Statesboro, GA, USA
Existence is having the possibility of identity.
I'm only saying that inasmuch as I understand Eastern concepts of existence, I don't see how they amount to much more than "What is, IS, no matter what it is", which seems to negate any distinctions whatever. I would love to read your thoughts on this, as my understanding and reading here is somewhat limited.
Perhaps you might try to extend the theology and ethics into the realm of the question, though.
Extending those thing to the question, might involve introducing the concept of faith, in its most basic form. A good Christian has faith in God. But any human being has faith in at least something God has said and done ... in his own "Genesis". The Judeo-Christian view of existence is that which God positively wills or passively allows. Acceptance of the fiat of basic existence doesn't involve too much questioning, other than exploring the ideas of mystery, wonder, aesthetics, and on the negative side a ponderance of sin, pain, and questions of Theodicy. The questioning simply steals its own force when taken back too far. To question that which is the pre-condition of questioning itself, leads to absurdity.
This bit of Theology fits practically with our everyday approach too, since no one really doubts their own basic existence, except in philosophical discussions, though it is unprovable in strictest terms, once the relation between perception and reality is questioned. In that sense, Descartes was on to something ... in pointing out that a question without a questioner is more than questionable.
Do you feel that God and Christ are actually part of man's ground of being, and that they are much of what man actually builds his existence upon: Man is part of the shadow cast by God onto the world in some way, and that part of our lives involve a struggle to become knowledgeable of that soul within ourselves, or am I simply weaving theological fancies here?
It seems to me that that Theological path has been explored by "Neo-Orthodoxy" which was basically an expression of Theology in Existential terms (that is, Existential Philosophy setting the framework in which Theology would be discussed). I don't think it's all wrong, but it isn't orthodox in the sense of retaining God's transcendence. That God is the ground of our being (not part of the ground of our being, for that would make him a product of nature rather than the Maker of Nature) is orthodox, though the term avoids connotation of the personal.
But the struggle you mention is present, in finding God finding us, and thereby getting our truest selves back. "At home", as you said eariler, is a very apt term for it.
Chesterton had some interesting comments about God breaking the cosmos in pieces to give it identity, which might be very interesting for this discussion. Anyway, they express pretty well something of what I am stammering to express. Maybe I'll post them soon.
As always Bob, it's good to talk.