People might mistake me for being systematic but, on second glance, they would realize that that is only because I am often speaking meta-systematically. I refer to systems but don't feel like I wholly inhabit them. My whole philosophical schtick, really, has been that methods precede systems and that most of us begin much more so in media res. This is to recognize that, so very often, we will progress nonlinearly, nonsequentially, nonhierarchically, informally, nonsystematically and asymmetrically, even though otherwise (and undeniably) rather loosely bounded by linear, sequential, hierarchical & formal systems and symmetries. My Peircean critique might be that 3ns and 1ns have been way overemphasized (in science, culture, philosophy, theology, religion, even politics ... especially politics) at the expense of 2ns. I do write in methodological fugues but one should not mistake their thematic nature for any systematic approach. My pneumatological focus is perhaps a symptom of my existential "holding on loosely" to the theologically vague while leaving the specifics of the great traditions, in general, and Christologies, in particular, to the more doctrinally-committed and systematically-oriented. I will share, below, a summary that I had written to accompany my "Yongian Architectonic". Johnboy's Yongian Architectonic Here are some categories. They present distinctions that make a difference (and suggest that not all distinctions are also dichotomies). These categories are methodologically-autonomous but axiologically-integral. They suggest that the cosmos as a whole and humans in particular are on a journey of value-realization, always fostered by an ongoing growth in freedom. Others may employ different categories and name different distinctions and they may work as well or even better; it is their proper inter-relating per our rubric that matters. That rubric? Again, we should always inquire: Which distinctions 1) make a difference? 2) are also true dichotomies or not? 3) entail autonomous methods? 4) are indispensable for human value-realizations and thus integral? Curiously, in achieving this growth in freedom, it's almost as if each emergent reality has deemed --- that equality with its progenitor is nothing to be grasped at. Indeed, paradoxically, at every level (of ontological density, we might say), this freedom inevitably derives from sacrifice, from a parlay of losses into gains, a finesse of risks into rewards (some say perhaps even a shrinking of the Infinite into finitude). Star dust became trail dust as swirling electrons lost their original orbits, thus proliferating a diversity of elements. Lost genetic information similarly birthed the origin of species. Lost linguistic information gifted humankind with signs and symbols and metaphors that leverage what are essentially literal mistakes into literary masterpieces, stories full of meaning, poor in facts but rich in truths. Some thus see reality as naught but a glorious contingency, incredibly fragile and beautiful but, finally, poignantly sad. We, however, suggest with Wordsworth: "Not 1
in entire forgetfulness and not in utter nakedness, but trailing clouds of glory do we come, from God, who is our home." For our part, we wager, not without profit, that ours is less a story about forgetting and much more a narrative (dare we suggest meta- ?) about remembering (anamnesis), giving thanks (eucharist) and going home.
2