And han comes close to seeing it ine the scent of time, about we'v act. Han talks about our daily lives like our experience of time. What's more imminent than that? Time has always been the contrast to eternity. Time has always been the contrast to eternity. And han is thing. We are losing time. Time is being atomized. It doesn't flow, doesn't have duration. It's not pregnant with meaning. It whizzes. That's his turn for it. So we're lose, we're profoundly losing the imminent. It's not just that we've losing the transcendent. We are, but i think i'm trying to connect thes. I hope thit is working. What bruce said. Tt, what bruce said, i think we're profoundly losing the imminent as well. And so while i still think it's right that we need to teach people how to fall in love with being again, i think that's hard for people to do, precisely because the phenomena, logically phenomenological furniture of the presencing of being strikes us as either corrupt or decaying. And that is problem atic for the sinews of our psyches. That's al that'sw i want to put it. Well, all a

start where i was going to start, and see how it weaves in, cause there's a lot of similar themes there. I wanted to make a caution about nite's take relative to our last discussion. And it's some of the themeso i have already touched on, as i think nices pointing to a contaminated form of meaning production, epitomized in a particular style of highest value signifier that locates a normative worthiness in a non being who exists prior to and therefore outside of reality, and is, therefore, by definition, kind of not real, and encourages self thwarting, anti life instincts among its living followers. And so therefore loses the sacredness of the imminent worldand i think that's very important to explore and get a more rich understanding of but i don't think the death of the failed god is adequate to the whole discussion we're trying to have. There's a more radical question than we've been in front of, which is, how we more gracefully and effectively lose even our own best understanding of a viable god, of the imminent holiness of everything? I think there's there's a risk in looking at it through the nician lens, where we don't a we don't get the gains we would get from taking the risk of sacrificing even our own deepest and most true appreciations of the biable divinity of the world. And the set of metaphysical assumptions epitomized in that being.

There's

a kind of sezecian move here. Bruce was saying, brief of god, gije points to a kind of hegelian also. He references, through chesterton, this notion where our feeling about the loss of god, say, is re inscribed dialectically back into god, so that it is itself lost. And we can do that same move with the world.