From God and the Between:

Undoubtedly, we are always tempted to define the ultimate relative to our being in the middle: we reconfigure the primal ethos in terms of ourselves.  If we see the middle as worthless, it is hard not to think of the origin/ultimate as also worthless.  You interject, benignly, “the middle as valueless is there, indifferently there, neutral: neither good nor evil.”  I hear you.  But can we maintain this stance, finally?  For in the middle we twist in the tension of plurality, racked by strains between us and ourselves, between humans, between humans and other beings of nature, between beings in nature other than us.  “Nature red in tooth and claw” is hard to blink away, despite all quarantines of studied neutralism.  In truth, no immunization from value is effective finally.  Any agnostic indifferentism seems only a way station along a slippery path from the worthless middle to the worthless origin.  More, any suggestion that the origin might be good becomes incredible to those gliding along the frictionless pathway of ontological neutralization.  And it not that we fail, that we cannot live the truth of a “neutral” world.  That is true but not the main point.  We cannot live it, because to live always shows the truth of the value of life.  Valueless neutrality is impossible because there lives no such thing.  Its truth is death.  And perhaps not even death, since there is nothing neutral about death.