stopping by the Woods on a Snowy Evening, truth, Word

The Crisis of Word and Truth

NO FACT OF CONTEMPORARY Western life is more evident than its growing distrust of final truth and its implacable questioning of any sure word.[1]

The first essay in Henry’s six volumes, God Revelation and Authority is “The Crisis of Word and Truth”. He notes the conflict between two worldviews: The God of revelation who speaks versus a meaningless and incoherent “word”. The sound of words has remained and human beings still function and interact, but Word as a primary and stable truth – the Logos of God – that has come under attack.[2]

He wrote this essay without a discussion of deconstruction (my college copy of Spivak’s English version of Of Grammatology is dated 1974, 1976; the first printing of Henry’s essays are dated 1976) or the (for obvious reasons) the Internet. Thus, his discussions of both distance between meaning and words, as well as the ubiquity of media, not only remain true but have actually become more certain.

On one hand we have the Word of God. Christianity posits Spirit and Word as the primary constitutes of existence. First, God is spirit (John 4:24). As the Westminster Shorter Catechism has it:

Q: What is God?

A: God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.

John 1:1 famously explains “The Word was God.” The knowledge of God comes about because God speaks. Nothing would exist apart from the Speaking God: “God said, Let there be light” (Genesis 1:3). The material world of images comes after the Spirit and Word.[3] The world itself exists, because the Word of God upholds it, continually (John 1:3; Colossians 1:15-17; Hebrews 1:3).

On the other hand stands the cacophony of media. Now, Henry does not denigrate or despise the media because it is media. Rather the trouble lies in what it does. It has taken the pre-existing problem of meaning and world (which human beings attempt to escape; Romans 1:18). However, it has “indubitably widened and compounded the crisis of word and truth” (18).

Henry notes the common criticism that the nature of the media is such that it does not respond to matters of significance with significant attention.  He quotes Malcolm Muggeridge, “’the fact that the medium has no message. In the last resort, the media have nothing to say ….’” (18).

The media portray matters for the purpose of gaining attention and thus,

Final truth, changeless good, and the one true and living God are by default largely programed out of the real world. Despite occasional ethical commentary and some special coverage of religious events and moral issues, the media tend more to accommodate than to critique the theological and ethical ambiguities of our time. Their main devotion to what gratifies the viewing and reading audiences plays no small part in eclipsing God and fixed moral principles from contemporary life (18-19).

The barrage of immediate gratification removes the sense of shame and horror that should accompany the sight of such.  Public degradation engenders sports, not shame and sorrow. He again Muggeridge on the matter of “’accustoming us to the gradual deterioration of our values’” (19). While every age has thought itself (at least by some) to be the depths of depravity, it goes without saying that much which would have been unthinkable at the time of the essay would be unremarkable in public media today.[4]

Should I read this morning’s news, I would learn of extraordinary acts of pain and sorrow throughout the world. My view of the matter would be incessant, vivid, personal – and yet, there would be (and is) not easy matter of involvement. Thus, I come to human suffering (and glory) as peeping Tom. I cannot form an appropriate moral response – I cannot really do much. Hucksters will try to take my money. Politicians will use words to gain some immediate attention (and most often do nothing remotely useful).

This process affects human beings spiritually. It is a direct affront to the proclamation of God’s truth. It is an affront to the bare concept of “truth” – which ultimately lies with the primal temptation wherein the Serpent questions, word and meaning and logic:

4 But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” Genesis 3:4–5 (ESV)

While individual actors seek to turn truth word to manipulation and sales-pitch for personal gain (I pity the poor soul who takes political rhetoric at face value, much like one how gives a scorpion a ride[5]), the ultimate object is spiritual: it is an attack upon the very concept of revelation by God in Word – which is the heart of Christianity.

Some may think that little loss. However, the basis of Christian revelation is also the basis of what it is to be human:[6]

To strip words of any necessary or legitimate role as a revelatory resource denies not only the intelligibility of revelation, but also the very rationality of human existence. Nonverbal experience cannot supply today’s generation with fruitful alternatives to the spiritual emptiness of the times; the cavernous silence of a speechless world echoes not a single syllable of hope. To deverbalize an already depersonalized society is all the more to dehumanize it.

How can one engage in either true personal interaction or societal and corporate interaction when words are stripped of stability, and promise of its hold? Robert Frost ends his wonderful poem, “Stopping by the Woods on a Snowy Evening” with marvelous point,

            But I have promises to keep ….

What human interaction can there be without promise? Yes, human beings can live and breathe and die. Yes, by sheer force and violence a political entity can force itself along. But what humanity remains? What truth or beauty, what love or charm remain?

Henry ends with the proposition that it is the duty of the Christian to not succumb to the spirit of this age, but rather proclaim the “divine invasion” of the Logos, the truth of God, the prophetic Word.

Robert Frost reading, “Stopping by the Woods”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfOxdZfo0gs

 


[1] Carl Ferdinand Howard Henry, vol. 1, God, Revelation, and Authority (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1999), 16-17.

[2] Although not discussed in this essay, Nietzsche’s arguments in Genealogy of Morals would certainly have an interesting bearing upon the point.

[3] This does require any Gnostic “fall” into matter. The physical world was created “very good.” The distress of the physical derives from sin (Romans 8:20). The redemption of humanity is not out of the physical world into a purely “spiritual” existence, as if the trouble were physicality. Rather, the redemption is to a resurrection, to a New Heavens and New Earth (1 Cor. 15:42-49; Rev. 21 & 22). Thus, Christianity differs strongly from either a Gnostic spite of the physical or a materialist’s denial of the spiritual.

[4] Some may point to matters of “racism” [I have word in quotations, because as a Christian, I must consider the matter of “races” itself suspect and repellant; there is a single human race; there are various cultural structures which people create, but these have no ground separate grounds of human value and being] as an area of advancement.  However, polite society has in some instances moved around certain discourse markers, the same nonsensical “racial” beliefs still exist. I remember being perplexed as a child that somehow George Washington Carver did not “belong” to me – even though he was a an American (as I was) and Christian (as was I) and a Scientist (which I longed to be), but that his skin color put him into a different and alien category – why is that primary to anything?

[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog

[6] As a Christian, I think it obvious that the correlative lies in the fundamental truth of the Christian claim.

Parallel texts on “envy” in Ecclesiastes 4:4 Part 1

02 Tuesday Oct 2012

Posted by memoirandremains in Biblical Counseling, Ecclesiastes

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Biblical Counseling, Ecclesiastes, Ecclesiastes 4:4, Ecclesiastes 9:6, envy, Genealogy of Morals, green eyed monster, Iago, jealousy, Job 5:2, Ligon Duncan, Nietzsche, Numbers 5, Othello, Proverbs 14:30, Proverbs 27:4, Proverbs 6:34, zeal

The word translated “envy”  in Ecclesiastes 4:4 is primarily used translated as “zeal”  (Isaiah 37:32, “The zeal of the Lord of Hosts ….”) or “jealousy” of God in the OT (e.g., Zech. 8:2, “Thus says the Lord of Hosts, “I am jealous for Zion with great jealousy ….”).  It is used of idols in Ezekiel (Ezekiel 8:5, “this image of jealousy”). It is used of a husband’s jealousy (potentially a jealousy which lacks basis) in Numbers 5.

Only in the wisdom literature is the noun used in a manner which could potentially help understand Ecclesiastes 4:4. In each instance (except perhaps not in Eccl. 9:6), it refers to an emotion which has grown wildly out of control and thus damages the one who exercises the emotion:

Job 5:2

 

כִּֽי־לֶֽ֭אֱוִיל יַהֲרָג־כָּ֑עַשׂ וּ֝פֹתֶ֗ה תָּמִ֥ית קִנְאָֽה׃

 

Surely vexation kills the fool, and jealousy slays the simple.

 

Prov 6:34

 

כִּֽי־קִנְאָ֥ה חֲמַת־גָּ֑בֶר וְלֹֽא־יַ֝חְמ֗וֹל בְּי֣וֹם נָקָֽם׃

 

For jealousy makes a man furious, and he will not spare when he takes revenge.

 

Prov 14:30

 

חַיֵּ֣י בְ֭שָׂרִים לֵ֣ב מַרְפֵּ֑א וּרְקַ֖ב עֲצָמ֣וֹת קִנְאָֽה׃

 

A tranquil heart gives life to the flesh, but envy makes the bones rot.

 

Prov 27:4

 

אַכְזְרִיּ֣וּת חֵ֭מָה וְשֶׁ֣טֶף אָ֑ף וּמִ֥י יַ֝עֲמֹד לִפְנֵ֥י קִנְאָֽה׃

 

Wrath is cruel, anger is overwhelming, but who can stand before jealousy?

 

 

 

 

Eccles 4:4

 

וְרָאִ֨יתִֽי אֲנִ֜י אֶת־כָּל־עָמָ֗ל וְאֵת֙ כָּל־כִּשְׁר֣וֹן הַֽמַּעֲשֶׂ֔ה כִּ֛י הִ֥יא קִנְאַת־אִ֖ישׁ מֵרֵעֵ֑הוּ גַּם־זֶ֥ה הֶ֖בֶל וּרְע֥וּת רֽוּחַ׃

 

Then I saw that all toil and all skill in work come from a man’s envy of his neighbor. This also is vanity and a striving after wind.

 

Eccles 9:6

 

גַּ֣ם אַהֲבָתָ֧ם גַּם־שִׂנְאָתָ֛ם גַּם־קִנְאָתָ֖ם כְּבָ֣ר אָבָ֑דָה וְחֵ֨לֶק אֵין־לָהֶ֥ם עוֹד֙ לְעוֹלָ֔ם בְּכֹ֥ל אֲשֶֽׁר־נַעֲשָׂ֖ה תַּ֥חַת הַשָּֽׁמֶשׁ׃

 

Their love and their hate and their envy have already perished, and forever they have no more share in all that is done under the sun.

 

From these passages, one can conclude the following: First, the emotion itself is destructive of the one who has it: “envy makes the bones rot” (Proverbs 14:30). Experience certainly demonstrates the truth of this proverb.

Second, the emotion takes over the human being, leading to self-destruction and destruction of others.

Shakespeare has his arch-villain Iago famously and ironically warns Othello of jealousy:

IAGO

O, beware, my lord, of jealousy;

It is the green-eyed monster which doth mock

The meat it feeds on; that cuckold lives in bliss

Who, certain of his fate, loves not his wronger;

But, O, what damned minutes tells he o’er

Who dotes, yet doubts, suspects, yet strongly loves!

OTHELLO

O misery!

 

Othello (3.3.189-92). The irony comes in that Othello is first consumed with jealousy over a wrong which did not occur. Secondly, Othello overcome with his false jealousy proves the truth of Proverbs 6:34, “For jealousy makes a man furious, and he will not spare when he takes revenge.”

 

Ecclesiastes 4:4 interestingly posits the emotion which is found most commonly in matters involving sexuality and moves into the space of economics (this will be seen more in the instances of the verb discussed next).[1] 

 

Note that in matters of sexuality, that is the marriage relationship, or in the matters involving God, the thing desired rightfully belongs to the one who seeks it. Thus, while a husband may wrongly believe that his wife has departed from the marriage covenant (Numbers 5 provides protection for the wife in this instance. Dr. Duncan’s sermon on this text is wonderful, http://www.shepherdsconference.org/media/details/?mediaID=335), it is not wrong for a husband or a wife to expect and deserve fidelity out of the other. Indeed, a spouse who does not care whether the other is faithful has an exceedingly low regard for marriage.

 

While the emotion may drive the person to foolish extremes, the factual predicate for the provocation is not necessarily wrong.

However, with envy in particular, the thing desired is something which one does not have a legitimate right  or expectation (as opposed to a marriage, where the expectation is based upon a promise).  Hence the arguments which must be created to justify the envy: The other person must be wrongfully in possession of that property in order for me to be rightful in resentment and envy.

Envy is ultimately a belief in the present injustice of the world. In fact, the exceptionally strong emotion described by the Hebrew word (zeal, envy, jealousy – depending upon the object) all hinge upon a response to perceived injustice (zeal: a thing for God to right; jealousy: desire for exclusive attention from a spouse; envy: it’s not fair you have that).

Thus, envy is a perversion of a desire for justice. It ultimately is a critique of God, for God has not allotted the property and circumstances rightly. This makes sense of the flow of the passage in Ecclesiastes:

Ecclesiastes 3 begins with the observation of the sovereignty and order of God over all events, objective, subjective.  Qoheleth then moves to the matter of unrighteous human judgment and God’s actual judgment:  In verse 17, he notes that God will judge. Then Qoholeth moves to the fact that all people will die. This is not a digression but a further elaboration: Death is the summons which brings all men and women to the place of judgment.

Chapter 4 returns to the matter of human wickedness (which God will judge). First, the oppressors who judge the weak. Second, the weak who envy the oppressors.


[1] Placing envy as a (the?) motivation of human behavior is a matter which Nietzsche considered at length, see, e.g., http://www.nietzschecircle.com/essayArchive1.html  The rant against Jesus and the Jews in the Genealogy of Morals, particularly the first essay, sections 7-9, will give a taste for this point.

Postmodernists and Atheism

23 Friday Mar 2012

Posted by memoirandremains in Church History

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

a Brakel, Atheism, Church History, desire truth, law, Nietzsche, Postmodernism, The Christian's Reasonable Service, UCLA

I first read postmodernism I a graduate seminar at UCLA in 1982. I read books which words mean nothing and authors don’t exist. Not only were the ideas incomprehensible; the writing was turgid: it was like a silted stream during a spring thaw.

In the end, postmodernism is a simple concept: I want something; I will do OT say what I need to do to get it. When you say or do something you are just doing the same thing – or, which is more likely, you are the unwitting stooge of some system which exists to give some powerful group what they want.

There is no truth, no right or wrong, there is only power, oppression and desire. It is a brutish way to live. It is a justification for any type of oppression – but always in the name of freedom.

Á Brakel in The Christian’s Reasonable Service makes this observation about atheists, which interesting sounds like postmodernism:

Athiests acknowledge no law except the law of nature which they propose to be such as to endorse a pleasurable pursuit of their own lusts. They consider it sin when one does something contrary to his own interest and advantage; and they consider it a virtue if one engages himself in promoting the fulfillment of his lust. They consider salvation to consist merely in finding joy in eating, drinking, fornicating, boasting, indulging in pleasure, as well as yielding to one‟s lusts. Lying and deceit are considered honorable means to obtain such bliss, or to enable them to avoid whatever would disturb them in their bliss. They know of no punishment except when damage and shame are experienced, and no damnation except for a restless and melancholy frame of mind. Their motto is Ede, bibe, lude, post mortem nulla voluptas! that is, eat, drink, and play, for after death there is no pleasure. Irrespective of whether a man, horse, or any other creature dies, dead is dead. They ridicule the existence of a soul, angels, and devils and relegate them to the realm of fables. They are at peace with this conviction, having no acquaintance with a stirring and remorseful conscience. In this the wretched Jew, Baruch de Spinoza—born in December, 1633 and deceased in February, 1677 in The Hague—led the way. It is obvious that other atheists have borrowed sentiments from him.
It is thus evident that atheists do exist, and therefore there is no such thing as innate knowledge of a deity in the heart of man. If there were such innate knowledge, one would not be able to root it out as so many have done and currently are doing, or as many are attempting to learn how they may accomplish such a thing.

Categories

Archives

Recent Posts

  • Thomas Traherne, The Soul’s Communion with her Savior, Book 1.1.3
  • Weakness
  • Thomas Traherne, The Soul’s Communion with her Savior Book 1.1.2
  • Thomas Traherne, The Soul’s Communion with her Savior Book 1.1.1
  • Thomas Traherne, The Soul’s Communion With Her Savior.1

Categories

Archives

Recent Posts

  • Thomas Traherne, The Soul’s Communion with her Savior, Book 1.1.3
  • Weakness
  • Thomas Traherne, The Soul’s Communion with her Savior Book 1.1.2
  • Thomas Traherne, The Soul’s Communion with her Savior Book 1.1.1
  • Thomas Traherne, The Soul’s Communion With Her Savior.1

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Follow Following
    • memoirandremains
    • Join 629 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • memoirandremains
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar