i am deeply sympathetic with the overall thrust of so many in the east-west dialogue movement and feel they are very close to some significant breakthroughs but often held back by mistakes in epistemology which then cascade into metaphysical over-reaches the correction is simple: change aq/al to aq/al/at = all quadrants| all levels| all the time by 'all the time' i speak not of chronos but kairos, that moment wherein a value is most fully realized the nondual unitive value to be realized in ecstatic lovemaking with one's bride cannot be fully realized without the simultaneous dualistic recognition that she is not, instead, her twin sister ... and so it goes with gods and Godde ;)
while the sophiology angle is helpful & insightful, how different folks approach soteriology/theodicy can be very revealing iow, i pretty much get how different folks (across & within traditions) arrive at their evaluative dispositions re: solidarity & compassion and their propositions & practices re: interiority/authenticity but have been much more curious re: the whys, wherefores & hows of their affective attunements vis a vis both/either their propositional apologetics and/or existential grounding for their disposition that ALL IS (somehow and for some 'reason') WELL to wit: ask anyone whether (or not) all is, may, can, will or shall be well and how they 'know' that and this particular answer will reveal much more re: their religious stance that will be of interest to me and better help me to locate my own resonance or dissonance with it as one gets into cynthia's book, one will see her discussion of the sacramental and liturgical (she is, after all, a priest), which is essentially communal i would say cynthia appropriately deemphasizes (not dismisses) the propositional (belief) and suitably reemphasizes the participatory, which i treated extensively in my article w/amos i also resonate with her prophetic protests re: traditionalism (and other ISMs), which is not the same as dismissing traditions cynthia's critiquing various over- and under-emphases (not articulating false 1
dichotomies) the term, dismissive, as with the pejorative sense of certain isms, makes for a helpful characterization when properly applied i simply did not see bourgeault as being dismissive of propositional belief of course traditionalism will vary subjectively among cohorts of believers but --within any given community of value-realizers that has established substantive distinctions between sets of essentials and accidentals --- those who tend to treat accidentals as if they were essentials are engaging an unhealthy traditionalism conversely, those who treat essentials as if they were accidentals engage an unhealthy progressivism an 'among' example: anglicans, by self-definition, will differ re: essentials & accidentals from the roman church, so will a priori & necessarily see much of the rcc as traditionalistic, so ... 'tis to be expected a 'within' example: but even within the rcc it seems that the creed, liturgy, sacraments, incarnational outlook, analogical imagination and both critical & moral realisms are essentials while church polity, disciplines & moral doctrines are accidental i resonate with cynthia's emphasis on the unitive i've read both both wisdom jesus & mary magdalene, which i enjoyed marion was much more explicit in his epistemology & metaphysics, which was the main focus of my critique of him i did speak briefly of his heterodox theology i noted bourgeault's marion & wilber connections but didn't gather that she was thereby necessarily uncritically advocating an arational or extrarational approach; indeed, i received her explications of an integral gnosis, dianoia, epinoia and metanoia as suitably transrational
2