The perennial philosophy postulates a spiritual Source from which all being emanates; all is one. It is the contention that there is a structure to reality and this structure matches man’s interiority; his soul. There is a hierarchy of being; body, mind, soul and spirit.
One might add that if love is connection and all is one, then love corresponds to the structure of ultimate reality. In the realm of the Absolute, there are no distinctions; no individuals, no time and no space – just love.
However, I argue in Globalism, Don Juan and the Perennial Philosophy published at the Sydney Traditionalist Forum that in order for love to be made manifest in the realm of the Relative, it is necessary to love individuals; individual people, individual families and individual countries. Liberals make a philosophical and theological mistake in backing globalism which attempts to bypass the particular. This can be compared to Don Juan. A man who loves women must express his romantic love by loving a particular woman. Don Juan, however, attempts to simply bed as many women as possible, treating them as disposable nothings, which is far from love. The deracinated, rootless cosmopolitan likewise has no attachments to any particular country, community, culture or landscape and therefore loves none of them adequately, if at all.
The Orthosphere 
Pingback: Globalism, Don Juan and the Perennial Philosophy | Reaction Times
The mistake the adherents of the perennial philosophy make is that they believe ultimate reality to be impersonal. From that a whole host of other errors arise including all the ones you draw attention to in your article. But once you understand that God is a personal God then these errors don’t arise. My feeling is that modern people, particularly Liberals, don’t want a personal God because they don’t want to think of themselves as creatures. At root, it springs from the pride of the fallen consciousness.
Thanks for reading, William Wildblood. If the perennial philosophy is committed to an impersonal God then I guess I differ with it. I’m attracted to the notion that God has both impersonal and personal characteristics. I definitely think of human beings as creatures.
As far as I understand the matter it would accept a personal God but place him on a lower ontological level than the impersonal absolute, using such terms as relatively absolute to describe him. It’s a dense metaphysical jungle but I think Christians would say that God’s personhood is not superseded by an impersonal aspect but fully co-existent with it.
I like the sound of the Christian view you describe. Thanks for that.
I quite like this perspective on love, having individual connections like to one person, one family etc. and branching out. Never thought of it like that. Thank you. I’m trying to build up a blog somewhat centred around the perennial philosophy myself, and would love for you to come give it a look.
@David Robertson: Thanks. OK. I”ll have a look.