The literary aspects of this debate concern whether or not a piece of writing should strive to reach divinity (defined in the most secular way possible!) by stretching for transcendence as it approaches the end. Should a story try to have universal themes and symbols? Should a writer consciously attempt to provide worldly insight in their stories?
Maybe not. An immanent or present view would say that by simply writing down the facts of the story and presenting them in a straight forward way, a writer is able to create the divine because the divine is present in all things. Furthermore, it may actually be less insightful to try to make the writing mean more than it does, because any attempt to explain the divine must automatically diminish it.
I've been thinking a lot about this topic lately, since my good friend and poet, Craig Cotter, keeps telling me to stop trying to have that big bang at the end of my stories. He tells me to simply let the story go where it is meant to go without my asserting additional (false) meaning to it.
I experiment with this idea, and I do think it is an interesting one. But it's hard to let go of the idea of having the grand finale.