[. . .]The modern philosophers — one and all, unless Schelling be an exception — recognize but one mode of being, the being of an individual thing or fact, the being which consists in the object’s crowding out a place for itself in the universe, so to speak, and reacting by brute force of fact, against all other things. I call that existence.Aristotle, on the other hand, whose system, like all the greatest systems, was evolutionary, recognized besides an embryonic kind of being, like the being of a tree in its seed, or like the being of a future contingent event, depending on how a man shall decide to act. In a few passages Aristotle seems to have a dim aperçue of a third mode of being in the entelechy. The embryonic being for Aristotle was the being he called matter, which is alike in all things, and which in the course of its development took on form. Form is an element having a different mode of being. The whole philosophy of the scholastic doctors is an attempt to mould this doctrine of Aristotle into harmony with christian truth. This harmony the different doctors attempted to bring about in different ways. But all the realists agree in reversing the order of Aristotle’s evolution by making the form come first, and the individuation of that form come later. Thus, they too recognized two modes of being; but they were not the two modes of being of Aristotle.My view is that there are three modes of being. I hold that we can directly observe them in elements of whatever is at any time before the mind in any way. They are the being of positive qualitative possibility, the being of actual fact, and the being of law that will govern facts in the future. CP 1.21-23Cap tip Gary R.
For more than a century, what passes for religion has been most visibly the moralistic fundamentalisms of the world. These are are shards of lost creedal faiths. Creedal faith fell to the realities of evolutionary science and thought. There will never be a recovery of these though there may be exemplary ways of life we can derive from past prophets and seers.
The need for ritual and celebration remains constant however. Which helps explain why kids plaster Tiger all over their walls. Or did. And why we are so awash in celebrity mania.
It is all part of the discourse aimed at helping us through the loss of transcendence.
I find the nostrums advocated here somewhat ostrich-like and superficial. I suspect that in time a penitent Tiger will do more to alter people’s notion of maturity than moralistic outbursts advocating a withdrawal from reality.