People on the Christian nationalist right are firmly grounded in the Christian ontological layer, and yet (from my point of view anyway), it hasn't kept them from going off the rails in the moral layer. And historically, people deeply grounded in the Christian ontological layer have committed grave wrongs against others who have seen things differently from them. So I don't really see that a firm grounding in the Christian ontological layer produces loving and gracious behavior in the moral layer. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. My sisters are at best agnostics, more likely atheists, and they are deeply moral and loving and gracious. It seems to be their empathy, their mirror neurons if you will, that keeps them grounded in goodness. They do struggle with meaning, but then so do I and I am more grounded in the Christian ontological layer than they are. When I say I struggle with meaning, I mean that I often feel at sea as to whether anything I do really matters. Sure, I think being part of God's eternal community is meaningful, but I often don't feel like that community is very evident now or yet. If God were less hidden, perhaps it would be different. But God is very shy and reticent to a fault at this point in cosmic history.
I will be anxiously awaiting your next posts in this series to see if you address issues like this!
Beck’s three-layer model—moral, existential, ontological—is a deeply useful framework for diagnosing the fractures of post-Christian culture. It rightly recognizes that Christian moral vision is rooted not just in commands, but in a symbolic world saturated with meaning, grounded in the reality of God’s self-revelation. The retrieval of narrative and myth—as in the work of Peterson and Pageau—helps explain the current hunger for re-enchantment. Still, the framework assumes a Christian ontology without fully articulating why it alone secures the coherence of the upper layers. That Christ’s resurrection is the ontological ground of love, justice, and meaning is a theological claim—not just a structural necessity. To persuade your sisters, and those outside the fold, that claim requires more than assumption—it invites careful articulation, and engagement with other accounts of the Real.
Your comment brings necessary clarity: belief in the Christian ontological layer doesn’t guarantee moral coherence or existential peace. History offers too many examples—both personal and institutional—where right belief failed to yield right behavior. That’s a theological point as much as a sociological one: ontology is not sanctification. Moral formation requires more than metaphysical assent; it requires love, discipline, and grace. That your sisters embody these qualities suggests that the ontological ground of goodness may be intuited or accessed even outside explicit Christian theism—perhaps through a deep love of the good, which Christians would still recognize as a response to God. And I deeply hear the struggle with meaning. The existential ache doesn’t vanish with ontological commitment. Even those who believe that love is the deepest reality often feel unmoored. God’s hiddenness—what you have called “shy”—is part of the Christian story too, from the psalms to the cross. These layers are not merely stacked; they interact, reinforce, and sometimes expose the fragility of one another. A recovered ontology may help, but it won’t shield us from the human condition. Only love, embodied and sustained, can do that.
Tell your sisters that in their love, compassion, and moral clarity, they may already be responding to God—whether or not they would name it that way. Christian tradition holds that the image of God is not erased in us, only obscured. So when people live in self-giving love or hunger for justice, they may be echoing the divine without yet seeing its source. As Paul said to the Athenians: “The God you worship as unknown, I proclaim to you.” That means that God may be nearer than we assume—even to those who who do not yet recognize his name
Great reply, Dennis. Very deep and gracious. Your assertion that my sisters "may already be responding to God" based on their pursuing justice and good for all reminds me very much of Michael Rea's view as he describes it in his book "The Hiddenness of God." I summarized some of what he wrote in that book in chapter 2 of my book "The Silence of the Lamb: Exploring the Hiddenness of Christ and God." I come at divine hiddenness from many different people's perspectives, including an agnostic's and an atheist's, and really doubling down on process theology and open and relational theology.
Often what passes for a “firm grounding in the ontological layer of Christianity” is really in effect, a nascent form of ‘Bibliolatry’, which unfortunately often facilitates and gives rise to ‘Christian Nationalism’. The chemistry of the two are causally linked and produces a noxious and toxic form of patriotism. Recently this summer, I drove across the country from Indiana to the Oregon coast and back. The number and frequency of massive obnoxious billboards espousing ‘Biblical Patriotic Rhetoric’ along the hi-ways, was often more ubiquitous than the forest of enormous wind turbines that dotted the landscape. Comically, the two almost seemed at war with one another. In a Postmodern sense, Richard’s layers seem easily interchangeable and intertwined where some are conceiving the essence of their being, as inseparable and defined by their political alignment. The hierarchy of their personal ontology has been inverted and set juxtaposed to organic and flexible expressions of humanity (and theology).
So true! I am obviously far less observant than you, or better at tuning out what I don't want to see. I too drove across the country - from east Tennessee to the Grand Tetons and back. I saw tons of wind turbines and admired them greatly, but I don't remember seeing a single billboard, either the kind you describe or any other kinds. I know I had to see plenty of them, but I apparently just tuned them out.
Tim, I don't think Christian Nationalists get beyond the existential layer. If they really got to the ontologic and understood the symbolic more deeply and connected to what self-giving love really means, they wouldn't be espousing the things they do.
I think Dennis is right about your sisters. Pursuing and expressing goodness means that their human souls are oriented toward God. As an Orthodox Christian, this is what I believe - that a proper interpretation of Scripture and understanding of what a human being is mitigates against any kind of "total depravity". When we act immorally we are actually acting **against** our nature - what we *are* as humans. I can't find anywhere in Scripture where God took back his pronouncement of "Good" on all his creation at the beginning. So, because our morality doesn't line up with the existential layer and the ontological layer, there is also something in them that needs healing, too. Richard has discussed this in his "Slavery of Death".
You might enjoy listening to Dr Nathan Jacobs, professor of Philosophy at Vanderbilt. He has a podcast available at the usual outlets. His discussion with Pageau on YouTube, "Embrace Realism - It's All Mystical!" is outstanding.
Let's talk some more! This conversation is truly critical in a society that has no shared morals, and where capitalism seems to have moved into the void and is defining what is meaningful... and who matters. We are in an existential crisis.... having really decided that those in service in our society don't have much worth, and creating a society where if you don't chase material wealth, you may not ever have a home or family. Now with A.I., and with the questioning or hiding of factual science, and even with how easy we can fall into cognitive errors, what is true gets blurry. If we turn to the church...well.. for the most part, they have become nationalists that have literally gone mad. Help!!
Am I mistaken but is not the Gospel fundamentally an ontological work of God as He deals with sin, an ontological problem. It seems to me that the church has rarely addressed the ontological reality of the problem and the solution but instead focused on levels one and two.
I like the three-layer paradigm to diagnose gaps and then point to the potential of deep transformation. But I wonder if the description of the deepest layer of the Real needs some adjustment to be maximally impactful. I mean here a Descriptive Theology that is rooted in something prior to the foundation of the world and the Incarnation (at least as understood in popular Christian terms). Such deeper rooting as: the Personal aspect of the Creator God, the unique role of created human persons in an eschatological frame, the essential relational connection between humans with Life and the Living God by the Spirit (as first testified to in Enoch in Gen 5), and the inevitable disintegration of Death at work within all humans not so connected. I share the concern of other commenters that all ontological layers are not created equal, and that some so-called Christian versions are impoverished by dogma developed through shallow, unSpiritual Bible study.
Yes and no. Peterson uses the stuff of Christianity for his own ends, which is profoundly unChristian.
But postmodernists are much bigger and broader than Postmodern *TM theorists, and one of the hallmarks of postmodernism in this broader sense is the *elevation* of story - both the specific, individual story, and the bigger, mythic story. And these stories are embraced as *true*, in ways both existential and ontological. The difference is that existential and ontological *mean* something different (not lesser) to postmoderns than to moderns.
As I was packing up books from my now adult son's room to send to him today I stopped to read a bit from Harvard psychology professor Tal Ben-Shahar's 2007 bestseller, Happier. The book is a product of what he learned developing his positive psychology class, which become Harvard's most popular class. On the second page of the preface I read that what he "primarily sought for the students was not the...currency of success...but rather...what I've come to call the ultimate currency, the end toward which all other ends lead: happiness."
I was aghast at the SHALLOWNESS of what was purported to be the end of all ends. I will neither try to justify my reaction nor hedge it by stating that a Harvard psychology professor will surely find ways to redeem his chosen currency with something more substantial. But I am primed to see how the moral, existential and ontological levels can ground the pursuit of happiness in something that gives it depth and substance...
What's owed, what's right, what virtue quenches thirst,
A polished room where anxious faces turn.
Beneath, the hall of Story, dim and deep,
Where tapestries of myth and symbol cling.
Here meaning blooms from secrets shadows keep,
The soil where Duty plants its fragile spring.
And lower still, the dark foundation stone,
The silent weight of What Is, Real and True.
The bedrock where the roots have burrowed down,
The unseen source from which the structures grew.
The Duty floor gleams bright, but starts to shake.
The mortar's old; fine cracks begin to show.
The Stories fade, like pictures left to bake,
The soil grows thin where nothing wants to grow.
The architects forgot the dark below,
Assumed the upper rooms could stand alone.
But Duty, starved of Story, starts to slow,
And whispers drift of being overthrown.
A hunger rises, sharp and undefined,
For more than rules that ration out the day.
We crave the tale that lifts us from the blind,
The mythic bread to drive the grey away.
Some point towards the fading Story wall,
They trace the patterns, worn but still profound.
They speak of journeys, answering the call,
Of treasures sought on consecrated ground.
They feed the hunger with the ancient grain,
They show the symbols flickering to life.
The upper room feels solid once again,
A respite from the existential strife.
But see! The treasure's shape begins to drift,
The sacrifice grows vague upon the tongue.
Which enemy deserves this costly gift?
For which community is victory sung?
The Story needs the bedrock, deep and vast,
The weight of Being holding symbol fast.
Without that anchor in the Real below,
The noble journey loses where to go.
It twists towards a battle cry of hate,
A sacrifice for "us", not meant for "them".
The Story, unmoored, seals a darker fate,
A hollow echo in a dying hymn.
For Duty starved of Story turns to dust,
And Story without Being floats unbound.
All three must hold, or everything we trust
Will crumble, leaving emptiness profound.
*************^******************
Explanation:
Stanza 1: Introduces the top layer, the "Moral" or "Duty" floor, representing society's rules, ethics, and obligations. It's presented as a constructed space ("built," "walls," "room") that people look to for guidance.
Stanza 2: Describes the middle layer, the "Existential" or "Story" floor. This is the realm of meaning, symbol, myth, and narrative. It's depicted as darker ("dim and deep") and foundational ("soil") for the moral layer above.
Stanza 3: Introduces the deepest layer, the "Ontological" or foundation. This represents the bedrock of reality, truth, and being itself ("What Is, Real and True"). It's the essential, unseen support for everything above ("unseen source," "roots").
Stanza 4: Shows the Moral layer becoming unstable ("starts to shake," "cracks begin to show"). The Existential layer is weakening ("Stories fade," "soil grows thin"), suggesting a loss of the narratives that give the moral rules context and vitality.
Stanza 5: Attributes the instability to forgetting the deeper layers. The architects (society) assumed the Moral layer could stand alone without the support of Story and Being. This forgetfulness weakens Duty and hints at potential collapse ("overthrown").
Stanza 6: Highlights the human consequence: a deep "hunger" arises. People crave more than just rules ("more than rules that ration out the day"). They need meaning, narrative, and purpose ("mythic bread") to combat a sense of emptiness ("the grey," "the blind").
Stanza 7: Introduces figures (like Peterson/Pageau) who respond to this hunger by pointing back to the fading Existential layer ("Story wall"). They engage with ancient patterns, symbols, and archetypal journeys ("treasures sought," "consecrated ground").
Stanza 8: Describes the effect of these figures: they satisfy the hunger for meaning ("feed the hunger," "mythic bread") by reviving symbols. This temporarily restores a sense of stability and purpose to the Moral layer ("upper room feels solid").
Stanza 9: Reveals a problem. Without being anchored in the deepest Ontological layer ("bedrock"), the symbols and stories become vague and open to interpretation ("treasure's shape begins to drift," "sacrifice grows vague"). Crucial questions about application (who is the enemy? who is the community?) lack clear answers.
Stanza 10: States the core vulnerability explicitly. The Existential layer ("Story") requires the foundation of ultimate reality and truth ("bedrock," "weight of Being") to maintain its integrity and direction. Without this anchor, the meaning-making narratives lose their true course ("loses where to go").
Stanza 11: Illustrates the danger. Unmoored from the Ontological foundation, the noble narrative can distort into division and conflict ("battle cry of hate," "sacrifice for 'us'"). The journey becomes self-serving or adversarial rather than universally loving, reducing the Story to a meaningless echo.
Stanza 12: Delivers the final warning. The poem concludes that all three layers are interconnected and essential. If the Moral layer is cut off from Meaning (Existential), it fails. If Meaning is cut off from ultimate Reality (Ontological), it becomes unstable and potentially harmful. The collapse of this interconnected structure leaves only a void.
Check my other books of poems in Amazon. I have 1 novel, 2 books of poems and expect a third one any moment now. I consider your comment as a compliment. Thanks
Very interesting!
People on the Christian nationalist right are firmly grounded in the Christian ontological layer, and yet (from my point of view anyway), it hasn't kept them from going off the rails in the moral layer. And historically, people deeply grounded in the Christian ontological layer have committed grave wrongs against others who have seen things differently from them. So I don't really see that a firm grounding in the Christian ontological layer produces loving and gracious behavior in the moral layer. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. My sisters are at best agnostics, more likely atheists, and they are deeply moral and loving and gracious. It seems to be their empathy, their mirror neurons if you will, that keeps them grounded in goodness. They do struggle with meaning, but then so do I and I am more grounded in the Christian ontological layer than they are. When I say I struggle with meaning, I mean that I often feel at sea as to whether anything I do really matters. Sure, I think being part of God's eternal community is meaningful, but I often don't feel like that community is very evident now or yet. If God were less hidden, perhaps it would be different. But God is very shy and reticent to a fault at this point in cosmic history.
I will be anxiously awaiting your next posts in this series to see if you address issues like this!
Beck’s three-layer model—moral, existential, ontological—is a deeply useful framework for diagnosing the fractures of post-Christian culture. It rightly recognizes that Christian moral vision is rooted not just in commands, but in a symbolic world saturated with meaning, grounded in the reality of God’s self-revelation. The retrieval of narrative and myth—as in the work of Peterson and Pageau—helps explain the current hunger for re-enchantment. Still, the framework assumes a Christian ontology without fully articulating why it alone secures the coherence of the upper layers. That Christ’s resurrection is the ontological ground of love, justice, and meaning is a theological claim—not just a structural necessity. To persuade your sisters, and those outside the fold, that claim requires more than assumption—it invites careful articulation, and engagement with other accounts of the Real.
Your comment brings necessary clarity: belief in the Christian ontological layer doesn’t guarantee moral coherence or existential peace. History offers too many examples—both personal and institutional—where right belief failed to yield right behavior. That’s a theological point as much as a sociological one: ontology is not sanctification. Moral formation requires more than metaphysical assent; it requires love, discipline, and grace. That your sisters embody these qualities suggests that the ontological ground of goodness may be intuited or accessed even outside explicit Christian theism—perhaps through a deep love of the good, which Christians would still recognize as a response to God. And I deeply hear the struggle with meaning. The existential ache doesn’t vanish with ontological commitment. Even those who believe that love is the deepest reality often feel unmoored. God’s hiddenness—what you have called “shy”—is part of the Christian story too, from the psalms to the cross. These layers are not merely stacked; they interact, reinforce, and sometimes expose the fragility of one another. A recovered ontology may help, but it won’t shield us from the human condition. Only love, embodied and sustained, can do that.
Tell your sisters that in their love, compassion, and moral clarity, they may already be responding to God—whether or not they would name it that way. Christian tradition holds that the image of God is not erased in us, only obscured. So when people live in self-giving love or hunger for justice, they may be echoing the divine without yet seeing its source. As Paul said to the Athenians: “The God you worship as unknown, I proclaim to you.” That means that God may be nearer than we assume—even to those who who do not yet recognize his name
Great reply, Dennis. Very deep and gracious. Your assertion that my sisters "may already be responding to God" based on their pursuing justice and good for all reminds me very much of Michael Rea's view as he describes it in his book "The Hiddenness of God." I summarized some of what he wrote in that book in chapter 2 of my book "The Silence of the Lamb: Exploring the Hiddenness of Christ and God." I come at divine hiddenness from many different people's perspectives, including an agnostic's and an atheist's, and really doubling down on process theology and open and relational theology.
Often what passes for a “firm grounding in the ontological layer of Christianity” is really in effect, a nascent form of ‘Bibliolatry’, which unfortunately often facilitates and gives rise to ‘Christian Nationalism’. The chemistry of the two are causally linked and produces a noxious and toxic form of patriotism. Recently this summer, I drove across the country from Indiana to the Oregon coast and back. The number and frequency of massive obnoxious billboards espousing ‘Biblical Patriotic Rhetoric’ along the hi-ways, was often more ubiquitous than the forest of enormous wind turbines that dotted the landscape. Comically, the two almost seemed at war with one another. In a Postmodern sense, Richard’s layers seem easily interchangeable and intertwined where some are conceiving the essence of their being, as inseparable and defined by their political alignment. The hierarchy of their personal ontology has been inverted and set juxtaposed to organic and flexible expressions of humanity (and theology).
So true! I am obviously far less observant than you, or better at tuning out what I don't want to see. I too drove across the country - from east Tennessee to the Grand Tetons and back. I saw tons of wind turbines and admired them greatly, but I don't remember seeing a single billboard, either the kind you describe or any other kinds. I know I had to see plenty of them, but I apparently just tuned them out.
Tim, I don't think Christian Nationalists get beyond the existential layer. If they really got to the ontologic and understood the symbolic more deeply and connected to what self-giving love really means, they wouldn't be espousing the things they do.
I think Dennis is right about your sisters. Pursuing and expressing goodness means that their human souls are oriented toward God. As an Orthodox Christian, this is what I believe - that a proper interpretation of Scripture and understanding of what a human being is mitigates against any kind of "total depravity". When we act immorally we are actually acting **against** our nature - what we *are* as humans. I can't find anywhere in Scripture where God took back his pronouncement of "Good" on all his creation at the beginning. So, because our morality doesn't line up with the existential layer and the ontological layer, there is also something in them that needs healing, too. Richard has discussed this in his "Slavery of Death".
You might enjoy listening to Dr Nathan Jacobs, professor of Philosophy at Vanderbilt. He has a podcast available at the usual outlets. His discussion with Pageau on YouTube, "Embrace Realism - It's All Mystical!" is outstanding.
Dana
Let's talk some more! This conversation is truly critical in a society that has no shared morals, and where capitalism seems to have moved into the void and is defining what is meaningful... and who matters. We are in an existential crisis.... having really decided that those in service in our society don't have much worth, and creating a society where if you don't chase material wealth, you may not ever have a home or family. Now with A.I., and with the questioning or hiding of factual science, and even with how easy we can fall into cognitive errors, what is true gets blurry. If we turn to the church...well.. for the most part, they have become nationalists that have literally gone mad. Help!!
Am I mistaken but is not the Gospel fundamentally an ontological work of God as He deals with sin, an ontological problem. It seems to me that the church has rarely addressed the ontological reality of the problem and the solution but instead focused on levels one and two.
I like the three-layer paradigm to diagnose gaps and then point to the potential of deep transformation. But I wonder if the description of the deepest layer of the Real needs some adjustment to be maximally impactful. I mean here a Descriptive Theology that is rooted in something prior to the foundation of the world and the Incarnation (at least as understood in popular Christian terms). Such deeper rooting as: the Personal aspect of the Creator God, the unique role of created human persons in an eschatological frame, the essential relational connection between humans with Life and the Living God by the Spirit (as first testified to in Enoch in Gen 5), and the inevitable disintegration of Death at work within all humans not so connected. I share the concern of other commenters that all ontological layers are not created equal, and that some so-called Christian versions are impoverished by dogma developed through shallow, unSpiritual Bible study.
Yes and no. Peterson uses the stuff of Christianity for his own ends, which is profoundly unChristian.
But postmodernists are much bigger and broader than Postmodern *TM theorists, and one of the hallmarks of postmodernism in this broader sense is the *elevation* of story - both the specific, individual story, and the bigger, mythic story. And these stories are embraced as *true*, in ways both existential and ontological. The difference is that existential and ontological *mean* something different (not lesser) to postmoderns than to moderns.
As I was packing up books from my now adult son's room to send to him today I stopped to read a bit from Harvard psychology professor Tal Ben-Shahar's 2007 bestseller, Happier. The book is a product of what he learned developing his positive psychology class, which become Harvard's most popular class. On the second page of the preface I read that what he "primarily sought for the students was not the...currency of success...but rather...what I've come to call the ultimate currency, the end toward which all other ends lead: happiness."
I was aghast at the SHALLOWNESS of what was purported to be the end of all ends. I will neither try to justify my reaction nor hedge it by stating that a Harvard psychology professor will surely find ways to redeem his chosen currency with something more substantial. But I am primed to see how the moral, existential and ontological levels can ground the pursuit of happiness in something that gives it depth and substance...
Title: The Three Floors
Yvon Roustan ©
We built the highest floor of Duty first,
With laws like walls, both beautiful and stern.
What's owed, what's right, what virtue quenches thirst,
A polished room where anxious faces turn.
Beneath, the hall of Story, dim and deep,
Where tapestries of myth and symbol cling.
Here meaning blooms from secrets shadows keep,
The soil where Duty plants its fragile spring.
And lower still, the dark foundation stone,
The silent weight of What Is, Real and True.
The bedrock where the roots have burrowed down,
The unseen source from which the structures grew.
The Duty floor gleams bright, but starts to shake.
The mortar's old; fine cracks begin to show.
The Stories fade, like pictures left to bake,
The soil grows thin where nothing wants to grow.
The architects forgot the dark below,
Assumed the upper rooms could stand alone.
But Duty, starved of Story, starts to slow,
And whispers drift of being overthrown.
A hunger rises, sharp and undefined,
For more than rules that ration out the day.
We crave the tale that lifts us from the blind,
The mythic bread to drive the grey away.
Some point towards the fading Story wall,
They trace the patterns, worn but still profound.
They speak of journeys, answering the call,
Of treasures sought on consecrated ground.
They feed the hunger with the ancient grain,
They show the symbols flickering to life.
The upper room feels solid once again,
A respite from the existential strife.
But see! The treasure's shape begins to drift,
The sacrifice grows vague upon the tongue.
Which enemy deserves this costly gift?
For which community is victory sung?
The Story needs the bedrock, deep and vast,
The weight of Being holding symbol fast.
Without that anchor in the Real below,
The noble journey loses where to go.
It twists towards a battle cry of hate,
A sacrifice for "us", not meant for "them".
The Story, unmoored, seals a darker fate,
A hollow echo in a dying hymn.
For Duty starved of Story turns to dust,
And Story without Being floats unbound.
All three must hold, or everything we trust
Will crumble, leaving emptiness profound.
*************^******************
Explanation:
Stanza 1: Introduces the top layer, the "Moral" or "Duty" floor, representing society's rules, ethics, and obligations. It's presented as a constructed space ("built," "walls," "room") that people look to for guidance.
Stanza 2: Describes the middle layer, the "Existential" or "Story" floor. This is the realm of meaning, symbol, myth, and narrative. It's depicted as darker ("dim and deep") and foundational ("soil") for the moral layer above.
Stanza 3: Introduces the deepest layer, the "Ontological" or foundation. This represents the bedrock of reality, truth, and being itself ("What Is, Real and True"). It's the essential, unseen support for everything above ("unseen source," "roots").
Stanza 4: Shows the Moral layer becoming unstable ("starts to shake," "cracks begin to show"). The Existential layer is weakening ("Stories fade," "soil grows thin"), suggesting a loss of the narratives that give the moral rules context and vitality.
Stanza 5: Attributes the instability to forgetting the deeper layers. The architects (society) assumed the Moral layer could stand alone without the support of Story and Being. This forgetfulness weakens Duty and hints at potential collapse ("overthrown").
Stanza 6: Highlights the human consequence: a deep "hunger" arises. People crave more than just rules ("more than rules that ration out the day"). They need meaning, narrative, and purpose ("mythic bread") to combat a sense of emptiness ("the grey," "the blind").
Stanza 7: Introduces figures (like Peterson/Pageau) who respond to this hunger by pointing back to the fading Existential layer ("Story wall"). They engage with ancient patterns, symbols, and archetypal journeys ("treasures sought," "consecrated ground").
Stanza 8: Describes the effect of these figures: they satisfy the hunger for meaning ("feed the hunger," "mythic bread") by reviving symbols. This temporarily restores a sense of stability and purpose to the Moral layer ("upper room feels solid").
Stanza 9: Reveals a problem. Without being anchored in the deepest Ontological layer ("bedrock"), the symbols and stories become vague and open to interpretation ("treasure's shape begins to drift," "sacrifice grows vague"). Crucial questions about application (who is the enemy? who is the community?) lack clear answers.
Stanza 10: States the core vulnerability explicitly. The Existential layer ("Story") requires the foundation of ultimate reality and truth ("bedrock," "weight of Being") to maintain its integrity and direction. Without this anchor, the meaning-making narratives lose their true course ("loses where to go").
Stanza 11: Illustrates the danger. Unmoored from the Ontological foundation, the noble narrative can distort into division and conflict ("battle cry of hate," "sacrifice for 'us'"). The journey becomes self-serving or adversarial rather than universally loving, reducing the Story to a meaningless echo.
Stanza 12: Delivers the final warning. The poem concludes that all three layers are interconnected and essential. If the Moral layer is cut off from Meaning (Existential), it fails. If Meaning is cut off from ultimate Reality (Ontological), it becomes unstable and potentially harmful. The collapse of this interconnected structure leaves only a void.
did you write this yourself?
Check my other books of poems in Amazon. I have 1 novel, 2 books of poems and expect a third one any moment now. I consider your comment as a compliment. Thanks