johnboy_musings_part1a by johnboy philothea

Christian Nonduality

Anglican - Roman Dialogue NEW: Cathlimergent Internet Forum The Christian Nonduality Blog Home Radical Emergence Nonduality & the Emerging Church Emergence Happens When: To Avow & Dis-avow an Axiological Vision of the Whole Montmarte, Colorado Springs & the Kingdom Wanted: Women Warriors Maiden, Mother, Crone & Queen: archetypes & transformation East Meets West Ki, Qi, Chi, Prana & Kundalini

Discipline, Doctrine & Dogma â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Roman & Anglican Dialogue

No-Self & Nirvana elucidated by Dumoulin

I once strongly considered converting from Roman to Anglican Catholic, likely agonizing as much as

One: Essential Writings in Nonduality - a review

Newman, who converted in the opposite direction. How many times have progressive Roman Catholics

Simone Weil John of the Cross

been sarcastically urged to go ahead and convert by various fundamentalistic traditionalists since our

Thomas Merton The True Self The Passion Hermeneutical Eclecticism & Interreligious Dialogue The Spirit Christian Nonduality more on Nonduality The Contemplative Stance Hesychasm Mysticism - properly considered Karl Rahner Wounded Innocence Rogation Days Radical Orthodoxy

Presuppositionalism vs Nihilism? Science Epistemic Virtue Pan-semioentheism: a pneumatological theology of nature

In other words, for example, take a look, below, at some excerpts from the September 2007 report of the International Anglican - Roman Catholic Commission for Unity and Mission: Growing Together in Unity and Mission: Building on 40 years of Anglican - Roman Catholic Dialogue.

Architectonic Anglican - Roman Dialogue

Does anyone see any differences in essential dogma? Are some of you not rather surprised at the extent of

The Ethos of Eros

agreement, especially given the nature of same?

Musings on Peirce Eskimo Kiss Waltz the Light Side of Dark Comedy

Are our differences not rather located in such accidentals as matters of church discipline or in such moral

Blog Visits

teachings where Catholics can exercise legitimate choices in their moral decision-making? (To be sure,

Other Online Resources

there

Are YOU Going to Scarborough Fair?

has been a creeping infallibility in such differences but there have never been infallible pronouncements

Suggested Reading Tim King's Post Christian Blog The Dylan Mass If You Are In Distress, Spiritual or Otherwise pending

regarding same.) "As we shall see, reputable theologians defend positions on moral issues contrary to the official teaching of the Roman magisterium. If Catholics have the right to follow such options, they must have the right to

The Great Tradition properly conceived

know that the options exist. It is wrong to attempt to conceal such knowledge from Catholics. It is wrong to

Postmodern Conservative Catholic Pentecostal

present the official teachings, in Rahner's words, as though there were no doubt whatever about their definitive correctness and as though further discussion about the matter by Catholic theologians would be inappropriate....To deprive Catholics of the knowledge of legitimate choices in their moral decisionmaking, to insist that moral issues are closed when actually they are still open, is itself immoral." See: â&#x20AC;&#x153;Probabilism: The Right to Know of Moral Optionsâ&#x20AC;?, which is the third chapter of __Why You Can Disagree and Remain a Faithful Catholic__ and available online at http://www.saintjohnsabbey.org/kaufman/chapter3.html For those who have neither the time nor inclination for a long post, you can safely consider the above as an executive summary. My conclusion is that we belong neither to Rome nor Canterbury, but to the Perfector and Finisher of our faith. And I'm going to submit to ever-ongoing finishing by blooming where I was planted among my family, friends and co-religionists, enjoying the very special communion between our Anglican, Roman and Orthodox traditions, the special fellowship of all my Christian sisters and brothers, and the general fellowship of all persons of goodwill.

I gathered these excerpts together to highlight and summarize the report but recognize these affirmations should not be taken out of context. So, I made this url where the entire document can be accessed: http://tinyurl.com/35p69h to foster the wide study of these agreed statements. Below is my heavily redacted summary. In reflecting on our faith together it is vital that all bishops ensure that the Agreed Statements of ARCIC are widely studied in both Communions. The constitutive elements of ecclesial communion include: one faith, one baptism, the one Eucharist, acceptance of basic moral values, a ministry of oversight entrusted to the episcopate with collegial and primatial dimensions, and the episcopal ministry of a universal primate as the visible focus of unity. God desires the visible unity of all Christian people and that such unity is itself part of our witness. Through this theological dialogue over forty years Anglicans and Roman Catholics have grown closer together and have come to see that what they hold in common is far greater than those things in which they differ. In liturgical celebrations, we regularly make the same trinitarian profession of faith in the form of the Apostles’ Creed or the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. In approaching Scripture, the Christian faithful draw upon the rich diversity of methods of reading and interpretation used throughout the Church’s history (e.g. historicalcritical, exegetical, typological, spiritual, sociological, canonical). These methods, which all have value, have been developed in many different contexts of the Church’s life, which need to be recalled and respected. The Anglican Communion and the Catholic Church recognise the baptism each confers. Anglicans and Catholics agree that the full participation in the Eucharist, together with Baptism and Confirmation, completes the sacramental process of Christian initiation. We agree that the Eucharist is the memorial (anamnesis) of the crucified and risen Christ, of the entire work of reconciliation God has accomplished in him. Anglicans and Catholics believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

While Christ is present and active in a variety of ways in the entire eucharistic celebration, so that his presence is not limited to the consecrated elements, the bread and wine are not empty signs: Christ’s body and blood become really present and are really given in these elements. We agree that the Eucharist is the “meal of the Kingdom”, in which the Church gives thanks for all the signs of the coming Kingdom. We agree that those who are ordained have responsibility for the ministry of Word and Sacrament. Roman Catholics and Anglicans share this agreement concerning the ministry of the whole people of God, the distinctive ministry of the ordained, the threefold ordering of the ministry, its apostolic origins, character and succession, and the ministry of oversight. Anglicans and Roman Catholics agree that councils can be recognised as authoritative when they express the common faith and mind of the Church, consonant with Scripture and the Apostolic Tradition. Primacy and collegiality are complementary dimensions of episcope, exercised within the life of the whole Church. (Anglicans recognise the ministry of the Archbishop of Canterbury in precisely this way.) The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the ministry of the Bishop of Rome as universal primate is in accordance with Christ’s will for the Church and an essential element for maintaining it in unity and truth. Anglicans rejected the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome as universal primate in the sixteenth century. Today, however, some Anglicans are beginning to see the potential value of a ministry of universal primacy, which would be exercised by the Bishop of Rome, as a sign and focus of unity within a re-united Church. Anglicans and Roman Catholics both believe in the indefectibility of the Church, that the Holy Spirit leads the Church into all truth. Both Anglicans and Catholics acknowledge that private confession before a priest is a means of grace and an effective declaration of the forgiveness of Christ in response to repentance. Throughout its history the Church has sought to be faithful in following Christ’s command to heal, and this has inspired countless acts of ministry in medical and hospital care. Alongside this physical ministry, both

traditions have continued to exercise the sacramental ministry of anointing. Anglicans and Roman Catholics share similar ways of moral reasoning. Both Communions speak of marriage as a covenant and a vocation to holiness and see it in the order of creation as both sign and reality of God’s faithful love. All generations of Anglicans and Roman Catholics have called the Virgin Mary ‘blessed’. Anglicans and Roman Catholics agree that it is impossible to be faithful to Scripture without giving due attention to the person of Mary. Genuine faith is more than assent: it is expressed in action. Given our mutual recognition of one another’s baptism, a number of practical initiatives are possible. Local churches may consider developing joint programmes for the formation of families when they present children for baptism, as well as preparing common catechetical resources for use in baptismal and confirmation preparation and in Sunday Schools. Given the significant extent of our common understanding of the Eucharist, and the central importance of the Eucharist to our faith, we encourage attendance at each other’s Eucharists, respecting the different disciplines of our churches. We also encourage more frequent joint non-eucharistic worship, including celebrations of faith, pilgrimages, processions of witness (e.g. on Good Friday), and shared public liturgies on significant occasions. We encourage those who pray the daily office to explore how celebrating daily prayer together can reinforce their common mission. We welcome the growing Anglican custom of including in the prayers of the faithful a prayer for the Pope, and we invite Roman Catholics to pray regularly in public for the Archbishop of Canterbury and the leaders of the Anglican Communion. We note the close similarities of Anglican and Roman Catholic lectionaries which make it possible to foster joint bible study groups based upon the Sunday lectionary. There are numerous theological resources that can be shared, including professional staff, libraries, and formation and study programmes for clergy and laity. Wherever possible, ordained and lay observers can be invited to attend each other’s synodical and collegial gatherings and conferences.

Anglicans and Roman Catholics share a rich heritage regarding the place of religious orders in ecclesial life. There are religious communities in both of our Communions that trace their origins to the same founders (e.g. Benedictines and Franciscans). We encourage the continuation and strengthening of relations between Anglican and Catholic religious orders, and acknowledge the particular witness of monastic communities with an ecumenical vocation. There are many areas where pastoral and spiritual care can be shared. We acknowledge the benefit derived from many instances of spiritual direction given and received by Anglicans to Catholics and Catholics to Anglicans. We recommend joint training where possible for lay ministries (e.g. catechists, lectors, readers, teachers, evangelists). We commend the sharing of the talents and resources of lay ministers, particularly between local Anglican and Roman Catholic parishes. We note the potential for music ministries to enrich our relations and to strengthen the Church’s outreach to the wider society, especially young people. We encourage joint participation in evangelism, developing specific strategies to engage with those who have yet to hear and respond to the Gospel. We invite our churches to consider the development of joint Anglican/Roman Catholic church schools, shared teacher training programmes and contemporary religious education curricula for use in our schools. END OF EXCERPTS regarding stated agreements Below are excerpts recognizing DIVERGENCES regarding: 1) papal and teaching authority 2) the recognition and validity of Anglican Orders and ministries 3) ordination of women 4) eucharistic sharing 5) obligatory confession 6) divorce and remarriage 7) the precise moment a human person is formed 8) methods of birth control 9) homosexual activity and 10) human sexuality. Thanks, JB BEGIN EXCERPTS regarding stated disagreements: While already we can affirm together that universal primacy, as a visible focus of unity, is “a gift to be shared”, able to be “offered and received even before our Churches are in full communion”, nevertheless

serious questions remain for Anglicans regarding the nature and jurisdictional consequences of universal primacy. There are further divergences in the way in which teaching authority in the life of the Church is exercised and the authentic tradition is discerned. In his Apostolic Letter on Anglican Orders, Apostolicae Curae (1896), Pope Leo XIII ruled against the validity of Anglican Orders. The question of validity remains a fundamental obstacle to the recognition of Anglican ministries by the Catholic Church. In the light of the agreements on the Eucharist and ministry set out both in the ARCIC statements and in the official responses of both Communions, there is evidence that we have a common intention in ordination and in the celebration of the Eucharist. This awareness would have to be part of any fresh evaluation of Anglican Orders. Anglicans and Roman Catholics hold that there is an inextricable link between Eucharist and Ministry. Without recognition and reconciliation of ministries, therefore, it is not possible to realise the full impact of our common understanding of the Eucharist. The twentieth century saw much discussion across the whole Christian family on the question of the ordination of women. The Roman Catholic Church points to the unbroken tradition of the Church in not ordaining women. Indeed, Pope John Paul II expressed the conviction that â&#x20AC;&#x153;the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on womenâ&#x20AC;?. After careful reflection and debate, a growing number of Anglican Churches have proceeded to ordain women to the presbyterate and some also to the episcopate. Churches of the Anglican Communion and the Roman Catholic Church therefore have different disciplines for eucharistic sharing. The Catholic Church does not permit the Catholic faithful to receive the Eucharist from, nor Catholic clergy to concelebrate with, those whose ministry has not been officially recognised by the Catholic Church. Anglican provinces regularly admit to communion baptised believers who are communicant members from other Christian communities. Despite our common moral foundations, serious disagreements on specific issues exist, some of which have emerged in the long period of our separation.

Anglicans and Catholics have a different practice in respect of private confession. “The Reformers’ emphasis on the direct access of the sinner to the forgiving and sustaining Word of God led Anglicans to reject the view that private confession before a priest was obligatory, although they continued to maintain that it was a wholesome means of grace, and made provision for it in the Book of Common Prayer for those with an unquiet and sorely troubled conscience.” Anglicans express this discipline in the short formula ‘all may, none must, some should’. Whilst both Communions recognise that marriage is for life, both have also had to recognise the failure of many marriages in reality. For Roman Catholics, it is not possible however to dissolve the marriage bond once sacramentally constituted because of its indissoluble character, as it signifies the covenantal relationship of Christ with the Church. On certain grounds, however, the Catholic Church recognises that a true marriage was never contracted and a declaration of nullity may be granted by the proper authorities. Anglicans have been willing to recognise divorce following the breakdown of a marriage, and in recent years, some Anglican Churches have set forth circumstances in which they are prepared to allow partners from an earlier marriage to enter into another marriage. Anglicans and Roman Catholics share the same fundamental teaching concerning the mystery of human life and the sanctity of the human person, but they differ in the way in which they develop and apply this fundamental moral teaching. Anglicans have no agreed teaching concerning the precise moment from which the new human life developing in the womb is to be given the full protection due to a human person. Roman Catholic teaching is that the human embryo must be treated as a human person from the moment of conception and rejects all direct abortion. Anglicans and Roman Catholics agree that there are situations when a couple would be morally justified in avoiding bringing children into being. They are not agreed on the method by which the responsibility of parents is exercised. Catholic teaching holds that homosexual activity is intrinsically disordered and always objectively wrong. Strong tensions have surfaced within the Anglican Communion because of serious challenges from within

some Provinces to the traditional teaching on human sexuality which was expressed in Resolution 1.10 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference. In the discussions on human sexuality within the Anglican Communion, and between it and the Catholic Church, stand anthropological and biblical hermeneutical questions which need to be addressed. END OF EXCERPTS regarding stated disagreements, some of which seem rather incoherent once considering certain of the agreements (for example, not recognizing Anglican Orders and ministries! Gimme a break!!!). Discipline, Doctrine or Dogma? the Roman-Anglican CATHOLIC Dialogue I like to think of liberal and conservative, progressive and traditionalist, in terms of charisms, something analogous to pilgrims and settlers. And there is room for the via media, the middle path, something analogous to bridge-builders, which might be the loneliest and most difficult for, as Richard Rohr observes, they get walked on by folks coming from both directions. Unfortunately, too much of what we see is nowadays is better described in terms of maximalism, minimalism and a/historicism. I'll unpack those terms below. Too many so-called progressives consider essential and core teachings as accidental and peripheral; too many socalled traditionalists consider accidental and peripheral teachings as essential and core. In essentials, unity; in accidentals, diversity; in all things, charity. (attributed to Augustine) Ormond Rush writes, in Determining Catholic Orthodoxy: Monologue or Dialogue (PACIFICA 12 (JUNE 1999): "The patristic scholar Rowan Williams speaks of 'orthodoxy as always lying in the future'". (see http://tinyurl.com/2p5q7w for the article) Rush continues: Mathematicians talk of an asymptotic line that continually approaches a given curve but does not meet it at a finite distance. Somewhat like those two lines, ressourcement and aggiornamento never meet; the meeting point always lies ahead of the church as it moves forward in history. Orthodoxy, in that sense, lies always in the future. Christian truth is eschatological truth. The church must continually wait on the Holy Spirit to lead it to the fullness of truth.

Ressourcement and aggiornamento will only finally meet at that point when history ends at the fullness of time. "For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known." (1 Cor 13:12) To unpack this meaning further, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ressourcement In that Pacifica article, Rush draws distinctions between: 1) revelation as propositional, where faith is primarily assent and revelation as personalist, where faith is the response of the whole person in loving self-surrender to God; 2) verbal orthodoxy and lived orthopraxy; 3) the Christological and pneumatological; 4) hierarchical ecclesiology and communio ecclesiology; and 5) monologic notion of authority evoking passive obedience and dialogic notion of authority evoking active obedience. Rush then describes the extremes of on one hand, 1) dogmatic maximalism, where all beliefs are given equal weight; 2) magisterial maximalism, where the ecclesial magisterium, alone, has access to the Holy Spirit; 3) dogmatic ahistoricism, where God's meaning and will are fixed and clear to be seen; and, on the other hand, 1) dogmatic minimalism, where all dogmatic statements are equally unimportant; 2) magisterial minimalism, where communal guidance in interpretation is superfluous; 3) dogmatic historicism, with an unmitigated relativist position regarding human knowledge. Rush finally describes and commends a VIA MEDIA between the positions. He notes that the church does not call the faithful that we may believe in dogma, doctrine and disciplines but, rather, to belief in God. He describes how statements vary in relationship to the foundation of faith vis a vis a Hierarchy of Truth and thus have different weight: to be believed as divinely revealed; to be held as definitively proposed; or as nondefinitively taught and requiring obsequium religiosum (see discussion below re: obsequium). The faithful reception of revelation requires interplay between the different "witnesses" of revelation: scripture, tradition, magisterium, sensus fidelium, theological

scholarship, including reason (philosophy) and experience (biological & behavioral sciences, personal testimonies, etc). Rush thus asks: "How does the Holy Spirit guarantee orthodox traditioning of the Gospel? According to Dei Verbum, 'the help of the Holy Spirit' is manifested in the activity of three distinguishable yet overlapping groups of witnesses to the Gospel: the magisterium, the whole people of God, and theologians. The Holy Spirit guides each group of witnesses in different ways and to different degrees; but no one alone has possession of the Spirit of Truth." Rush further asks: "The determination of orthodoxy needs to address questions concerning the issue of consensus in each of these three authorities. What constitutes a consensus among theologians and how is it to be ascertained? What constitutes a consensus among the one billion Catholics throughout the world and how is it to be ascertained? What constitutes a collegial consensus among the bishops of the world with the pope, and how is that consensus to be ascertained?" As for obsequium religiosum, from http://www.womenpriests.org/teaching/orsy3_2.asp where it is written: "Accordingly, the duty to offer obsequium may bind to respect, or to submission-or to any other attitude between the two." "When the council spoke of religious obsequium it meant an attitude toward the church which is rooted in the virtue of religion, the love of God and the love of his church. This attitude in every concrete case will be in need of further specification, which could be 'respect', or could be 'submission,' depending on the progress the church has made in clarifying its own beliefs. ... [W]e can speak of obsequium fidei (one with the believing church holding firm to a doctrine) ... [or] an obsequium religiosum (one with the searching church, working for clarification)." Thus, on matters of dogma, I give obsequium fidei, and unqualified assent (or submission); this includes the creeds, the sacraments, the approach to scripture. On matters of moral doctrine and church discipline, I give my deference (or respect), even as I dissent, out of loyalty, on many issues: married priests, women's ordination, eucharistic sharing, obligatory confession, various moral teachings re: so-called gravely,

intrinsic disorders of human sexuality; artificial contraception, etc.

Christian Nonduality http://twitter.com/johnssylvest Bird Photos by David Joseph Sylvest johnboy@christiannonduality.com

Christian Nonduality

Maiden, Mother, Crone & Queen: archetypes & transformation NEW: Cathlimergent Internet Forum The Christian Nonduality Blog

The True Self The Passion Hermeneutical Eclecticism & Interreligious Dialogue The Spirit Christian Nonduality more on Nonduality The Contemplative Stance Hesychasm Mysticism - properly considered Karl Rahner Wounded Innocence Rogation Days Radical Orthodoxy

An axiology engages mostly our right-brain (intuiting function of the right frontal cortex & feeling function of the right posterior convexity) as the interpretive and evaluative aspects of value-realization alternately negotiate (e.g. reconciliation of opposites, harnessing the power of paradox) and transcend boundaries; we encounter the CroneMagician and Mother-Lover with their light and dark attributes as expressed in the journeys of the soul and the other (Thou), primarily through a language of descent.

Suggested Reading Tim King's Post Christian Blog The Dylan Mass If You Are In Distress, Spiritual or Otherwise pending The Great Tradition properly conceived Postmodern Conservative Catholic Pentecostal

1) a priestly voice that sings of the intrinsic beauty to be celebrated in seemingly repugnant realities 2) a prophetic voice that is robustly self-critical when speaking the truth 3) a kingly voice that articulates a bias for the bottom, expressing both a privileging of the marginalized and a principle of subsidiarity when preserving goodness 4) a motherly voice that, seeing and calling all as her children, draws every person into her circle of compassion and mercy with no trace of exclusion, only a vision of unity. The Judaeo-Christian Mythos thus articulates a Way of the Cross, where the Magician, Warrior, King & Lover are further initiated as Priest, Prophet, King & Mother. The virtues and vices, health and dysfunctions, light and shadow, of each archetype play out in terms of boundary negotiation, defense, establishment and transcendence, which have both authentic and counterfeit expressions. Such are the dynamics explored in spiritual direction, enneagram work, personality & adjustment psychology, individuation processes and the manifold stage theories for intellectual, affective, moral, socio-political and faith development of humans along the purgative, illuminative and unitive ways. Such are the themes, then, that run through the dynamics of addiction psychology and codependency, the false self and true self, sexual exploitation versus intimacy, socialization versus transformation, ego defense mechanisms and the persona, inordinate attachments and disordered appetites, idolatry and kenosis, as they all involve healthy and unhealthy, loving and sinful, boundary realities. http://twitter.com/johnssylvest

Â Â

Christian Nonduality http://twitter.com/johnssylvest Bird Photos by David Joseph Sylvest johnboy@christiannonduality.com

Christian Nonduality

Architectonic NEW: Cathlimergent Internet Forum The Christian Nonduality Blog Home Radical Emergence Nonduality & the Emerging Church Emergence Happens When: To Avow & Dis-avow an Axiological Vision of the Whole Montmarte, Colorado Springs & the Kingdom Wanted: Women Warriors Maiden, Mother, Crone & Queen: archetypes & transformation East Meets West Ki, Qi, Chi, Prana & Kundalini No-Self & Nirvana elucidated by Dumoulin One: Essential Writings in Nonduality - a review Simone Weil

NOTES ON DEVISING AN ARCHITECTONIC-ORGANON OF HUMAN KNOWLEDGE 1) To describe Reality, devise an Architectonic/Organon of Human Knowledge of Environing Realities, which would include ourselves. 2) To describe ourselves, devise such an account as would include the Human

John of the Cross Thomas Merton The True Self

Knowledge Manifold as an Environed Reality, which would include both evaluative and

The Passion

rational continuua.

Hermeneutical Eclecticism & Interreligious Dialogue

3) When devising a model of epistemic virtue (values), avoid the usual (and many)

The Spirit

overworked distinctions and employ the very real but often underappreciated

Christian Nonduality more on Nonduality The Contemplative Stance

dichotomies. 4) In our modal arguments for this or that reality, we must rigorously define and

Hesychasm Mysticism - properly considered Karl Rahner Wounded Innocence

disambiguate our terms. Employ such criteria that, if met, will guarantee the conceptual compatibility of any attributes we employ in our conceptualizations of this or that reality.

Rogation Days Radical Orthodoxy Presuppositionalism vs Nihilism? Science Epistemic Virtue Pan-semioentheism: a pneumatological theology of nature

In order to be conceptually compatible, while, at the same time, avoiding any absurdities of parodied logic, attributes must not be logically impossible to coinstantiate in our arguments and they must also be described in terms that define a reality's negative properties. For an example, see:

Architectonic

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=47897 and use

Anglican - Roman Dialogue

your edit/find

The Ethos of Eros Musings on Peirce

browser facility to scroll down quickly to the first occurrence of the word “negativity”

Eskimo Kiss Waltz

and then also for the name of philosopher “Richard Gale”

the Light Side of Dark Comedy

5) In defining such attributes as will describe the various aspects of this or that

Blog Visits Other Online Resources Are YOU Going to Scarborough Fair? Suggested Reading Tim King's Post Christian Blog

reality, we must draw the proper distinctions between those aspects that are predicated a) univocally b) equivocally or c) relationally vis a vis other realities. Univocal is defined as having one meaning only. Equivocal means subject to two or more interpretations. These

The Dylan Mass If You Are In Distress, Spiritual or Otherwise pending The Great Tradition properly conceived Postmodern Conservative Catholic Pentecostal

accounts necessarily utilize some terms univocally and others equivocally. The equivocal can be either simply equivocal or analogical. The analogical can be attributive (if real causes and effects are invoked) or proportional (if we are invoking similarities in the relationships between two different pairs of terms). If such an similarity is essential to those terms we have a proper proportionality but if it is accidental we have an improper proportionality, a metaphor. And we use a lot of metaphors, even in physics, and they all eventually collapse. 6) In our attempts to increase our descriptive accuracy of this or that reality, we must be clear whether we are proceeding through a) affirmation [kataphatically, the via positiva] b) negation [apophatically, the via negativa] or c) eminence [unitively, neither kataphatically nor apophatically but, rather, equivocally]. We must be clear whether we are proceeding a) metaphorically b) literally or c) analogically [affirming the metaphorical while invoking further dissimilarities].The best examples can be found in the book described at this url = http://www.psupress.org/books/titles/0-

271-01937-9.html

, Reality and Mystical Experience by F. Samuel Brainard. 7) We must be clear regarding our use of First Principles: a) noncontradiction b) excluded middle c) identity d) reality's intelligibility e) human intelligence f) the existence of other minds and such. See Robert Lane’s discussion: http://www.digitalpeirce.fee.unicamp.br/lane/p-prilan.htm 8) We must be mindful of godelian (and godelian-like) constraints on our argumentation: a) complete accounts in formal systems are necessarily inconsistent b) consistent accounts in formal systems are necessarily incomplete and c) we can model the rules but cannot explain them within their own formal symbol system [must reaxiomatize, which is to say prove them in yet another system, at the same time, suggesting we can, indeed, see the truth of certain propositions that we cannot otherwise prove]. We thus distinguish between local and global explanatory attempts, models of partial vs total reality.See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorem

9) We must employ semantical [epistemological] vagueness, such that for attributes a) univocally predicated, excluded middle holds and noncontradiction folds b) equivocally predicated, both excluded middle and noncontradiction hold and c) relationally predicated, noncontradiction holds and excluded middle folds. Ergo, re: First Principles, you got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, know when to walk away, know when to run. See Robert Lane’s discussion: http://www.digitalpeirce.fee.unicamp.br/lane/p-prilan.htm 10) We must understand and appreciate the integral nature of the humanknowledge manifold (with evaluative and rational continuua) and Lonergan's sensation, abstraction & judgment: sensation & perception, emotion & motivation, learning & memory, intuition & cognition, non- & pre-inferential, abductive inference, inductive inference, deductive inference and deliberation. 11) We must appreciate and understand the true efficacy of: abduction,

fast & frugal decision-making, ecological rationality, evolutionary rationality, pragmatic rationality, bounded rationality, common sense; also of both propositional and doxastic justification, and affective judgment: both aesthetic and prudential, the latter including both pragmatic and moral affective judgment. See http://www.freedefinition.com/Abduction-(logic).html

12) We must draw the distinction between peircean argument (abduction, hypothesis generation) and argumentation (inductive & deductive inference).See http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Reli/ReliKess.htm 13) We must draw a distinction between partial apprehension of a reality and total comprehension of a reality. 14) We must employ dialectical analysis, properly discerning where our different accounts of this or that reality a) agree b) converge c) complement or d) dialectically reverse. We must distinguish between this dialectic and hegelian synthesis and resist false irenicism, facile syncretism and insidious indifferentism, while exercising due care in our attempts to map conceptualizations from one account onto another. Also, we should employ our scholastic distinctions: im/possible, im/plausible, im/probable and un/certain. 15) We must distinguish between the different types of paradox encountered in our various attempts to describe this or that reality a) veridical b) falsidical c) conditional and d) antinomial. We must recognize that all metaphysics are fatally flawed and that their root metaphors will eventually collapse in true antinomial paradox of a) infinite regress b) causal disjunction or c) circular referentiality [ipse dixit - stipulated beginning or petitio - question begging]. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox 16) As part and parcel of the isomorphicity implied in our epistemological vagueness, we must employ ontological vagueness, which is to say that we must prescind from the necessary to the probable in our modal logic. This applies to the dance between chance & necessity, pattern & paradox, random & systematic, order &

chaos.See http://uhavax.hartford.edu/moen/PeirceRev2.html and the distinctions between necessary

and non-necessary reasonings and also probable deductions. 17) We must properly integrate our classical causal distinctions such that the axiological/teleological [instrumental & formal] mediates between the epistemological [formal] and cosmological/ontological [efficient/material]. These comprise a process and not rather discrete events.This follows the grammar that the normative sciences mediate between our phenomenology and our metaphysics. See http://hosting.uaa.alaska.edu/afjjl/LinkedDocuments/LiszkaSynopsisPeirce.htm 18) We must recognize the idea of emergence is mostly a heuristic device inasmuch as it has some descriptive accuracy but only limited predictive, hence, explanatory adequacy. It predicts novelty but cannot specify its nature. Supervenience is even more problematical, trivial when described as weak (and usually associated with strong emergence), question begging re: reducibility when described as strong (and usually associated with weak emergence).See

http://www.molbio.ku.dk/MolBioPages/abk/PersonalPages/Jesper/SemioEmergence.htm Seehttp://www.nu.ac.za/undphil/collier/papers/Commentary on Don Ross.htm

See http://www.nu.ac.za/undphil/collier/papers.html 19) We must avoid all manner of dualisms, essentialism, nominalism and a priorism as they give rise to mutual occlusivities and mutual unintelligibilities in our arguments and argumentations. The analogia relata (of process-experience approaches, such as the peircean and neoplatonic triadic relational) that is implicit in the triadic grammar of all of the above-described distinctions and rubrics can mediate between the analogia antis (of linguistic approaches, such as the scotistic univocity of being) and the analogia entis (of substance approaches, such as the thomistic analogy of being). This includes such triads as proodos (proceeding), mone (resting) and epistrophe (return) of neoplatonic dionysian

mysticism. It anticipates such distinctions as a) the peircean distinction between objective reality and physical reality b) the scotistic formal distinction c) the thomistic distinction between material and immaterial substance, all of which imply nonphysical causation without violating physical causal closure, all proleptical, in a sense, to such concepts as memes, Baldwinian evolution, biosemiotics, etc See http://consc.net/biblio/3.html

20) We must avoid the genetic and memetic fallacies of Dawkins and Dennett and the computational fallacies of other cognitive scientists, all as described by Deacon.See http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/epc/srb/srb/10-3edit.html 21) We must denominate the "cash value" of getting our metaphysics correct in terms of the accuracy of our anthropologies and psychologies because getting our descriptive and normative accounts correct is preliminary to properly conducting our evaluative attempts, which will then inform the prescriptions we devise for an ailing humanity and cosmos, rendering such prescriptions efficacious, inefficacious, and even harmful. This signals the importance of the dialogues between science, religion, philosophy and the arts. Further regarding “cash value” and the “pragmatic maxim” and all it might entail, asking what difference this or that metaphysical, epistemological or scientific supposition might make, if it were true or not, can clarify our thinking, such as better enabling us to discern the circular referentiality of a tautology, e.g. taking existence as a predicate of being (rather than employing a concept such as “bounded” existence). 22) We must carefully nuance the parsimony we seek from Occam's Razor moreso in terms of the facility and resiliency of abduction and not necessarily in terms of complexity, honoring what we know from evolutionary psychology about human abductive and preinferential process.See http://www.digitalpeirce.fee.unicamp.br/pscifor.

htm See http://kybele.psych.cornell.edu/~edelman/Psych-214-Fall2000/w7-3-

outline.text 23) At wits end, confronted with ineluctable paradox, in choosing the most compelling metaphysic, there is always the reductio ad absurdum. And remember, whatever is going on in analytical philosophy, semeiotics and linguistics, you can know thus much is true: A single, even small, thermonuclear explosion can ruin your whole day. 24) Regarding multiverse accounts, Polkinghorne rejects any notion that science can say anything about same if science is careful and scrupulous about what science can actually say, and this may be true, but it does seem that such an explanatory attempt can be indirectly determined at least consonant with what we are able to directly observe and/or indirectly measure (thinking of Max Tegmark's ideas). It is plausible, for example, insofar as it is an attempt to explain the apparent anthropic finetuning. 25) Importantly, not all human knowledge is formal, which is what so much of the above has been about! 26) The major philosophical traditions can be described and distinguished by their postures toward idealism & realism, rationalism & empiricism, which are related to their various essentialisms and nominalisms, which can all be more particularly described in terms of what they do with the PEM (excluded middle) and PNC (noncontradiction) as they consider peircean 1ns, 2ns and 3ns, variously holding or folding these First Principles as they move from univocal to equivocal and relational predications. 27) With the peircean perspective taken as normative, PEM holds for 1ns and 2ns and PNC holds for 2ns and 3ns (hence, PNC folds for 1ns and PEM folds for 3ns). 28) In a nominalistic perspective, PNC folds for 3ns and classical notions of causality and continuity are incoherent. 29) In an essentialistic perspective, PNC properly holds for 3ns but PEM is

erroneously held for 3ns, suggesting that modal logic drives algorithmically toward the necessary and not, rather, the probable. 30) The nominalist’s objection to essentialism’s modal logic of the necessary in 3ns is warranted but folding PNC in 3ns is the wrong response, rendering all notions of causality incoherent.. The essentialist’s objection to nominalism’s denial of any modal logic in 3ns is warranted but holding PEM in 3ns is the wrong response, investing reality with an unwarranted determinacy. The peircean affirmation of PNC in 3ns and denial of PEM in 3ns resolves such incoherency with a modal logic of probability and draws the proper distinctions between the univocal, equivocal and relational predications, the univocal folding PNC in 1ns, the equivocal folding PEM in 3ns and the relational holding PNC and PEM in 2ns. 31) The platonic rationalist-realist perspective is impaired by essentialism. The kantian rationalist-idealist perspective is impaired by both essentialism and nominalism. The humean empiricist idealist perspective is impaired by nominalism. The aristotelian empiricist realist perspective, with a nuanced hylomorphism, is not impaired by essentialism or nominalism but suffers from substantialism due to its atomicity, which impairs relationality. Finally, even a process-relational-substantial approach must make the scotistic/peircean formal distinction between objective reality and physical reality. Radically deconstructive, analytical, and even pragmatist, approaches seize upon the folding of PNC in 1ns and then run amok in denying PNC in 3ns and sometimes even 2ns. Phenomenologists bracket these metaphysical considerations. Existentialists argue over what precedes what, existence vs essence, losing sight of their necessary coinstantiation in 2ns in physical reality and failing to draw the proper distinction between the objective reality of an attribute (its abstraction & objectification) and the

physical reality where it is integrally instantiated. Neither essence nor existence precedes the other in physical reality; they always arrive at the scene together and inextricably intertwined. 32) The peircean grammar draws necessary distinctions between univocal, equivocal and relational predications of different aspects of reality but, in so doing, is a heuristic that does not otherwise predict the precise nature or degree of univocity, equivocity or relationality between those aspects. In that sense, it is like emergentism, which predicts novelty but does not describe its nature or degree. To that extent, it no more resolves philosophy of mind questions, in particular, than it does metaphysical questions, in general. What it does is help us to think more clearly about such issues placing different perspectives in dialogue, revealing where it is they agree, converge, complement and disagree. Further, it helps us better discern the nature of the paradoxes that our different systems encounter: veridical, falsidical, conditional and antinomial, and why it is our various root metaphors variously extend or collapse in describing different aspects of reality. It doesn’t predict or describe the precise nature of reality’s givens in terms of primitives, forces and axioms but does help us locate how and where univocal, equivocal and relational predications are to be applied to such givens by acting as a philosophical lingua franca between different perspectives and accounts.Where are reality’s continuities and discontinuities in terms of givens? The peircean grammar speaks to how they are related in terms of 1ns, 2ns and 3ns but not with respect to nature or origin or to what extent or degree (if for no other reason that not all phenomena are equally probable, in terms of 3ns). Is consciousness a primitive along with space, time, mass and charge? Is it emergent? epiphenomenal? explained by Dennett? described by Penrose? a hard problem as per Chalmers or Searle? an eliminated problem as per the Churchlands? an

intractable problem as per William James? Each of these positions can be described in peircean terms and they can be compared and contrasted in a dialogue that reveals where they agree, disagree, converge and complement. They cannot be a priori arbitrated by the peircean perspective; rather, they can only be consistently articulated and framed up hypothetically on the same terms, which is to say, in such a manner that hypotheticodeductive and scientific-inductive methods can be applied to them and such that a posteriori experience can reveal their internal coherence/incoherence, logical consistency/inconsistency, external congruence/incongruence, hypothetical consonance/dissonance and interdisciplinary consilience/inconsilience. 33) Do our various metaphysics collapse because of an encounter with paradox that is generated by a) the nature of the environing realities, which are being explained? b) the exigencies of the environed reality, which is explaining? or c) some combination of these? Is the paradox encountered veridical, falsidical, conditional or antinomial? Did we introduce the paradox ourselves or did an environing reality reveal its intrinsic paradoxical nature? We can describe reality’s categories (such as w/ CSP’s phaneroscopy), a logic for those categories (such as CSP’s semeiotic logic) and an organon that relates these categories and logic (such as CSP’s metaphysical architectonic) and then employ such a heuristic in any given metaphysic using any given root metaphor. When we do, at some point, we will encounter an infinite regress, a causal disjunction or circular referentiality (petitio principii, ipse dixit, etc), and we might, therefore, at some level, have reason to suspect that those are the species of ineluctable paradox that even the most accurate metaphysics will inevitably encounter. If circular referentiality is avoidable, still, infinite regress and causal disjunction are not and our metaphysics will

succumb to one or the other, possibly because these alternate accounts present complementary perspectives of reality and the nature of its apparent continuities and discontinuities (as measured in degrees of probability or as reflected in the dissimilarities between various givens and their natures and origins, some belonging to this singularity, some to another, this or another realm of reality variously pluralistic or not). 34) What it all seems to boil down to is this: Different schools of philosophy and metaphysics are mostly disagreeing regarding the nature and degree, the origin and extent, of continuities and discontinuities in reality, some even claiming to transcend this debate by using a continuum of probability. The manifold and multiform assertions and/or denials of continuity and discontinuity in reality play out in the different conclusions of modal logic with respect to what is possible versus actual versus necessary regarding the nature of reality (usually in terms of givens, i.e. primitives, forces and axioms), some even claiming to transcend this modal logic by substituting probable for necessary. Even then, one is not so much transcending the fray as avoiding the fray if one does not venture to guess at the nature and degree, origin and extent, of realityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s probabilities, necessities, continuities and discontinuities. Sure, the essentialists and substantialists overemphasize discontinuities and the nominalists overemphasize continuities and the dualists introduce some false dichotomies, but anyone who claims to be above this metaphysical fray has not so much transcended these issues with a new and improved metaphysics as they have desisted from even doing metaphysics, opting instead for a meta-metaphysical heuristic device, at the same time, sacrificing explanatory adequacy. This is what happens with the emergentistic something more from nothing but and also what happens in semeiotic logic (for infinite regress is just as fatal, metaphysically, as causal disjunction and circular referentiality).

35) Evaluating Hypotheses:Does it beg questions?Does it traffic in trivialities? Does it overwork analogies?Does it overwork distinctions? Does it underwork dichotomies?Does it eliminate infinite regress? 36) Not to worry, this is to be expected at this stage of humankindâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s journey of knowledge. However, if the answer to any of these questions is affirmative, then oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s hypothesis probably doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t belong in a science textbook for now. At any rate, given our inescapable fallibility, we best proceed in a community of inquiry as we pursue our practical and heuristic (both normative and speculative) sciences. 37) Couching this or that debate in the philosophy of science in terms of dis/honesty may very well address one aspect of any given controversy. I have often wondered whether or not some disagreements are rooted in disparate approaches to epistemic values, epistemic goods, epistemic virtues, epistemic goals, epistemic success, epistemic competence or whatever is truly at issue. I don't know who is being dishonest or not, aware or unawares, but I think one can perhaps discern in/authenticity in a variety of ways. 38) In trying to sort through and inventory such matters, through time, I have come to more broadly conceive the terms of such controversies, not only beyond the notions of epistemic disvalue, epistemic non-virtue and epistemic incompetence, but, beyond the epistemic, itself. Taking a cue from Lonergan's inventory of conversions, which include the cognitive, affective, moral, social and religious, one might identify manifold other ways to frustrate the diverse (but unitively-oriented) goals of human authenticity, whether through disvalue, non-virtue or incompetence. 39) Our approach to and grasp of reality, through both the heuristic sciences (normative and theoretical) and practical sciences, in my view, is quite often frustrated by the overworking of certain distinctions and the underworking of certain dichotomies, by

our projection of discontinuities onto continuities and vice versa. And this goes beyond the issue of the One and the Many, the universal and the particular, the local and the global, beyond the disambiguation and predication of our terms, beyond the setting forth of our primitives, forces and axioms, beyond the truth of our premises and the validity of our logic, beyond noetical, aesthetical and ethical norms, beyond our normative/prescriptive, speculative/descriptive and pragmatic/practical enterprises, beyond all this to living life, itself, and to our celebration of the arts. 40) In this vein, one failure in human authenticity that seems to too often afflict humankind is the overworking of the otherwise valid distinctions between our truly novel biosemiotic capacities and those of our phylogenetic ancestry and kin, invoking such a human exceptionalism (x-factor) as divorces us from nature of which we're undeniably a part. Another (and related) failure, in my view, is the overworking of distinctions between the different capacities that comprise the human evaluative continuum, denying the integral roles played by its nonrational, prerational and rational aspects, by its ecological, pragmatic, inferential and deliberative rationalities, by its abductive, inductive and deductive inferential aspects, by its noetical, aesthetical and ethical aspects. These otherwise distinct aspects of human knowledge that derive from our interfacing as an environed reality with our total environing reality (environed vs environing realities not lending themselves to sharp distinctions either?) are of a piece, form a holistic fabric of knowledge, mirrored by reality, which is also of a piece, not lending itself fully to any privileged aspect of the human evaluative continuum, not lending itself to arbitrary dices and slices based upon any human-contrived architectonic or organon of knowledge, for instance, as might be reflected in our academic disciplines or curricula. 41) So, perhaps it is too facile to say religion asks certain questions and employs certain aspects of the human evaluative continuum, while philosophy

asks others, science yet others? Maybe it is enough to maintain that science does not attempt to halt infinite regress because humankind has discovered, a posteriori, that such attempts invariably involve trafficking in question begging (ipse dixit, petitio principii, tautologies, etc) or trivialities or overworked analogies, often employ overworked distinctions or underworked dichotomies, often lack explanatory adequacy, pragmatic cash value and/or the authentication of orthodoxy by orthopraxis? Maybe it is enough to maintain that science does not attempt to halt infinite regress because humankind now maintains, a priori, with Godel, that complete accounts are inconsistent, consistent accounts, incomplete? Maybe it is enough to maintain that science traffics in formalizable proofs and measurable results from hypotheses that are testable within realistic time constraints (iow, not eschatological)? 42) Or, maybe we needn't maintain even these distinctions but can say an hypothesis is an hypothesis is an hypothesis, whether theological or geological, whether eliminating or tolerating the paradox of infinity, and that the human evaluative continuum, if optimally (integrally and holistically) deployed, can aspire to test these hypotheses, however directly or indirectly, letting reality reveal or conceal itself at its pleasure --- but --- those hypotheses that are intractably question begging or tautological, that overwork analogies and distinctions and underwork dichotomies, that lack explanatory adequacy and pragmatic cash value --- are, at least for now, bad science, bad philosophy, bad theology, bad hypotheses? They are not authentic questions? Pursue them if you must. Back-burner them by all means, ready to come to the fore at a more opportune time. But don't publish them in textbooks or foist them on the general public or body politic; rather, keep them in the esoteric journals with a suitable fog index to match their explanatory

opacity. 43) In the above consideration, it was not my aim to resolve any controversies in the philosophy of science, in particular, or to arbitrate between the great schools of philosophy, in general. I did want to offer some criteria for more rigorously framing up the debates that we might avoid talking past one another. It does seem that certain extreme positions can be contrasted in sharper relief in terms of alternating assertions of radical dis/continuities, wherein some distinctions are overworked into false dichotomies and some real dichotomies are ignored or denied. 44) Thus it is that the different â&#x20AC;&#x153;turnsâ&#x20AC;?Â have been made in the history of philosophy (to experience, to the subject, linguistic, hermeneutical, pragmatic, etc). Thus it is that nominalism, essentialism and substantialism critique each other. Thus it is that fact-value, is-ought, given-normative, descriptive-prescriptive distinctions warrant dichotomizing or not. Thus it is that the One and the Many, the universal and particular, the global and local, the whole and the part invite differing perspectives or not. Thus it is that different aspects of the human evaluative continuum get singularly privileged without warrant such as in fideism and rationalism or that different aspects of the human architectonic of knowledge get over- or under-emphasized such as in radical fundamentalism and scientism. 45) Thus it is that certain of our heuristic devices get overworked beyond their minimalist explanatory attempts such as when emergence is described as weakly supervenient, which is rather question-begging, or as strongly supervenient, which is rather trivial. And yet one might be able to affirm some utility in making such distinctions as a weak deontology or weak teleology, or between the strongly and weakly anthropic? 46) Thus it is that idealism and realism, rationalism and empiricism, fight a

hermeneutical tug of war between kantian, humean, aristotelian and platonic perspectives, transcended, in part, even complemented by, the analytical, phenomenological and pragmatic approaches. Thus it is that various metaphysics must remain modest in their heuristic claims of explanatory power as we witness the ongoing blending and nuancing of substance, process, participative and semiotic approaches. Thus it is that our glorious -ologies get transmuted into insidious â&#x20AC;&#x201C;isms. 47) Thus it is that all of these approaches, whether broadly conceived as theoretical, practical and normative sciences (including natural sciences, applied sciences, theological sciences and the sciences of logic, aesthetics and ethics), or more narrowly conceived as the more strictly empirical sciences, offer their hypotheses for critique by an authentic community of inquiry --- neither falling prey to the soporific consensus gentium (bandwagon fallacy) and irrelevant argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority) nor arrogating to oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s own hermeneutic some type of archimedean buoyancy for all sure knowledge, as if inescapable leaps of faith werenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t required to get past unmitigated nihilism and solipsism, as if excluded middle, noncontradiction and other first principles could be apodictically maintained or logically demonstrated, as if knowledge and proof were indistinct, as if all human knowledge was algorithmic and could be formalized. 48) Miscellany: In the peircean cohort of the American pragmatist tradition, one would say that the normative sciences mediate between phenomenology and metaphysics, which could reasonably be translated into philosophy mediates between our scientific methodologies and our cosmologies/ontologies.So, there is a proper distinction to be made between our normative and theoretical sciences, both which can be considered heuristic sciences, and yet another distinction to be made between them and what we would call our practical sciences.

49) I think it would be fair to say that we can bracket our [metaphysics] and our [cosmologies & ontologies] when doing empirical science but, at the same time, we do not bracket those aspects of philosophy that comprise our normative sciences of logic, aesthetics and ethics, which contribute integrally and holistically to all scientific endeavors and human knowledge pursuits. At least for my Godconcept, properly conceived, suitably employed, sufficiently nuanced, carefully disambiguated, precisely defined, rigorously predicated --- to talk of empirical measurement would be nonsensical. 50) I more broadly conceive knowledge & "knowing" and my conceptualization turns on the distinction between knowing and proving, the latter consisting of formal proofs. Since a God-concept would comprise a Theory of Everything and we know, a priori, from Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems, that we cannot prove such employing any closed formal symbol system, a "proof" of God is out of the question. 51) Charles Sanders Peirce offers another useful distinction, which turns on his observations regarding inferential knowledge, which includes abduction, induction and deduction. Abductive inference is, in a nutshell, the generation of an hypothesis. The peircean distinction is that between an argument and argumentation. Peirce offers, then, what he calls the "Neglected Argument for the Reality of God," which amounts to an abduction of God, distinguishing same from the myriad other attempts to prove God's existence, whether inductively or deductively through argumentation. Even the scholastic and thomistic "proofs" realize their efficacy by demonstrating only the reasonableness of certain beliefs, not otherwise aspiring to apodictic claims or logically conclusive demonstrations. Peirce made another crucial distinction between the "reality" of God and the "existence" of God, considering all talk of God's existence to derive from pure fetishism, affirming in his own way, I suppose, an analogy of being rather than a

univocity. 52) Given all this, one may find it somewhat of a curiosity that Godel, himself, attempted his own modal ontological argument. Anselm's argument, likely considered the weakest of all the classical "proofs" of God, was first called the "ontological" argument by Kant and was more recently given impetus by Hartshorne's modal formulation. I think these arguments by Godel and Hartshorne would be more compelling if the modal category of necessary was changed to probable and if the conceptual compatibility of putative divine attributes was guaranteed by employing only negative properties for such terms. At any rate, that Godel distinguished "formal proof" from "knowing" is instructive, I think, and his attempt at a modal ontological argument is also revealing, suggesting, perhaps, that one needn't make their way through half of Whitehead and Russellâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Principia in order to "know" that 2 + 2 = 4, but, rather, that would be necessary only to "prove" same. 53) I would agree that the statement, God cannot be measured, is true for science as narrowly conceived as natural science. More broadly conceived, science includes theology as a discipline and many typologies of the science-religion interface would, for instance, affirm the notion of hypothetical consonance between the disciplines. Much of Hans Kung's work entailed an elaborate formulation of the God hypothesis, not empirically testable by any means, but, which uses nihilism as a foil to proceed reductio ad absurdum toward what Kung calls a fundamental trust in uncertain reality that, given a suitable and "working" God-hypothesis, is not otherwise nowhere anchored and paradoxical. Another focus of theology as a scientific discipline is that of practical theology where orthopraxis might be considered to authenticate orthodoxy. 54) Strong cases have been made by historians of science that sustainable scientific

progress was birthed in the womb of a belief in creatio ex nihilo, in other words, a belief in the contingent nature of reality, which, when combined with the Greek belief in reality's rationality, provided the cultural matrix for science's explosive growth in the Christian West. 55) I suppose there is an element of the aesthetic that guides one toward such an interpretation as Bohm's rather than Bohr's, Chalmers, Searle or Penrose rather than Dennett, the Churchlands or Crick, Pascal rather than Nietzsche --- but something else is going on, and it is not time-honored, when anyone chooses info to fit an interpretation, which is a different enterprise from the formulation of alternative interpretations that are hypothetically consonant with whatever info is available at the time. 56) To say more succinctly what I elaborate below: Approaching facts is one matter, rules another, and facts about rules, yet another. There's no explaining or justifying rules within their own systems and one hops onto an epistemological pogo stick, incessantly jumping to yet another system with such explanatory/justificatory attempts (cf. Godel). Thankfully, Popperian falsification short circuits rule justification in our pursuit of facts and the reductio ad absurdum (with some caveats) short circuits formal philosophy in our pursuit of rule justification, which is otherwise, inescapably, going to be question begging, rendering our metasystems, in principle, tautological. An example of a caveat there is that one overworks the humean dictum re: existence as a predicate of being when asserting that existence cannot be taken as a predicate of being -because it certainly can. One underappreciates the humean perspective when one forgets that taking existence as a predicate of being is a tautology. But so are all metaphysics, which are all fatally flawed. None of this is about escaping all antinomial paradox but, rather, finding the metasystem least susceptible to multiple births of paradox, least pregnant with paradox --- or, finding

that metasystem which, however fatally flawed, is least morbid. 57) In dealing with metasystem formulations, inevitably, we must confront the timehonored question: random or systematic? chance or necessity? order or chaos? pattern or paradox? At least, for me, this seems to capture the conundrum at issue.This conundrum is ubiquitous and presents itself not only in metaphysics but in physics, not only in speculative cosmology and the quantum realm but also in speculative cognitive science and the realm of consciousness. This is reminiscent of the dynamic in the TV gameshow, Jeopardy, for these dyads --- of random, chance, chaos, paradox vis a vis systematic, necessity, order, pattern --- offer themselves as answers to a larger question posed in a bigger framework. That question might be framed as: What is it that mediates between the possible and the actual? 58) My brain loves that question and pondering the implications of those dyads seems to help keep my neurotransmitters in balance, quite often firing off enough extra endorphins to help me pedal my bike an extra mile or two, any given day. That question presents when we consider reality both locally and globally, particularly or universally, in part or as a whole. I have pondered such extensively as set forth here: http://bellsouthpwp.net/p/e/per-ardua-ad-astra/epistemic.htm and elsewhere

http://bellsouthpwp.net/p/e/per-ardua-ad-astra/merton.htm [links at the top of this page]

and one day I may take on the task of making such musings more accessible. For now, it seems that I have practiced the Franciscan virtue of seeking to understand rather than to be understood and turned it into a vice, practicing it to a fault. 59) I will say this: Science is a human convention, an agreement entered into by an earnest community of inquiry. It seems to operate on a consensus regarding 1) primitives (space, time, mass and energy/charge) 2) forces (strong and weak, electromagnetic and gravity) and 3) axioms (laws of thermodynamics and so forth) and the relationships they

reveal as this community proceeds via 4) popperian falsification, which, as Popper properly understood and many others do not, is not, itself, falsifiable. There are no strict lines between physics and metaphysics inasmuch as any tweaking of these categories by theoretical scientists is meta-physical, for instance, such as by those who'd add consciousness as a primitive, quantum gravity as a force and statistical quantum law as an axiom. The crossing-over from philosophy to science and from metaphysics to physics by this or that notion is not so much determined a priori as based on any given attributes of a particular idea regarding primitives, forces and axioms but, rather, takes place when such can be framed up in such a manner as it can be empirically falsified. We know this from the history of philosophy, science and metaphysics -- although the pace of cross-over has slowed a tad. 60) Framing up reality in falsifiable bits and pieces is no simple matter to one who agrees with Haldane that reality is not only stranger than we imagine but stranger than we can imagine. Still, as is born into our very nature as epistemological optimists, we might temper this view by taking Chesterton's counsel that we do not know enough about reality, yet, to say that it is unknowable. We just do not know, a priori, either where we will hit an explanatory wall or where we will break through same, this notwithstanding such as G. E. Pugh's remark to the effect that if the brain were simple enough for us to understand it, we would be so simple that we couldn't. 61) What we do know, a priori, are our own rules and conventions and we can predict whether or not an explanatory wall will either be hit or penetrated --- but only if we narrowly conceive of that wall as being built with the bricks of empirical evidence and the mortar of formal proofs. An explanatory wall thus conceived is indeed subject to godelian constraints, which allow us to model rules that we are otherwise precluded from

explaining. In reality, though, one would commit the equivalent of an epistemological Maginot Line blunder if one built her explanatory wall exclusively of such materials, for, as we know, a large portion of human knowledge lies outside of any such a narrowly conceived epistemic structure. Indeed, we know far more than we can ever prove (or falsify) 62) Now, to be sure, we must remain well aware that we are freely choosing our axioms and first principles and that, consistent with godelian and popperian constraints, they can neither be logically demonstrated, a priori, nor scientifically falsified, a posteriori. We should keep an eye open, too, to the critiques of Descartes, Hume and Kant, insofar as they seem to have anticipated, in many ways, these godelian and popperian formalizations, as well as some of the dynamics explored by the analytical cohort. What I personally cannot countenance, however, is any epistemological caving in to such constraints and critiques (cartesian, kantian and humean); the proper response, if the normative sciences are to retain any sway whatsoever, would seem, rather, to be a trading in of any naive realism for a critical realism (staying mostly aristotelian cum neoplatonic?). So, too, the humean fact-value distinction, worth considering, should not be overworked into a false dichotomy? 63) If, in our inescapable fallibility, we have been dispossessed of any apodictic claims to necessity and logical demonstrations of our first principles, still, we do have at our disposal the judicious use of the reductio ad absurdum as our backdoor philosophy. True enough, the counterintuitive is not, in and of itself, an infallible beacon of truth, for science has demonstrated many counterintuitive notions to be true, given certain axioms. Nonetheless, absent any demonstration to the contrary and guided by an earnest community of inquiry, would we not do best to reject such as solipsism and radical

nihilism, and to embrace noncontradiction and excluded middle (within the norms suggested by both epistemological and ontological vagueness, which is another exhuastive consideration)? 64) So, yes, in freely choosing such axioms as we might employ in our attempt to answer the question --- What mediates between the possible and the actual? --- we are free to opt for chance or necessity, for order or chaos, for pattern or paradox, for the random or systematic, and we are free to apply such an option locally and/or globally, particularly or universally, to the whole of reality or to any part, and no one can dispossess us, through formal proof or with empirical evidence, of our chosen axioms. And, yes, once we have chosen such axioms, such meta-systems, we must recognize that, fundamentally, they are clearly tautological by design and in principle, and that any apologetic for same will be rather question begging. [Every time we open an ontological window, reality closes an epistemological door, I like to say.] The only recourse we have that seems to be at all compelling is the old reductio ad absurdum, taking this or that set of axioms, applying them to reality as best we have come to grasp same, and, after extrapolating it all to some putative logical conclusion, then testing it all for congruence with reality (and with whatever else happens to be in that suite of epistemological criteria as might comprise this or that community of inquiry's epistemic desiderata). 65) As a relevant aside, I have found that we best modify our modal ontological logic of possible, actual and necessary to possible, actual and probable, which allows one to prescind from the dyads of chance/necessity, order/chaos, pattern/paradox, random/systematic --- as these more and more seem to describe distinctions that should not be overworked into dichotomies, not that I am an inveterate peircean triadimaniac -for I am, rather, a pan-entheistic tetradimaniac (seems to me to be the least pregnant,

anyway). 66) What mediates between the possible and the actual? Probably, the probable. [And that may be the window Reality opened for Hefner's co-creators as God shrunk from the necessary? And that may be the future-oriented rupture between our essential possibilities and their existential realizations in Haught's teleological account of original sin?] 67) When the Beatles were with the Maharishi in India, at the end of one session, he offered anyone who was interested a ride back to the compound with him on his helicopter. John volunteered. When later queried about why he decided to go, John quipped: "Because I thought he'd slip me the answer." jb is going to slip you the answer.Ever heard of the pragmatic maxim?In my words, jb's maxim, it translates into What would you do differently if you had the answer? [And it doesn't matter what the question is or that it necessarily be THE question, whatever that is.] Now, if Lonergan's conversions --- cognitive, moral, affective, sociopolitical and religious -- were all fully effected in a human being and that person were truly authentic in lonerganian terms, mostly transformed in terms of classical theosis, then how would an authentic/transformed human answer the question: What would you do differently if you had the answer?S/he would answer thusly: Nothing. 68) That's what I really like most about lovers. I've seen them struggle with all these questions and have even seen them afflicted by these questions to an extent, but lovers are clearly among those for whom I know the answer to the abovequestion is: Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada.That's the epitome of unconditional love and that's the essence of the Imago Dei.And that is a small comfort ... so, it's a good thing that comfort is not what it's all about, Alfie. Carry on. Do carry on 69) In another vein, all of philosophy seems to turn on those three big questions of

Kant: What can I know? What can I hope for? What must I do?The astute observer might recognize that these questions correspond to truth, beauty and goodness and have been answered by philosophers in terms of logic, aesthetics and ethics and by religions in terms of creed, cult and code. They also correspond to the three theological virtues of faith, hope and love and to our psychological faculties of the cognitive, affective and moral (again, think Lonergan). At some point on my journey, I rested and answered these questions thusly: I don't know and I don't need to know. I don't feel and I don't need to feel. I love and I need to forgive.All of a sudden --- I kid ya not --- all manner of truth, beauty and goodness started chasing me rather than vice versa! If we frame the issue in terms of foci of concern, then the scientific focus will be more narrowly defined than the theological. The first is positivistic, the latter, philosophic. 70) The scientific focus looks at facts through the lens of popperian falsification. It structures its arguments formally and thus employs mathematics and other closed, formal symbol systems through which it can establish correspondence between those parts of reality we agree to call givens: primitives (space, time, mass/charge, energy), forces (weak, strong, electromagnetic, gravity) and axioms (conservation, thermodynamics). It seeks to provide descriptive accounts of these parts of reality and deals in proofs. 71) The philosophic focus is a wider perspective, which is to say it embraces additional concerns by looking through the lenses of the normative sciences of logic, aesthetics and ethics. It looks at rules. Its arguments are not formally constructed but it does try to establish coherence in its accounts of reality. It seeks to provide evaluative accounts of reality as a whole and deals in justifications. 72) Lonergan scholar, Daniel Helminiak, defines two additional foci of concern, which are progressively wider perspectives, the theistic and theotic, the

latter having to do with human transformation in relation to God (and which might represent one of many perspectives presented at Star). 73) Broader perspectives, wider foci of concern, do not invalidate the narrower foci, if for no other reason, then, because they are focusing on different aspects of reality, in fact, additional aspects. 74) In Jeff's frontier town, out on the working edge of science, any novel concepts being introduced must indeed be precisely specified in the language of science, which is to say one must introduce a novel primitive, force or axiom, or a novel interaction between existing givens, into a closed, formal symbol system like mathematics. This novelty can then be tested for correspondence with reality, in other words, factuality, through popperian falisfication (which is not itself falsifiable). 75) As for unfortunate trends among scientists, philosophers and theologians, descriptively, in terms of blurred focus, these are manifold and varied with no monopolies on same? I am time-constrained, wrote this hurriedly and must run. My next consideration was going to be Theories of Everything and how they should be categorized and why? Any ideas? 76) Obviously, I could not elaborate a comprehensive organon/architectonic of human knowledge categories in only four paragraphs and thus did not draw out such distinctions as, for instance, the very living of life, itself, from the arts, the practical sciences, the heuristic sciences, the theoretical sciences, the normative sciences and so on. The particular point I was making, however, more particularly turned on the distinction between those matters in life which we prove versus those which we otherwise justify. As a retired bank chairman/president, I must say that it would have pleased me very much, too, to have seen the justice system derive more of its rules from logic. Note, also, the operative word, derive, and you'll have some

sense of how my elaboration will unfold 77) Because one of the manifold criteria for good hypotheses vis a vis the scientific method is the making of measurable predictions in the context of hypothetico-deductive and inductive reasoning, we might properly talk about proof as being more broadly conceived, our descriptive accounts lending themselves to measurements (and hypothetical fecundity). Of course, induction, itself, is not formal logic, anyway 78) Those trends that frighten me the most are the different fundamentalisms (including both the religious fundamentalisms and enlightenment fundamentalism or scientism). 79) By Theory of Everything (TOE). I mean such as M-theory, superstrings, quantum gravity, unified field theory, etc in the realm of theoretical physics. I believe there are metamathematical problems that inhere in such a TOE as set forth in Godel's incompleteness theorems. This is not to suggest a TOE could not be mathematically formulated but only to say it could not, in principle, be proven. Neither is this to suggest that, because it couldn't be formally demonstrated, we wouldn't otherwise know we'd discovered same. 80) A long time ago, my graduate research was in neuroendocrinology Also, the emergentist heuristic of something more from nothing but may have implications for some of the difficulties that remain in our understanding of consciousness? As far as philosophic accounts of same, my overall theological perspective doesn't turn on whether or not Dennett, Searle, Chalmers, Penrose, Ayn Rand or the Churchlands are correct (vis a vis the positivistic elements of their accounts), although, presently, I'm leaning toward Deacon's rather peircean biosemiotic perspective. 81) For me to have written this: "Neither is this to suggest that, because it couldn't be formally demonstrated, we wouldn't otherwise know we'd

discovered same," maybe I was talking about both? I purposefully left the categorization of any TOE open to tease out different perspectives. My take, to avoid being too coy, is that a TOE requires more than a positivistic focus. It necessarily involves a broadening of our scientific focus to embrace the additional concerns of the philosophic. Some folks go further. 82) It's my guess that Baldwinian evolution captures many imaginations because it employs the notion of downward causation. Furthermore, if one frames up the problem of consciousness biosemiotically, in some sense one recovers the classic aristotelian notions of material, formal and final causality. Exciting? Yes. But ... 83) However, one doesn't need to a priori dismiss cartesian dualism and neither does one need to a priori embrace a fully reductionistic philosophy of mind (including the physical causal closure of the universe) to, at the same time, recognize that such biosemiotic accounts do not, necessarily, violate known physical laws or the idea of physical causal closure. In other words, there can be strong and weak versions of downward causation, both being both nonphysical and nonreductive, and the emergentistic, biosemiotic account of evolving complexity utilizes the weak version. This does involve a work-around of frameworks that employ strictly efficient causation. 84) What might some of us do with our imaginations? Well, we might invoke various analogies from different physical and/or semiotic accounts to our philosophic, metaphysical and even theological accounts. And, sometimes, we might lose sight of how progressively weak these analogies can become. 85) I suppose I could at least be pleased that Dawkins did not consider mystics and obscurantists to be a redundancy? My charitable interpretation would be that he recognized that the conscious and deliberate invocation of analogies by authentic mystics, who have their eyes open to this analogical dynamic (apophatically

inclined as they are!), is valid (even if he might impute little pragmatic cash value to same), while, for their part, the obscurantists might even altogether deny the metaphorical and analogical nature of their extrapolations (not necessarily in bad faith). [The evidence in favor of a charitable interpretation is not being weighed here.] At any rate, the medieval scotistic notion of the formal distinction, the peircean distinction between objective and physical reality, and the semiotic notion of form realism don't invite ghosts into machines or gods into gaps. Metaphorically and analogically, and metaphysically, however, different notions of causation are ... let me say ... interesting. 86) All that said, consciousness remains way overdetermined, scientifically speaking, as well as, philosophically speaking, both epistemologically and ontologically open (as far as strongly emergent, weakly supervenient systems are concerned, not to say that supervenience might not be a rather trivial notion). Pugh may be on to something: If our brains were so simple we could understand them, we would be so simple that we couldn't (or something like that). I submit we have no a priori justification for selecting a philosophy of mind and precious little a posteriori warrant either. Gun to my head, however, I like Deacon (and his important nuances of the accounts of Dennett and Dawkins re: memetic, genetic and computational fallacies). 87) Godel's relevance to a TOE is controversial. I'd be willing to argue both sides. But let me agree with you by suggesting physics is formal and physicists (and Nature and God) are not, by drawing a distinction between proving and knowing, by recognizing that even if a TOE was mathematically formulated in a positivistic/descriptive framework, we'd have to fall back on our philosophic/evaluative framework to justify our faith in it. 88) In reading Hawking's take on Godel's relevance to a TOE he does seem to draw an obvious direct metamathematical connection? But I cannot say that

he did so unequivocally because almost everything else he said after that clearly invoked Godel analogously. So, at the very least, per Hawking, a physical theory is going to be Godellike (M-theory per his discussion). Hawking's lecture can be heard here: http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/strtst/dirac/hawking/audio.ram 89) I can better wrap my positivistic mind around a weak anthropic principle in the same way I can accept weak versions of downward causation and weak deontological ethics even as I do not a priori rule out the strong versions. Heidegger's question has been rephrased, lately, as Why is there something and not rather something else? and this makes the strong anthropic principle more compelling in some philosophic frameworks (but understandably trivial in others). Wittgenstein's It's not how things are but that things are which is the mystical doesn't sway those who'd not take existence as a predicate of being, but what about a bounded existence, a universe in a multiverse, in a pluralistic reality? Maybe there is some univocity of being (Duns Scotist) and some analogy of being (thomism), too? [For instance, a pan-entheism is monistic, dualistic and pluralistic.] 90) Chesterton said that we do not know enough about reality to say that it is unknowable and Haldane says that reality is not only stranger than we imagine but stranger than we can imagine. They can both be correct. If humankind does formulate a TOE, it could well be something we have stumbled over and not rather worked out through hypothetico-deductive and inductive reasoning/imagination. It not only takes faith and the evaluative aspect of the human knowledge manifold to believe a TOE might be found. Those epistemic faculties would also necessarily be involved in the recognition that it had indeed been found. 91) To the extent that I may have had an agenda (transparent, I hope), and to the extent that agenda has been somewhat of an apologetic invoking

various (and sometimes substantial)degrees of epistemological parity between the world's great, extant weltanschauungs, I am willing (and, in fact, pleased) to argue this point in favor of your conclusion. In that case, perhaps I have been concerning myself with epistemological strawmen or shadowboxing with the philosophical ghosts of yesteryear, who advocated logical positivism, radical empiricism, hyper-rationalism, scientism and such or who countered these with fideism, radical religious fundamentalism and such, such advocacies and counteradvocacies being the obverse sides of the same coin of the realm of epistemological hubris. As you are aware, neither do I countenance an excessive epistemological humility. 92) Perhaps we can say that for me to make such points on the IRASnet or MetaNexus would be a preaching to the choir, for the most part, and that no discipline has adopted that usage in a long time. In that case, I agree that I might have drawn an unnecessary distinction. Perhaps we can also suggest, however, that not everyone, perhaps even most (the un-disciplined), have been successfully evangelized and that our task is not done, our work is otherwise unfinished, and the distinction for that audience thus remains pertinent? 93) Theology (forgiving the erstwhile - I hope - extreme scholastic realism) employed what were known as the scholastic notations. Seminarians were taught to place, in the margin of their notebooks, little notes indicating whether a proposition was: 1) impossible 2) possible 3) improbable 4) implausible 5) uncertain 6) plausible 7) probable 8) certain. Lately, in the modal logic of a) the possible b) the actual and c) the necessary, the latter has been amended to the probable, by some. 94) The distinction I'd offer here is something like Hume makes re: skepticism and induction. It is the distinction between the theoretical and the practical. Even if a TOE is

beyond our grasp strictly theoretically speaking, all TOEs being fatally flawed in principle, still, from a practical perspective, I think it is fair to say that we may be able to justify our belief in a TOE, someday, in a universally compelling manner. Does this undermine my assertions re: Godel? I would say that I meant that it is possible my assertions could be undermined. How plausible or probable? 95) Since I am working on another project re: Criteria for Articulating a TOE, I used Michael's evocative query as a springboard in constructing my epistemological preamble to that project. Below is my original response, which I then edited and sent along just now as a much shorter version. I think TOE discussions are central to the dialogue between science and religion. However, they are notoriously difficult to air out on listserv forums because too much renormalization is required to translate all hermeneutics into a single lingua franca with logically compatible concepts and axioms. With that caveat, here it is for the few who may be interested. 96) To the extent that I may have had an agenda (transparent, I hope), and to the extent that agenda has been somewhat of an apologetic invoking various (and sometimes substantial) degrees of epistemological parity between the world's great, extant weltanschauungs, I am willing (and, in fact, pleased) to argue this point in favor of your conclusion. In that case, perhaps I have been concerning myself with epistemological strawmen or shadowboxing with the philosophical ghosts of yesteryear, who advocated logical positivism, radical empiricism, hyper-rationalism, scientism and such or who countered these with fideism, radical religious fundamentalism and such, such advocacies and counteradvocacies being the obverse sides of the same coin of the realm of epistemological hubris. As you are aware, neither do I countenance an excessive epistemological humility. 97) Theology (forgiving the erstwhile - I hope - extreme scholastic

realism) employed what were known as the scholastic notations. Seminarians were taught to place, in the margin of their notebooks, little notes indicating whether a proposition was: 1) impossible 2) possible 3) improbable 4) implausible 5) uncertain 6) plausible 7) probable 8) certain. Lately, in the modal logic of a) the possible b) the actual and c) the necessary, the latter has been amended to the probable. In semiotic logic, the application of first principles has been nuanced such that excluded middle and noncontradiction hold or fold based on modal categories under consideration (for the possible, NC folds but EM holds; for the actual, NC & EM hold; for the probable, NC holds but EM folds). Such modal logic reflects ontological vagueness. Such semiotic logic reflects semantical or epistemological vagueness. Alas, these are oversimplifications, but they fit your thesis (and mine). 98) Of course, a TOE would be, at best, consistent but incomplete. That it would thus not be absolute follows from any Godel-like implications (arguably even directly from Godel). It then follows that, having no recourse to apodictic proof, we are thrown back on the resources of our evaluative continuum as it works in conjunction with the other aspects of the human knowledge manifold (sensation, perception, cognition, rational continuum, etc), normatively guiding and regulating and largely capacitating them. It thus qualifies my godelian assertions only in the sense that such constraints are not overcome by JOTS (jumping outside the system, as some cavalierly suggest) to the extent that we are forever chasing the axioms for our axioms but are overcome by JOTS to the extent that we accept all attempts to justify a TOE as fatally flawed from a theoretical perspective but not necessarily from a practical perspective. The godelian-like implications, though not couched in this manner, are well-inventoried by Suber in his The

Problem with Beginning. 99) So, what constitutes very persuasive? Is it not an issue of justification? And you have properly gathered my whole thrust regarding the epistemological parity of many of our extant alternate worldviews: they all fallback on justification attempts. And this brings us to the issue of epistemic virtue and vice and how humankind might best define same as a community of inquiry, whose foci of concern variously overlap or not and do so with great existential import and tremendous implications for the therapies we devise for what ails us. Finally, we can arbitrate between the worldviews once we have established a consensus on epistemic norms, but, if we had those in place, even now, we don't have enough info to apply them to everyone's complete satisfaction. (However, let's not forget that many are ALREADY and not, rather, Almost Persuaded, as it is re: their worldviews). 100) Alas, this brings us back, full circle, to the question of whether or not it is just too early to tell how a universally compelling TOE might unfold or whether or not we will ever truly unweave the rainbow and all of its antecedent causes, theoretically or practically. The following constitutes a longer response to an abovequestion. 101) The art of epistemological nuance, as I imbibed it from Mother's knee, albeit as an unconscious competent, was handed down to me, not from the long traditions of thomism and scotism (which well articulated same), but, from the longer tradition of patristic theology (including dionysian mysticism and other neoplatonic influences, which would inform our aristotelian perspectives). My present intuition, which I cannot substantiate but will investigate further (some day), is that my epistemological heritage goes back past the early church fathers, even, to the mytho-poeticpractical mindset of the semitic imagination circa Hebrew Testament days. Let me elaborate. 102) As one looks at the human knowledge manifold, from sensation &

perception, emotion & motivation, learning & memory, imagination & intuition, inference & deliberation, from instinctive to affective to cognitive, from nonrational to prerational to rational to suprarational, from noninferential to preinferential to inferential to postinferential, or any way one prefers to dice it and slice it, I suppose it is not entirely clear, anthropologically, how and when different peoples integrally deployed these different aspects. For example, suppose we assume that some of these aspects constitute what we might call the evaluative continuum of the human knowledge manifold, while others moreso represent the rational continuum (all of which is tightly integrated). 103) Another correspondent has argued with me over whether or not the early semitic imagination employed any type of inference (more commonly known as abduction, induction, deduction & transduction). My guess was that surely it did and that the proper distinction between the semitic and hellenistic mindsets, let's say ca. when the Christian tradition was in formation, would not be the latter's employment of inference but, rather, the hellenistic employment of formal/abstract inference in addition to any informal/concrete inference. Inference, not otherwise distinguished, is simply abduction, induction and deduction. To say that the mytho-poetic-practical mindset did not use humanity's full cognitive capacities, which I do think is possible, maybe even plausible, is not to say that it did not engage the inferential aspects of the human knowledge manifold. Rather, one is suggesting that, perhaps, it did not develop formal operational abilities. It undoubtedly would have developed transductive, inductive and deductive reasoning and would even have thought abductively about such things as coordinated action. Still, such reasoning, if concretely operational and not formally operational, would not employ the hypothetico-deductive or scientific-inductive reasoning that

requires both a more robust abductive facility as well as abstract conceptual abilities. 104) Now, one might also say that many of the hellenistic mindset did not use humanity's full human knowledge manifold either insofar as many overemphasized, to a fault, the employment of the rational continuum without acknowledging the role of the evaluative continuum. (I have a friend who mourns the day Athens met Jerusalem). All that said, there was apparently a gravitation toward inductive inference in the semitic and deductive in the hellenistic. 105) We discussed previously that not all logic is binary, that some is fuzzy and contextual-relational, that we seek symmetry and patterns. The Hebrew literature is replete with concrete inductive and deductive inference. It gifts us with a heightened awareness of patterns in creation, for instance. The genius of the mytho-poetic-practical mind renders such inference wisdom and not merely reason. That genius embodies everything that gives the peircean perspective some of its advantage (while it also has its disadvantages) over the classical philosophical traditions insofar as it is concrete, dynamic, wholistic and relational over against abstract, static, dualistic and ontological (iow, escapes essentialism, nominalism, substantialism, dualism). 106) It is Our Story (hence the impetus behind Everybody's Story) that unifies and gives value to our experience, so we do not want to ignore this indispensable unifying element of the evaluative continuum and concrete inferences (and faith, iow) even as we do (and must) transcend the mythical-literal aspect. We must proactively engage affective judgment and imaginative-intuitive thinking integrally, holistically, in conjunction with inferential thinking (whether concretely or abstractly) for optimal inferential performance is my view. (Scientists with keen aesthetic sensibilities have an advantage?) Abstract, formal inferential thinking, including the hypothetico-deductive and scientific-inductive,

of the formal operational stage of cognitive development, is a morally neutral activity, which can assist virtue or vice, which can become a fetish, but so can any other aspect of the human knowledge manifold (evaluative and rational continuua) that asserts its autonomy and denies any relationality with the other aspects. 107) There's a lot going on in philosophy that is analogous to what's going on in math (and metamathematics). There is a lot going on in metaphysics that is analogous to what's going on in theoretical physics. In a nutshell, there are a lot of different systems with different axioms and it requires so much careful predication, high nuancing and disambiguation of concepts before everyone is reading from the same sheet of music that most popular philosophical discussion consists of people talking past one another. Consider the renormalization required in physics as attempts are made at a grand unified theory because the natures of the alternate decriptions (quantum vs field vs gravity and such) are logically and mutually exclusive. Well, something like that is required in metaphysics as we jump back and forth between substance accounts, process accounts, substance-process accounts, participative accounts, semiotic accounts and so on. Each account attempts to eliminate the ambiguity (paradox) in the next account and creates new ambiguities of its own. Everytime a philosopher or metaphysician opens a new hermeneutical window, the axiomatic backdraft shuts another epistemological door. Any attempt to halt an infinite regress seems to introduce some type of causal disjunction. Any attempt at self-consistency introduces circular-referentiality. Attempts to banish such tautologies introduce stipulated beginning (ipse dixit) and question begging (petitio) fallacies. Our justification attempts can also fallback on the resources of faith and noncognitive strategies. Paradox is inescapable. There is no consistent account that is complete. There is no complete account that is consistent. These accounts necessarily

utilize some terms univocally and others equivocally. The equivocal can be either simply equivocal or analogical. The analogical can be attributive (if real causes and effects are invoked) or proportional (if we are invoking similarities in the relationships between two different pairs of terms). If such an similarity is essential to those terms we have a proper proportinality but if it is accidental we have an improper proportionality, a metaphor. And we use a lot of metaphors, even if physics, and they all eventually collapse. 108) These accounts are not Nature, so the godelian constraints and godelian-like constraints and attendant justification problems don't apply to Nature per se but only to our attempts to describe nature, which are abstractions. Maybe the clarification we seek is located in the distinction between a TOE as it might exist in some platonic heaven and one as might be abstracted by an earthly abstractor. I cannot conceive of how the latter would even be possible using human inferential capacities to the extent a TOE is predicated as a metaphysic and with all metaphysics being pregnant with some form of paradox (some multiple birthing and more fecund than others), all meta-accounts being fatally flawed (some more morbid than others). If you distinguish this earthly-abstracted TOE from one existing in a platonic heaven and perceivable from a putative-God's eye view by some being univocally predicated as a Consistent Comprehendor, then Godel would certainly not be lurking and neither would anyone else for who could afford to pay that kind of epistemological rent? 109) But for reasons we both stated before, not even much depending on how one predicates a TOE, I don't see it as either a theoretical or practical concern except as might belong to One predicated, in part, as Primal Ground. [Consistent Comprehendor has been one of my univocal predications of a hypothetical deity, in fact. 110) I've been giving this much thought of late, especially while reading Merton but

also while contemplating "contemplation" and epistemology and such related issues, in general. Increasingly, I feel the need to make the following distinction.Whether in ascetical or mystical theology, formative spirituality or developmental psychology, all as integrally considered, when one employs the term "simple" or related notions like "simplicity," one must be clear as to whether one really means "simple versus complex" or, rather, "simple versus difficult".Very often, spiritual writers have spoken of simplicity both with respect to prayer and with respect to certain asceticisms, disciplines and practices that help to dispose one to prayer, cultivating solitude and nurturing a contemplative outlook. Increasingly, it seems to me that such simplicity is moreso of the "simple versus difficult" variety, which is to say that we are talking in terms of ease and facility [Webster's 9th definition, below] and not so much of any lack of complexity [Webster's 5th definition]. 111) If contemplation is simple, then I would say that it is simple in the sense that, for the contemplative, prayer is facile, easy, readily performed. It is not difficult for the proficient. So it is with most any art, whether pertaining to dance or music or athleticism. So it is with many of life's tasks, whether riding a bike or driving a standard automobile, or performing one's trade as an accomplished technician. 112) The underlying deployment of the various aspects of the human evaluative continuum --- from awareness, sensation & perception, emotion & motivation, learning & memory, imagination & intuition, inference & deliberation --wholistically & integrally employing our instinctive, affective and cognitive faculties, is clearly complex and not at all "simple" in the sense of being "uncomplicated" or "artless" or such. 113) Developmentally speaking, there are no shortcuts to such simplicity, to such artform, to such technical competence, to such proficiency. Preparation through catechesis, ongoing cultivation through liturgy and lectio divina,

fidelity to law and code both obligationally and aspirationally, and commitment to community, all contribute, integrally, toward properly disposing one for higher gifts. 114) Now, it is true enough that the Holy Spirit gifts us with charisms that exceed our natural talents and with infused prayer that can be received only as gift and that there is a simplicity in such grace that transcends our human categories of simple vs difficult, simple vs complex. What I speak of, here, are all of the natural and normal preparations we make, no less cooperating with grace, such preparations and practices being quite complex when you think about them, psychologically and epistemologically, even as they are progressively done with great facility and simplicity, iow, proficiency, through time and dutiful practice. 115) In this sense, contemplation might best be equated with the total offering [perhaps, Webster's 8th definition] of our entire selves, the total oblation of our entire lives, the total disposal of our human evaluative continuum, to God. And this offering is wholly, holy whole. 116) And this offering is progressively easier, more facile, more simple -- even as it is one of the most complex maneuvers, complicated dance steps, a human will ever perform. It starts off simple but gets increasingly complex. It starts off difficult but gets progressively simple (facile). 117) Main Entry: 1sim·ple Pronunciation: 'sim-p&l Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, plain, uncomplicated, artless, from Latin simplus, simplex, literally, single 5 a : SHEER, UNMIXED <simple honesty> b : free of secondary complications <a simple vitamin deficiency> c (1) : having only one main clause and no subordinate clauses <a simple sentence> (2) of a subject or predicate : having no modifiers, complements, or objects d : constituting a

basic element : FUNDAMENTAL e : not made up of many like units <a simple eye>`8 : not limited or restricted : UNCONDITIONAL <a simple obligation>9 : readily understood or performed <simple directions> <the adjustment was simple to make>synonym see in addition EASY 118) Another angle. Recall the distinctions Washburn made vis a vis Wilber and the pre-trans fallacies.I built upon these such that, ontologically, we distinguish between 1) (meta)physical structures, 2) developmental stages and 3) phenomenal states, while, epistemologically, we distinguish between 1) our environing reality (including ultimate reality), 2) the environed reality (of the human evaluative continuum) and 3) our foci of concern (recall Helminiak). 119) In terms of simplicity, then, for the proficient on the spiritual journey, what is going on in one's physical structure (psychologically & spiritually, integrally & holistically), where one is re: developmental stages, how the environed reality interacts with the environing reality with ever expanded foci of concern --- all of this is increasingly complex. There is FAR more going on, epistemologically and ontologically, with the proficient than there is going on for the novice. If the phenomenal state seems to be rather quiet, this is only because of the smooth, proficiency and well-practiced facility of these advanced parts of the journey. A proficient shifting gears and working the clutch IS going to be QUIETER than a beginner, who is learning to drive the spiritual motorcar. This is due to a simplicity born of facility and not from a lack of complexity. 120) I think it has been a failure to make this distinction that has led folks down the paths of error such as quietism, fideism and such, denigrating various faculties of human knowledge, wrongly deemphasizing various aspects of the human knowledge manifold, whether the evaluative and/or rational continuum. 121) The trick is not to confuse the distinctions we draw between the

instinctive and the affective and the cognitive for dichotomies, which is to say that, in order to be authentically human, we employ all of these faculties, in some meausre, all of the time. There is an inauthenticity, a denial of our own humanity, in being rationalistic (only the head) or fideistic/pietistic (only the heart). The point is that there is no superiority in the sense that anyone can be an authentic human, even as we note that it takes some doing. Theresa, the Little Flower, is a Doctor of the Church, so certainly underwent an intellectual conversion in addition to any affective, moral, social and religious conversions. She may not have led with her intellect, let's say, the way her fellow Carmelite John of the Cross did, but she did not interfere with its being transvalued by her other conversion experiences. Wisdom results. Authenticity is an "accomplishment" of wholeness and intellectual conversion is not to be mistaken for academic learning, alone. If we first follow Lonergan's imperatives to be attent, intelligent, reasonable and so forth, very much matters of the will, too, it'll take care of itself in the "simplest" of souls. 122) This is not unrelated to Occam's Razor and the Law of Parsimony, eh? And Charles Sanders Peirce suggests that it is the facility with which we come up with an hypothesis and not the lack of complexity in same that parsimony should measure. As far as priesthoods and power-hoarding, or clericalism, although that happens we do not want to commit the fallacy of misuse, which argues against something that is otherwise good and which should only be used properly. Arrogance can be a two way street -- one side arrogating and asserting it has the answers and is here to help and the other side arrogating and saying it has the answers and needs no help. Alas, good storytelling (homiletics) seems to be the best way to reach all audiences. 123) .I would agree and qualify that one can, as a proficient, afford to just look

because the look-er's entire evaluative continuum has been so very well prepared (cultivated, disposed, trained or what have you). Every apophatic moment contains, for the proficient, all kataphasis, and every kataphatic moment contains all apophasis, too, as one encounters reality with one's entire evaluative continuum integrally and holistically deployed. The simplicity is real insofar as an organic whole is in operation and is not otherwise fractured. If the phenomenal state of the contemplative soul resembles that of one who has merely paused between sensation and abstraction, that is a superficial resemblance because the developmental stages and underlying structures could be quite different (formed, for instance, by catechesis, liturgy, lectio divina, moral development, etc a la lonerganian conversions). Of course, it does occur to me that Maritain has already done this work of drawing such distinctions between philosophical contemplation, connaturality, intuition of being, natural mysticism and mystical contemplation, etc And, of course, there are all of the problems about the use of the term contemplation in the first place, such as acquired vs infused, etc But I am just toying with what we mean and do not mean by simple. The non-reflective aspect is important --- whether driving a car, playing a guitar, dancing a ballet or praying. All proficiency seems to move toward simplicty a la facility and ease. I do not think I'll be playing Classical Gas tonight, though, on my guitar, no matter how simple it is for Mason Williams! So, with the above caveats in mind, practically speaking, below are some criteria I have gathered for a fallibilistic attempt at a Theory of Everything: 1) Looking for an explanation in common sensical terms of causation is not unreasonable. 2) Looking around at the whole of reality and wondering who, what, when, where, how and why re: any given part of it or re: reality as a whole is a meaningful pursuit. 3) Almost everyone comes up with an abduction of God (or per CSP, an argument, by which he simply means a god hypothesis) or some other-named primal cause of

it all. 4) Some use a substance approach, describing all of reality in those thomistic-aristotelian terms like form, substance, esse, essence and with nuances like analogy of being. It doesn't have explanatory adequacy in terms of leading to a universally compelling proof through formal argument in tandem with empirical experience because, by the time we have suitably predicated a god-concept, the dissimilarities and discontinuities between God and creature so far outnumber the similarities that a causal disjunction paradox is introduced. How can a Cause so unrelated to other causes and not at all explicable in intelligible terms vis a vis other causes really, effectively, efficaciously truly effect anything. Also, substance approaches are too essentialistic, as they were classically conceived, iow, too static. This has been addressed with substance-process approaches but these still suffer the causal disjunct. 5) Some describe reality dynamically interms of process and fall into nominalism, violating our common sense experience of reality as truly representative of real meaning. They account for process and dynamics but do not account for content that is communicated. These explanations, especially if materialist or idealist monisms also tend to fall into an infinte regress of causes. The only way to stop them is with some type of ontological discontinuity, which introduces the old causal disjunct. 6) Some, seeing this conundrum, with the causal disjuncts and essentialisms of substance approaches and the infinite regressions and nominalism of process approaches, and with the a prioristic context in which they are grounded, prescind from such metaphysics or ontologies to a semiotic approach which then avoids nominalism by providing both a dynamic process and content (meaning) and which avoids essentialism by being dynamic. It also avoids a causal disjunction since all of reality is not framed up in terms of substance and being but rather in semiotic and modal terms, such as sign, interpreter, syntax, symbol, such as possible, actual, necessary and probable. To prescind from these other metaphysical perspectives does solve a host of problems and does eliminate many mutual

occlusivities and unintelligibilities and paradoxes, but it still levaes the question begging as to the origin of things like chance, probability, necessity. IOW, one inescapably must get ontological again to satisfy the human curiosity, not wrongheaded, imo, with respect to causal inferences that naturally arise and which, in fact, ground our scientific method and epistemologies. Why? Well, because causes must be proportionate and whatever or whomever or however the Cause of causes, of chances, of probabilities is --- is then like the semiotic process and modal realities we can describe in many ways but necessarily unlike them in many more ways. 7) Still, Peirce may be right insofar as he suggests that going beyond this simple abduction to a more exhuastive description of the putative deity is a fetish (we can't help ourselves), there is a great deal of useful info (pragmatic maxim or cash-value) to be gathered from the analogies we might then draw from the semiotic and modal similarities that do exist. God is thus intelligible, not to be confused with comprehensible. 8) So, my thoughts are that we cannot get away from a) some type of substance approach, from ontology, from being, from esse ... if we are to address the paradox of infinite regress b) some type of process approach, if we are to avoid essentialism and causal disjunctions and c) some type of semiotic approach, if we are to avoid nominalism and account for meaning and communicative content and d) some type of theistic approach, if we are to avoid leaving the questions of origin begging and if we are going to preserve our common sensical notions of classical causality, upon which much of our community of inquiry depends, such as re: scientific method. 9) This does not mean we can syncretistically and facilely combine these above approaches into some master paradigm of semitoic-substance-process panentheism. There is a problem of renormalization, which is to say that they often employ mutually incompatible and contradictory terms and approaches, analogously speaking, sometimes using noneuclidean geometry, sometimes base 2, sometimes spatialized time, sometimes temporalized space, sometimes imaginary numbers. It is analogous to the same project that would try to combine quantum

mechanics with general and special relativity to describe quantum gravity. It is not just analogous to this renormalization in physics required before a TOE is contrived, the normalization of physical theories would itself be part of the TOE we are working on! 10)What happens then is that by the time we finish renormalizing all of our theories, predicating and defining and nuancing and disambiguating all of our concepts, we will have effectively generated a novel language with its own grammar, its own terms ... and it will be so arcane and esoteric and inaccessible ... it would be like reading something that fellow johnboy wrote, when he was relating his latest interpretation of Thomas Merton as seen through a kurtvonnegutian hermeneutic. 11) All of the above notwithstanding, this TOE project is fun and we can glimpse enough insight from it to inform our theological anthropologies and formative spiritualities. All I have done thus far hereinabove is to get us to some metaphysical deity. What might be Her attributes? See http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2352

Christian Nonduality http://twitter.com/johnssylvest Bird Photos by David Joseph Sylvest johnboy@christiannonduality.com

Christian Nonduality

To Avow & Dis-avow an Axiological Vision of the Whole NEW: Cathlimergent Internet Forum The Christian Nonduality Blog Home Radical Emergence Nonduality & the Emerging Church Emergence Happens When: To Avow & Dis-avow an Axiological Vision of the Whole Montmarte, Colorado Springs & the Kingdom Wanted: Women Warriors Maiden, Mother, Crone & Queen: archetypes & transformation East Meets West Ki, Qi, Chi, Prana & Kundalini No-Self & Nirvana elucidated by Dumoulin One: Essential Writings in Nonduality - a review Simone Weil John of the Cross Thomas Merton The True Self The Passion Hermeneutical Eclecticism & Interreligious Dialogue The Spirit Christian Nonduality more on Nonduality The Contemplative Stance Hesychasm Mysticism - properly considered Karl Rahner Wounded Innocence Rogation Days Radical Orthodoxy

If human value-pursuits have both cosmological and axiological aspects, and a cosmology includes both descriptive (scientific, positivist) and normative (philosophic) approaches, then what's involved in our axiological pursuits, which are interpretive and evaluative? If a cosmology articulates knowledge, an axiological vision of the whole conveys understanding via an interpretation, which articulates what Charles Taylor calls a social imaginary, which he describes as much like hometown know-how, this contrasted with scientific and philosophic knowledge, which are more like map-reading. The social imaginary engages us through stories, narratives, myths and icons. Arguably, the great traditions and many native religions, in one way or another, articulate a pneumatological social imaginary, all invoking some image of spirit. Evaluatively, these pneumatological social imaginaries address profound human aspirations, hopes, desires; the value pursued is love. Often, our axiological visions of the whole, AVOWs, lose touch with their spirit-filled roots and lose sight of their spirit-animated vision and we then pursue inordinate desires (Ignatius) with disordered appetites (John of the Cross). Often, these AVOWs operate subconsciously, but operate they will - for every human value-pursuit derives from the integral relating of our cosmologies and axiologies as the normative mediates between the descriptive and the interpretive to effect the evaluative, for better or for worse. This is the basic epistemological architectonic which I've employed as a heuristic when evaluating human value-pursuits. It has served as a foil and has provided a critique, integrating all of the best insights I have been able to absorb from my favorite pastor-theologians, Richard Rohr and Amos Yong, and contemplative sojourners, Thomas Merton and Thomas Keating. Much of what Christian Nonduality has been about is exploring, crossculturally and interreligiously, the role of contemplation, a nondual stance, 3rd Eye seeing and such on the transformative journey. More needs to be said about basic religious formation and how it fits into this architectonic, theoretically. Even more needs to be said about the practicalities of religious formation. I'm very pleased to report that all of this has already been said and it has been said so very well by Jamie Smith.

Presuppositionalism vs Nihilism? Science Epistemic Virtue Pan-semioentheism: a pneumatological theology of nature Architectonic Anglican - Roman Dialogue The Ethos of Eros Musings on Peirce Eskimo Kiss Waltz the Light Side of Dark Comedy Blog Visits Other Online Resources Are YOU Going to Scarborough Fair? Suggested Reading Tim King's Post Christian Blog The Dylan Mass If You Are In Distress, Spiritual or Otherwise pending The Great Tradition properly conceived Postmodern Conservative Catholic Pentecostal

Desiring the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview, and Cultural Formation (Cultural Liturgies) (Paperback) by James K. A. Smith is the most stimulating and enriching book I've read this year (and Rohr's latest is pre-ordered). It resonates beautifully with my own axiological vision of the whole. It affirms the primacy of our affective, desiring, loving self without asserting its autonomy from our cognitive, propositional, thinking (and even believing) self. It recognizes that an axiological vision of the whole operates, even if subconsciously and implicitly, in the quasi-liturgies of mall and marketplace and urges a conscious-competence on us all in our rituals, practices and liturgies. Others say this much better: From Amazon: Desiring

the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview, and Cultural Formation (Cultural Liturgies) (Paperback) Malls, stadiums, and universities are actually liturgical structures that influence and shape our thoughts and affections. Humans--as Augustine noted--are "desiring agents," full of longings and passions; in brief, we are what we love. James K. A. Smith focuses on the themes of liturgy and desire in Desiring the Kingdom, the first book in what will be a three-volume set on the theology of culture. He redirects our yearnings to focus on the greatest good: God. Ultimately, Smith seeks to re-vision education through the process and practice of worship. Students of philosophy, theology, worldview, and culture will welcome Desiring the Kingdom, as will those involved in ministry and other interested readers. From the Back Cover A Philosophical Theology of Culture Philosopher James K. A. Smith reshapes the very project of Christian education in Desiring the Kingdom. The first of three volumes that will ultimately provide a comprehensive theology of culture, Desiring the Kingdom focuses education around the themes of liturgy, formation, and desire. Smith's ultimate purpose is to re-vision Christian education as a formative process that redirects our desire toward God's kingdom and its vision of flourishing. In the same way, he re-visions Christian

worship as a pedagogical practice that trains our love. "James Smith shows in clear, simple, and passionate prose what worship has to do with formation and what both have to do with education. He argues that the God-directed, embodied love that worship gives us is central to all three areas and that those concerned as Christians with teaching and learning need to pay attention, first and last, to the ordering of love. This is an important book and one whose audience should be much broader than the merely scholarly."--Paul J. Griffiths, Duke Divinity School "In lucid and lively prose, Jamie Smith reaches back past Calvin to Augustine, crafting a new and insightful Reformed vision for higher education that focuses on the fundamental desires of the human heart rather than on worldviews. Smith deftly describes the 'liturgies' of contemporary life that are played out in churches--but also in shopping malls, sports arenas, and the ad industry--and then re-imagines the Christian university as a place where students learn to properly love the world and not just think about it."--Douglas Jacobsen and Rhonda Hustedt Jacobsen, Messiah College; authors of Scholarship and Christian Faith: Enlarging the Conversation "This is a wise, provocative, and inspiring book. It prophetically blurs the boundaries between theory and practice, between theology and other disciplines, between descriptive analysis and constructive imagination. Anyone involved in Christian education should read this book to glimpse a holistic vision of learning and formation. Anyone involved in the worship life of Christian communities should read this book to discover again all that is at stake in the choices we make about our practices."--John D. Witvliet, Calvin Institute of Christian Worship; Calvin College and Calvin Theological Seminary

The Naked Now: Learning to See as the Mystics See (Paperback) For Christians seeking a way of thinking outside of strict dualities, this guide explores methods for letting go of division and living in the present. Drawn from the Gospels, Jesus, Paul, and the great Christian contemplatives, this examination reveals how many of the hidden truths of Christianity have been misunderstood or lost and how to read them with the eyes of the mystics rather than interpreting them through rational thought. Filled with sayings, stories, quotations, and appeals to the heart, specific methods for identifying dualistic thinking are presented with simple practices for stripping away ego and the fear of dwelling in the present.

http://twitter.com/johnssylvest

Christian Nonduality http://twitter.com/johnssylvest Bird Photos by David Joseph Sylvest johnboy@christiannonduality.com

CHRISTIANNONDUALITY . COM B LOG beyond thinking & proposing to imagining & participating Home

About

The Emerging Church is BIGGER than Christianity – how to spot it in other traditions JB on March 23, 2010 in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Per the Pneumatological Imagination , because there is one Spirit, Who is Holy : 1 ) In each of the great traditions, the esoteric and mystical will present in terms of: a) some form of critical realism in their axiological epistemologies b) a critical scriptural scholarship c) a nondual, contemplative stance toward reality d) social justice component in their eschatological realism e) an eternal now awareness permeating their temporal milieu f) an institutionally marginalized yet still efficacious voice of prophetic protest g) a solidarity with and preferential option for the marginalized h) a deep compassion ensuing from an awakening to a profound solidarity i) broadly inclusivistic and ecumenical sensibility j) emergent, novel structures that are radically egalitarian 2 ) Esoteric experimentation and mystical realization can be pragmatically cashed out in terms of a growth in human authenticity . That is to say that they will result in conversion, growth and development in our intellectual, affective, moral, sociopolitical and religious spheres of existence. 3 ) Counterintuitively to many, humankind ’s aspirations to inter religious unity would proceed more swiftly and with less hindrance — not first by unitive strivings on the exoteric plane of religious reality via some putative reconcilement of otherwise disparate mythic elements vis a vis our cognitive propositions between our traditions, but rather — by better fostering greater degrees of esoteric experimentation and mystical realization vis a vis our participatory imaginations within our traditions. This is to suggest that, transformatively, the performative enjoys primacy over — but not autonomy from — the informative . Good News, then, enjoys a primacy over good knowledge . 4 ) Put differently, orthopraxy authenticates orthodoxy and is first mediated by orthopathy in orthocommunio . Put simply, belonging precedes behaving which precedes believing . 5 ) In each of the Great Traditions and in many indigenous religions, an authentic theological anthropology typically emerges whenever a cohort of practitioners moves beyond an exoteric mythic spirituality to also practice an esoteric mystical spirituality . Both mythic and mystical spiritualities are practiced in all traditions and some mystical elements are introduced at every stage of faith development. So, the emergence of a mystical cohort then presents in varying degrees of mystical realization and not, rather, as an either or binary reality. This is a profoundly relational and participatory reality, which cashes out its value in terms of intimacy . 6 ) However one conceives different value realization approaches to reality, those approaches are each methodologically autonomous but all axiologically integral . That is to simply say that all are necessary, none sufficient, in every human valuerealization. (See note below for various approaches.) 7 ) My value realization conceptions are irreducibly tetradic . Each tetrad functions as a holon or fractal unit which, in various ways, will correspond to truth | beauty | goodness | unity . 8 ) Sometimes explicitly and well formulated, at other times implicitly and inchoately, such an axiological epistemology finds expression in Continental phenomenology and American pragmatism, also in various strands of Islamic, Hindu and Buddhist philosophies. 9 ) An authentic axiological epistemology will necessarily extend from an evolutionary (naturalistic) epistemology . 10 ) An authentic theological anthropology , as a theology of nature, will then necessarily extend from both an evolutionary epistemology, scientifically , and an axiological epistemology, philosophically . Note: tetradic — employing categories like truth|beauty|goodness|unity and orthodoxy|orthopathy|orthopraxy|orthocommunio and creed|cult|code|community and descriptive|evaluative|normative|interpretive and science|culture|philosophy|religion and theoretic|heuristic|semiotic|dogmatic and objective|subjective|intraobjective|intersubjective

The above is a companion piece to this post: 10 Emerging Church Questions: Discovering What You Already Know but maybe didn’t realize you knew it (Walker Percyism) Send article as PDF to

Enter email address

Send

Tags: axiological epistemology , axiologically integral , b e h a v i n g , believing , belonging , compassion , contemplative stance , critical realism , critical scriptural scholarship , ec umen i c a l , eg ali t ar i an , eschatolgical realism , esoteric , Esoteric experimentation , esoteric mystical spirituality , Eternal Now , evolutionary epistemology , exoteric mythic spirituality , fractal unit , Good News , Great Traditions , holon , h u m a n a u t h e n t i c i t y , inclusivistic , institutionally marginalized , inter religious unity , methodologically autonomous , m y s t i c a l , mystical realization , naturalistic epistemology , nondual , orthocommunio , orthodoxy , orth opath y , o r t h o p r a x y , performative , preferential option for the poor , prophetic protest , social justice , solidarity , tetradic

Abortion & the Senate Healthcare Bill – a prudential judgment JB on March 21, 2010 in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Prudential judgment is also needed in applying moral principles to specific policy choices in areas such as the war in Iraq, housing, health care, immigration, and others. This does not mean that all choices are equally valid, or that our guidance and that of other Church leaders is just another political opinion or policy preference among many others. Rather, we urge Catholics to listen carefully to the Church’s teachers when we apply Catholic social teaching to specific proposals and situations. The judgments and recommendations that we make as bishops on specific issues do not carry the same moral authority as statements of universal moral teachings. Nevertheless, the Church ’s guidance on these matters is an essential resource for Catholics as they determine whether their own moral judgments are consistent with the Gospel and with Catholic teaching. Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility from the Catholic Bishops of the United States

Regarding the matter of abortion and the Senate Healthcare bill, the following exchanges between contributors to First Things and Vox Nova are instructive. In the first instance, consider the role of prudential judgment in the context of the war in Iraq: Aphorisms, Sartre, Bishops, and Prudential Judgment by Richard John Neuhaus (2007) Neuhaus Annoys Again at Vox Nova (2007) In the next, see how it plays into the debate surrounding abortion and the Senate Healthcare Bill: The Captivity Of ‘Catholic ’ Witness by Charles J. Chaput Chaput is Right, Chaput is Wrong at Vox Nova An important take away from these types of debates is that there is an important distinction to be drawn between moral judgments and prudential judgments. Equally significant, our Church leaders deserve deference — not just regarding moral judgments, but — when they share their prudential judgment. This is to affirm that their teachings and recommendations are an indispensable resource for the faithful even regarding empirical and practical matters that are essentially strategic and political and not otherwise solely moral in nature. All of the above considered, then, real questions are left begging by the Archbishop of Denver, Charles J. Chaput, as he writes :

Groups, trade associations and publications describing themselves as “Catholic ” or “prolife ” that endorse the Senate version – whatever their intentions – are doing a serious disservice to the nation and to the Church, undermining the witness of the Catholic community; and ensuring the failure of genuine, ethical healthcare reform. By their public actions, they create confusion at exactly the moment Catholics need to think clearly about the remaining issues in the health care debate. They also provide the illusion of moral cover for an unethical piece of legislation.

How broadly or how narrowly should we conceive this referent: “the witness of the Catholic community ”? Does the phrase “whatever their intentions ” refer to empirical findings, practical determinations, strategic considerations, political opinions, legislative rubrics, legal interpretations, technical matters and policy preferences? all which can differ even among those who otherwise agree, in every respect, regarding the moral realities? In other words, when it comes to the “Senate version, ” are the prudential judgments and policy recommendations of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops the sole witness of the Catholic Community? Why should the USCCB’s prudential judgment not be placed in dialogue with:

1 ) the Editors of Commonweal , who write: In fact, the longer one looks at the Stupak Amendment and the Senate compromise, the less different they seem. Insofar as there is a difference, the Stupak Amendment may be better—it’s certainly clearer and simpler. But the difference is technical, not moral. It should not keep Catholics who are both prolife and pro reform from supporting this important legislation.

2 ) the Editors of the National Catholic Reporter, who recognize: In any event, what is being debated is not the morality of abortion but the politics of abortion, and there is plenty of room for honest and respectful disagreement among Catholics about politics.

3 ) Fr. Robert Imbelli , who says: It might be of help, then, if all sides were to acknowledge the fallibility of their prudential judgment, and that it is entered upon with a certain salutary “fear and trembling, ” since so much is at stake.

4 ) Matthew Boudway , who directs us to Timothy Stoltzfus Jost ’s dialogue with the USCCB: Jost’s response is a model of courtesy, scruple, and analytical sobriety. He looks at every feverish speculation advanced by prolife opponents of the Senate bill and heads it off at the pass. He offers the economic and historical context without which it is impossible to understand what ’s really at stake. He offers good prolife reasons to support the Senate bill (now the only bill worth talking about).

5 ) NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby , which released the text of a letter to Congress supporting healthcare legislation from organizations and communities representing tens of thousands of Catholic Sisters and asserted that the Senate bill will not provide taxpayer funding for elective abortions.

6 ) the Catholic Health Association of the United States , which emphasizes that the CHA has a major concern on life issues : We said there could not be any federal funding for abortions and there had to be strong funding for maternity care, especially for vulnerable women. The bill now being considered allows people buying insurance through an exchange to use federal dollars in the form of tax credits and their own dollars to buy a policy that covers their health care. If they choose a policy with abortion coverage, then they must write a separate personal check for the cost of that coverage.

7 ) David Gibson , who represents: A close reading of the two bills, however, informed by analyses from a range of experts, reveals that the prolife claims about the Senate bill and its abortion financing provisions are, in fact, mistaken. Indeed, the Senate bill is in some respects arguably stronger in barring abortion financing and in promoting abortion reduction.

8 ) Retired Bishop John E. McCarthy , who told The Associated Press on Wednesday that he is as opposed to abortion as every other bishop and that the bill before Congress would guard against the use of taxpayer funds to pay for it.

9 ) Fr. Thomas Reese , who points out: The disagreement is not over the morality of abortion or federal funding for abortion. The disagreement is over the meaning of the legislative language dealing with health insurance exchanges and community health clinics in the Senate bill. Catholic social teaching has always acknowledged that on the application of principles, Catholics can disagree even if adherence to the

principles must be unbending. The area of disagreement in this case is not over principle but over the interpretation of legal language. Neither the sisters nor the bishops have any special charism when it comes to interpreting legislative language or predicting how legislation will be interpreted by the courts.

10 ) Bishop of Sioux City, R. Walker Nickless, who wrote regarding healthcare: But how to do this is not selfevident. The decisions that we must collectively make about how to administer health care therefore fall under “prudential judgment. ”

When Archbishop Chaput suggests that people who claim to be Catholic and then publicly undercut the teaching and leadership of their bishops spread confusion, cause grave damage to the believing community and give the illusion of moral cover to a version of health care “reform” that is not simply bad, but dangerous … certainly he does not refer to those who disagree with the bishops’ conference on substantive prudential grounds? Certainly, he refers only to those who thoughtlessly disregard or cursorily dismiss the teachings and recommendations of the bishops, or worse, who engage others intemperately or uncivilly or, perhaps saddest of all, who most blatantly undercut their prudential competence, for example, like the late Fr. John Neuhaus, who wrote : While individual bishops may be prudentially gifted or challenged, problems are multiplied when prudential judgments issue from the bureaucratic sausage grinder of the bishops ’ conference. Fr. Neuhaus, in First Things , continued:

And, of course, the sex abuse crisis that broke open in January 2002 took its toll on the bishops ’ credibility and selfconfidence in issuing pronunciamentos on subjects beyond their selfevident competence. Catholics and others adopted a large and understandable measure of skepticism about what bishops had to say. If they had so gravely bungled the tasks that are unquestionably theirs —to teach, sanctify, and govern —why should people pay attention to what they say about matters beyond their ostensible competence? This is not to question but, on the contrary, to underscore episcopal competence on matters of faith and morals. On most questions of domestic and foreign policy, it only compounds the problem to declare that they are “moral questions ” and are therefore encompassed within episcopal charism and competence. Such overreach only invites critics to claim, putting it bluntly, that the bishops don ’t know what they are talking about, or at least don ’t know any more than is known by the well informed citizen. Archbishop Dolan noted that, in recent years, the bishops in the conference have learned this lesson and have been focusing their attention ad intra rather than ad extra, concentrating on matters clearly within their competence and authority as teachers of the Church.

When all the political dust settles and rhetorical heat cools, there will be plenty of opportunity to conduct a post mortem on who was undercut by whom and how and who was ineffective because of selfdefeating tactics. The witness of the Catholic Community, broadly conceived, will remain vibrant and effective. Sure, there will often be those isolated individuals who do disservice to nation and Church, but the overall tone and tenor and substance of our Catholic Community’s contributions to the latest healthcare deliberations, which are evidenced in the points and counterpoints below and the discussions referenced hereinabove, in my view, are a reality worth celebrating. I am grateful to our bishops’ conference and to our various pro life Catholic groups, trade associations and publications for their contributions in the public square. POINT USCCB Health Care Reform website U.S. Bishops Provide Resources Explaining Flaws in Senate Health Care Bill Bishops to House of Representatives: Fix Flaws or Vote No on Health Reform Bill United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Letter to House Members on Health Care legislation Health Care Reform and the Pro Life Agenda, by Richard Doerflinger Health Care Reform and the Pro Life Agenda 2, by Richard Doerflinger Issues of Life and Conscience in Health Care Reform: A Comparison of the House and Senate Bills

COUNTERPOINT Nuns: Vote for health bill would be ‘lifeaffirming ’ Prolife, Yes, & Proreform a Commonweal Editorial Editorial: National Catholic Reporter backs health bill Timothy Stoltzfus Jost of Washington and Lee law school

The House Health Reform Bill: An Abortion Funding Ban And Other Late Changes WHAT ’S WRONG WITH THE SENATE HEALTH CARE BILL ON ABORTION? A response to Professor Jost from the USCCB Timothy Stoltzfus Jost of Washington and Lee law school – Response to Bishops Two Catholic, pro life supporters back Senate bill The Senate Bill Funds Abortions? Nope, and It ’s More ProLife Than the House Version by David Gibson Abortion Language in Health Bill Pits Catholic Against Catholic By David Gibson Prolife Rep. Perriello Says Abortion Concerns Eased, May Back Health Bill By David Gibson Bishops Oppose Health Bill, Still Claiming It Could Fund Abortions By David Gibson The Devil in the Details by Robert P. Imbelli “Crying Wolf” by Mollie Wilson O ’Reilly Jost answers the USCCB’s prolife office by Matthew Boudway Prolife Rep. Tom Perriello backs Senate bill ’s abortion safeguards by David Gibson The USCCB ’s ‘worst case scenarioism ’ by Grant Gallicho The problem with last minute legislation by Matthew Boudway Fear, Trembling, and Trepidation by Robert P. Imbelli “False claims ” by Mollie Wilson O ’Reilly Catholic Nuns Support House Passage of HCR by Eduardo Pe ñalver Catholic Health Association Prez: ‘The Time Is Now for Health Reform. ’ by Grant Gallicho Does the Senate bill fund abortion? by Matthew Boudway Below is my response to The Captivity Of ‘Catholic ’ Witness by Charles J. Chaput:

Some here have already drawn the relevant distinction between moral and prudential judgments. And while the prudential judgments and recommendations of a bishops ’ conference do not carry the same moral authority as their statements of universal moral teachings, still, as a Catholic, I very seriously consider those judgments and recommendations in my own deliberations. That is to say that I believe that the teachings and recommendations of our bishops are an indispensable resource for the faithful, even regarding empirical and practical matters that are essentially strategic and political and not otherwise solely moral in nature. Furthermore, our bishops deserve respect and deference, even on such prudential matters, and should not be undercut by incivility and intemperate speech. I have to agree with Archbishop Chaput that attackads against Congressman Bart Stupack and E. J. Dionne’s hypothetical sanctioning of moral opprobrium against the bishops are examples of the worst side of Catholic witness. Some might recall the following lament regarding certain alleged past failures of the bishops to distinguish between moral and practical matters, a conflation once described here on FT as overreach : “While individual bishops may be prudentially gifted or challenged, problems are multiplied when prudential judgments issue from the bureaucratic sausage grinder of the bishops ’ conference. ” That rhetorical heat, from the late Fr. John Neuhaus, was another sad example of the worst side of Catholic witness as he, too, publicly undercut the teaching and leadership of the bishops on prudential matters. In the same vein, other forms of ad hominem s and innuendo (including the overuse of ‘apostrophes ’ and italics and quotations – e.g. ‘Catholics ’ – to characterize others as socalled or quasi and any overuse of the word alibi in characterizing others’ motives in one ’s writings) also contribute to the worst side of Catholic witness. Who hasn ’t thus lapsed? On the other hand, such lapses become defining moments if followed by enough reinforcing moments as isolated excusable events become unacceptable patterns. All that said, ad hominem s and tu quoque s aside, I don’t consider polite public disagreement with the bishops on prudential matters to be an undercutting of their teachings and recommendations. I’m sure Archibishop Chaput is not suggesting THAT! Accordingly, I respectfully disagree with the bishops’ conference regarding their empirical and practical assessment of the Senate healthcare bill vis a vis abortion funding. Timothy Stoltzfus Jost, a host of historically pro life House & Senate members, Retired Bishop John E. McCarthy, the Catholic Health Association and many others, in my view, make a much more compelling case regarding the pertinent facts and interpretations of the proposed legislation than Richard Doerflinger, just for example. No need to rehash them here.

Send article as PDF to

Enter email address

Send

Tags: Archbishop Dolan , Catholic Health Association , Catholic social teaching , Charles J. Chaput , C o m m o n w e a l , David Gibson , First Things , Fr. John Neuhaus , Fr. Robert Imbelli , Fr. Thomas Reese , Grant Gallicho , John E. McCarthy , Matthew Boudway , Mollie Wilson O'Reilly , National Catholic Reporter , NETWORK , politics of abortion , prolife , Prudential judgment , R. Walker Nickless , Richard Doerflinger , Senate Healthcare bill , S t u p a k A m e n d m e n t , Timothy Stoltzfus Jost , Tom Perriello , United States Conference of Catholic Bishops , Vox Nova

10 historical developments propelling Emerging Christianity ~ Richard Rohr JB on March 13, 2010 in Practices & Experiences , Uncategorized , the interpretive Religion | No Comments » 10 historical developments propelling Emerging Christianity Excerpted from 14 | THE TABLET | 6 February 2010 : The emerging Christianity movement – Richard Rohr ∙ recovery of contemplative tradition (Thomas Merton) ∙ critical biblical scholarship on a broad ecumenical level ∙ new global sense of Christianity ∙ new ability to distinguish the essentials from the incidentals in church practice & teaching ∙ broad awareness that Jesus was teaching peacemaking, simplicity, love of Creation ∙ concerned with healing and transformation of persons & society on earth as it is to be in heaven ∙ charismatic movement, experiential Christianity & a more Trinitarian theology ∙ developing spirituality & theology of non violence ∙ new structures of community and solidarity ∙ non dualistic thinking : a nonoppositional, contemplative mind and heart Join our conversation at Cathlimergent !

Send article as PDF to

Enter email address

Send

Why Brian McLaren’s GrecoRoman Narrative is NOT a caricature JB on March 2, 2010 in Axiological , Cosmological , Methods & Approaches , Practices & Experiences , Provisional Closures & Systems , the descriptive Science , the evaluative Culture, the interpretive Religion, the normative Philosophy | No Comments » Why Brian McLaren’s Greco Roman Narrative is NOT a caricature of modernistic aspects of our religious traditions: St. Bernard described a developmental trajectory for our relationship with God: 1) love of self for sake of self 2) love of God for sake of self 3) love of God for sake of God and 4) love of self for sake of God. Thomas Merton described a similar trajectory in our stages of humanization, socialization and transformation. Humanization and socialization help form what he called our False Self. Transformation forms our True Self. Richard Rohr draws a distinction between our problem solving, dualistic mindsets and our nondual, contemplative stance toward reality. Such distinctions describe the faith journeys of all of our great traditions with their various exoteric and esoteric aspects. The exoteric dimension engages reality in a more propositional way. That is to suggest that it engages reality with empirical, rational, moral and practical methods. It establishes and defends boundaries. When it encounters paradox, it makes an attempt to resolve, dissolve or evade it. It provides answers to many of our most fundamental questions. The esoteric dimension engages reality in a more participatory and imaginative way. That is to suggest that it engages reality from a more personal, relational perspective. It negotiates and transcends boundaries. When it encounters the paradox in life ’s deepest mysteries, as they impact our most profound values, most cherished longings, most insistent urges and most ultimate concerns, it exploits this paradox by nurturing its creative tensions. It abides in trust and ponders life’s ultimate questions with awe, reverence and love. One might say that the more exoteric aspects of our traditions provide us with the answers to the question of why we should love God, which is to say, for the sake of self. These answers form in us an enlightened selfinterest. Early on our journey, our faith is thus more clear but tentative.

The more esoteric aspects of our traditions provide us with the answer to the question of why God loves us, which is to say, because we are fashioned in His image and likeness. This answer transforms us and puts us in touch with our True Self. Later on our journey, our faith is thus more obscure but certain. The later stages of Bernardian love do not negate the earlier. Our True Self does not annihilate our False Self. Our nondual, contemplative stance goes beyond but not without our problem solving dualistic mindset. The earlier stages of our journey are necessary but simply not sufficient. They are especially insufficient when our goal is a growth in relationship, in intimacy, whether with people or with God. Our Greco Roman Narrative, in very many ways, has everything to do with our love of self for sake of self and love of God for sake of self. It is all about our humanization and socialization. It very much engages our problem solving, dualistic mindsets with their empirical, rational, moral and practical methods. It very clearly establishes and steadfastly defends all sorts of boundaries. When it encounters paradox, it makes every attempt to resolve, dissolve or evade it. More than anything, this narrative makes an attempt to provide answers toward the end of comprehensively describing and exhaustively norming our engagements with reality. This narrative largely comprises the grand storyline of modern science, philosophy and classical liberal politics. This is a storyline with a great many successes but no too few failures. Some of these failures were of epic proportion and were well chronicled in the writings of Walker Percy, who keenly diagnosed our postmodern malaise. I have already drawn parallels to McLaren and Percy. See, for example: Everything That ’s Old is New Again – this (McLaren ’s “New” Christianity) is truly an old time religion and also the more fleshedout, tongue partly incheek version: A New Kind of Christianity? McLaren didn ’t make this up. It ’s worse than that! . The parallel I wish to offer here is that McLaren’s invitation simply mirrors that of St. Bernard, Thomas Merton, Richard Rohr, Walker Percy and many others in our Christian tradition and, indeed, that of the mystics of all of the Great Traditions. This is an invitation to engage not only the more exoteric but also the more esoteric dimensions of our tradition. And this will have everything to do with our love of God for sake of God and love of self for sake of God! It is all about our transformation and True Self! It will very much engage our nondual, contemplative stance toward reality with its robustly personal and deeply relational approach! When it encounters the paradox in life’s deepest mysteries, it nurtures its creative tensions in abiding trust. With an open mind it negotiates all sorts of boundaries, with an open heart transcends them and with open arms welcomes the marginalized! This is the storyline of creation, liberation and reconciliation. THIS is our story! THIS is our song! Now, clearly, McLaren ’s Greco Roman Narrative does not describe the best our tradition has had to offer when its exoteric and esoteric dimensions have been properly integrated. Clearly, this integration has indeed been preserved in varying degrees and transmitted to varying extents by manifold and diverse elements of our tradition. To deny this would indeed be a caricaturization. But this is not what I see McLaren doing. Instead, what I take away from his critique is the same lament that’s been heralded in our prophetic tradition since the days of old: God is offering us SO much more! But way too many of us are settling for so much less! That is to say that we need to go deeper and to better integrate the exoteric and esoteric dimensions of our religion. The challenge, as I discern it, is for our institutional structures and non institutional vehicles to better foster ongoing intellectual, affective, moral, sociopolitical and religious development and conversion (cf. Lonergan & Donald Gelpi). As created cocreators, our work is to foster True Self realization and authentic transformation of individuals and society, liberating and reconciling all. Yes, progress has been made. But, if anyone imagines that the critiques of modernistic religion by such as Thomas Merton and Walker Percy, now Richard Rohr and Brain McLaren, are mere caricatures, where MOST religious practitioners are concerned, they are incredibly naive. (Keep in mind, no one is judging the disposition of anyone ’s soul; this is a conversation regarding developmental stages of the journey.) Are we robustly engaging our esoteric dimensions? Rather, do we bog down in the exoteric and render our religion, then, moralistic, legalistic, ritualistic, rationalistic? Take a look around. Listen to the rhetoric – not just in the pews, but – from our pulpits! What are we mostly talking about? What best describes our predominant way of engaging our God? Send article as PDF to

Enter email address

Send

Tags: Bernardian love , Brian McLaren , dualistic mind , esoteric religion , exoteric religion , False Self, Great Traditions , Greco R o m a n n a r r a t i v e , h u m a n i z a t i o n , mystics , n o n d u a l i t y , paradox , Richard Rohr , socialization , St. Bernard , Thomas Merton , transformation , True Self, ultimate concern , Walker Percy

THE BOOK: Christian Nonduality – Postmodern Conservative Catholic Pentecostal JB on February 19, 2010 in Axiological , Cosmological , Methods & Approaches , Provisional Closures & Systems, Uncategorized , the descriptive Science , the evaluative Culture, the interpretive Religion, the normative Philosophy | No Comments » See my story: Christian Nonduality – Postmodern Conservative Catholic Pentecostal John Sobert Sylvest will not be tweeting, blogging or FB peeping this Lent but will be checking email infrequently. Have a holy time S e e y o u a t S o n r i s e Send article as PDF to

Enter email address

Send

Tags: Catholic , catholic charismatic , conse rvati ve , pentecostal , postmodern , postmodern conservative

Thoughts re: today’s debate – Philip Clayton vs Dan Dennett JB on February 16, 2010 in Axiological , Cosmological , Methods & Approaches , Provisional Closures & Systems, Uncategorized , the descriptive Science , the evaluative Culture, the interpretive Religion, the normative Philosophy | 7 Comments » Emerson said that God arrives when the halfgods depart. Dennett has spent recent years tilting at the windmills of halfgods and imagines himself as Don Quixote. The fact of the matter is that I am largely in agreement with Dennett in that ALL of the gods he’s been dispatching are not worthy of anyone ’s belief. To some extent, it is a matter of two ships passing in the night. We all inhabit elaborate tautologies wherein our syllogistic conclusions are often hidden in the very terms we employ in our premises. So, the first problem will always be the proper disambiguation of terms. If we do employ the same terms, then I think believers must concede that science, philosophy and culture, without religion, can realize truth, beauty and goodness in abundance, even. (At least this is a fundamental premise of anyone who holds a radically incarnational view. Life is good. Living a good and moral life is transparent to human reason.) So, it is not like religion even introduces a new horizon of concern vis a vis values. Values are already in place. Science, then, is descriptive. Philosophy is normative. Culture is evaluative. Religion introduces a question re: truth, beauty and goodness. Even abundance. That question is: Might there be more? Might there be superabundance? Then, in an effort to augment these values, it amplifies the epistemic and existential risks we have already taken (such as in our falsifiable science, provisional closures in philosophy) by venturing forth to further wager with faith, hope and love . We then cash out the pragmatic value of these wagers by seeing if we have indeed fostered human growth: intellectually, affectively, morally, socio politically and religiously. There is no question that the life of religious faith, hope and love is riskier. That’s why it is called FAITH and HOPE. No one is being intellectually dishonest, here. No one is claiming that the Object of our worship can be empirically measured, logically demonstrated or practically proved. We are not saying that our cosmology of descriptive science, normative philosophy or evaluative culture differs one iota from Dennett’s such that WHAT we see when we engage reality is going to be any different. (If someone put a gun to my head, I ’d say consciousness is an emergent phenomenon vis a vis a nonreductive physicalism. But I wouldn ’t lose a wink of sleep if it were wholly reductive. My bets are on a physicalist account of the soul but, if it ended up being a radically Cartesian dualism, it wouldn ’t bother me a bit.) We do say that HOW we see this cosmology through an axiology, or via our religious interpretive axis, does differ when we imagine that reality has more in store than meets the eye and when we participate together with others in this imaginative vision. While we don’t adjudicate our claims, finally, evidentially, it doesn ’t mean there is no evidence. While we do not demonstrate them conclusively, rationally, it doesn ’t mean that we have no good reasons. Dennett will point out that all of this behavior has adaptive significance. Who would not disagree with this rather trivial grasp of the obvious? His tautology quits processing reality at this point. No problem. Ours does not. He might invoke Occam ’s Razor. But one can only wield that weapon when one has already achieved explanatory adequacy and is choosing between two equally good explanations. Last time I checked, we have no Theory of Everything and, furthermore, it has just recently dawned on Hawking what others of us have known for decades, which is that Godel like constraints (incompleteness theorems) will apply to any and all closed formal symbol systems aspiring to a TOE. It is, ergo, a stalemate. The only enduring question where the 4 Horsemen are concerned is whether or not they are familiar with the work of Judith Martin ?!? There is a fundamental misunderstanding if anyone thinks people like Phil, Jack Haught, Joe Bracken et al are making religion look scientific or are conflating the autonomous methodologies of science and theology. What they are doing is what is called a Theology of Nature which begins within the faith. It is very much akin to St. Francis ’ hymns to nature and to the parables of nature found in scripture even though it is employing analogies and metaphors that are derived from the theory of evolution, speculative cosmology and the heuristic of emergence, for example. In this regard, they are not only not doing science, they are not even doing philosophy or what might be considered a natural theology. When these gentlemen do begin within

There is a fundamental misunderstanding if anyone thinks people like Phil, Jack Haught, Joe Bracken et al are making religion look scientific or are conflating the autonomous methodologies of science and theology. What they are doing is what is called a Theology of Nature which begins within the faith. It is very much akin to St. Francis ’ hymns to nature and to the parables of nature found in scripture even though it is employing analogies and metaphors that are derived from the theory of evolution, speculative cosmology and the heuristic of emergence, for example. In this regard, they are not only not doing science, they are not even doing philosophy or what might be considered a natural theology. When these gentlemen do begin within philosophy, a natural philosophy or natural theology, their excursion is brief and for the purpose of disambiguating concepts, clarifying categories, formulating arguments or, in other words, framing up valid questions, which we might consider to be reality ’s “limit questions. ” They do not then aspire to answer these questions such as through formal syllogistic reasoning as if there could be proofs for God ’s existence or final explanations for reality. All a philosophy of nature demonstrates is the reasonableness of our limit questions, questions which cohere with our ultimate concerns. Contrastingly, this is precisely where Dennett et al go astray in that they do claim to have answered such limit questions and to have eliminated the ultimate as a matter of concern. In doing so, it is Dennett who has conflated the otherwise autonomous methods of science and philosophy in what is known as a scientism, a label Dawkins apparently accepts but which Dennett claims is but a caricature of his naturalism, which is not philosophical but, rather, methodological (or so he protested to Jack Haught, when they last debated). This leaves a question left begging, however, for Dennett, which is that – if he is truly a methodological naturalist, then, – doesn ’t that mean that, vis a vis reality ’s limit questions, he must either remain, in principle, agnostic or otherwise transparently admit that his position, at bottom, is essentially one of faith, which is what Phil would also admit? The only thing that Dennett will typically counter is that he goes no further than his empirical science and rationalist philosophy warrant, which he manifestly has! What he must admit is that his is a type of faith, too, and that it is warranted. He might also claim that his position has more warrant than that of a believer in God. And our counter might be that our stance, epistemically, is indeed riskier, but that, existentially, this amplification of risks has huge rewards in terms of augmented human values; this valueaugmentation is, itself, truth indicative. And we must reassert, here, that our stance does not refer to the caricatures of belief that Dennett habitually engages as strawgods . And thus would commence a whole other debate regarding the nature of justification and warrant. But I doubt seriously Dennett can escape the tautology he ’s trapped in, which ironically, is the same mindset that snares his fundamentalist counterparts. By conflating philosophy and science, both the religious fundamentalists and Enlightenment fundamentalists are committing HUGE category errors and, ergo, represent the obverse sides of the same epistemic coin — fideism and scientism — neither which has a purchase on reality. Most of all, I really feel sorry for their poor horses … Their riders are giving horse manure a bad name. Below is a relevant Tweet Archive :

pdclayton7 Okay, so a New Atheist and a Christian Theologian walk into a bar … thoughts on the Tues. debate with Dan Dennett at http://ow.ly/17mNf 8:49 PM Feb 14th @pdclayton7 Dennett told Jack Haught he ’s NOT scientistic but a methodological naturalist. He’s agnostic, not atheistic, re: cosmic origins? 10:31 PM Feb 12th from web in reply to pdclayton7 @pdclayton7 Wim Drees’ critique http://bit.ly/9vy00P keeps gods out of gaps, which is fine; but doesn ’t it validate our limit questions? 11:28 PM Feb 12th from web in reply to pdclayton7 @pdclayton7 Does Dennett lose sleep b/c Popperian falsification & solipsism are not falsifiable or b/c logical positivism is incoherent? 11:32 PM Feb 12th from web in reply to pdclayton7 @pdclayton7 re: God, world’s BRIGHTest philosophers tender Scottish verdict = unproven & not dis/proved. Do Dan’s peers think he ’s bright? 11:36 PM Feb 12th from web in reply to pdclayton7 @Cathlimergent — Thanks for the great suggestions — I’ll keep you posted! — Philip

Below is a bibliography I put together the first time I lost interest in Dan Dennett’s work. Click below to continue >>>

Read the rest of this entry » Send article as PDF to

Enter email address

Send

Tags: atheism , Daniel Dennett , Emerson , E n l i g h t e n m e n t f u n d a m e n t a l i s m , fideism , f u n d a m e n t a l i s m , John Haught , Joseph Bracken , new atheists , Philip Clayton , Richard Dawkins , science and religion , scientism , theology and science

Everything That’s Old is New Again – this (McLaren’s “New” Christianity) is truly an old time religion JB on February 15, 2010 in the interpretive Religion | 5 Comments » This is an abridged review. In a New Kind of Christianity, there is a thread in Brian McLaren ’s overall thrust that might escape the notice of the casual reader. That thread combines linguistic and semiotic approaches that can get very technical and which are very highly nuanced. I cannot even begin to unpack this observation in the space provided here. But think in terms of subjects and predicates, verbs and tenses, literal and figurative, icons and symbols, intentions and meanings, literary genres and parts of speech. And think about such as the senses of Scripture, literary criticism and historical critical exegesis. While McLaren well describes the impact of the history of philosophy as it informs (forms, deforms & misinforms) our religious beliefs and practices, also embedded in both the history of philosophy and the history of Christianity are prominent linguistic and semiotic themes that ask probing questions about “how it is that we know what we know when we say we know something ” and “what it is that we mean when we say something now this way or now that to this audience or that. ” To that extent, McLaren is squarely in the middle of what I like to call Christianity ’s semiotic tradition . I will not aspire to explicate that case here but I would suggest, for any interested in this angle, that one might explore, for example, whether casually via wikipedia or more depthfully via books, the thoughts of the Kabbalah (Jewish) and Plotinus (Neoplatonist), Origen and Pseudo Dionysius and John Scottus Eriugena , John Duns Scotus and John of St. Thomas (Poinsot), Charles Sanders Peirce and Walker Percy . I flesh this thesis out here: http://bit.ly/aQV2mS McLaren is clearly not suggesting that we abandon our creeds, rituals, laws and communities! In so many words, rather, what I hear him saying is: If we have articulated truth in creed, we take care not to let our dogma devolve into dogmatism . If we have cultivated beauty in the celebration of cult and liturgy, we dare not let it decay into ritualism. If we have preserved goodness in code and discipline and law, we eschew their degeneration into legalism . If we have enjoyed fellowship in community, we avoid at all costs any decadent institutionalism . In my words, not McLaren ’s, his survey of philosophy and theology is an inventory of different types of extremism. His critique is not aimed at our core beliefs but targets, instead, some peripheral tangents. Some really tangential extremes that go too far via idle speculation , on one hand, or too far with affective or emotional expressivism, on the other. And, he tends to the balance that needs to be struck between our positive, metaphorical affirmations about God ( kataphatic , via positiva) and that language which increases the accuracy of our God descriptions – ahem, or should I say, rather, God references – through negation ( apophatic , via negativa). What McLaren retrieves, revives and renews is a balance that has always been maintained at the center of our tradition. That is to say, then, again in my words, that there has never been anything inherent in our Christian religion that would, in principle, necessarily lend itself to such extremes as rationalism (an overemphasis on the speculative and kataphatic), encratism (an overemphasis on the speculative and apophatic), quietism (an overemphasis on the affective and apophatic) or pietism , including an insufficiently nuanced fideism (an overemphasis on the affective and kataphatic). Again, McLaren is square in the middle of our tradition, along with such apophatic influences in Christianity that drew – not only from Gospel and Pauline narratives, but – from Jewish and neoplatonic influences, then continuing through our early church fathers through Pseudo Dionysius and medievals like Meister Eckhart and Duns Scotus, all the way down to one of McLaren’s favorite novelists, Walker Percy. Finally, McLaren ’s theory of Incarnation, in my view, sits squarely in the middle of the Franciscan tradition of Duns Scotus, which may be what one would consider a “minority report ” in my own Roman Catholicism, but is clearly nothing that would be considered, oh my , heterodox. McLaren ’s socalled “New ” Christianity is going to be new in the sense that, where most modernists are concerned, it is novel vis a vis the extreme rationalism and fundamentalism “gifted” us by modernity and which pervades our approach to ultimate reality. But, in another sense ( see how this works?), there has been a long established, even if somewhat esoteric, tradition in Christianity that has always served as a corrective and saving remnant. McLaren’s approach is, in that regard, Olde Time Religion , which is, as they say, good enough for me! Below are some of my redacted comments in response to various Amazon reviewers .

+++

The continuity lies in a shared epistemology, which has anthropological implications. One can share another ’s seamless garment of life ethos, even share the exact same epistemic justifications, ontological grounding and deontological conclusions while rejecting the other ’s practical approaches and political strategies. +++ JPD, you missed my point. I can’t even recall what McLaren ’s specific views are re: the complex moral reality of abortion. My point was that whatever those views are vis a vis Percy’s own views they are not dispositive of the larger issue, which was that there is a continuity in their pericean derived epistemology, which is a constructive postmodern approach. This is an approach I consider superior to either a modernist rationalism or a radical deconstructionism, which has everything to do with McLaren ’s critique of the misapplication of the Greco Roman narrative. PERIOD. Any extrapolations beyond that are your strawmen, not mine. In other words, your logic is flawed if you think you can always reason backwards from one ’s practical approach to an issue, or from one ’s political strategy regarding an issue, to what one ’s moral stance must necessarily be regarding that issue, much less what one ’s metaphysical stance or even epistemology of choice would be. This is to say, to make it plainer for you, that McLaren and Percy don’t have to agree on everything else in order to share an epistemic outlook. Using that line of logic, I’m surprised you didn’t offer an even more trivial graps of the obvious, which is that Percy was a Catholic, while McLaren is not (although that is apparently a point of contention for many of his fundamentalistic detractors, and, perhaps, they are not entirely offbase). There is much too facile an application of concepts in this thread for there to be any meaningful discourse, e.g. liberal and postmodernist. Your unnuanced use of the word “postmodernists ” as if it were a blanket pejorative falls into the same category of offense (tarring too many people w/the same brush) of which you accused McLaren re: neoconservatives. Tu quoque. +++ RE: Brian McLaren has put his finger on a problem –the ontotheological critique of western Christendom by Nietzsche and others –but unfortunately he doesn ’t have either the chops or the perspective to address it even adequately, let alone cogently. Yes, Brian sees problems with metaphysics. And this particular response reveals some of those problems. One can still hold to metaphysical and moral realisms while, at the same time, recognizing that they are fallible, falsifiable hypotheses. One practical upshot of this is that our deontologies should be considered at least as tentative as our ontologies are speculative. A modernistic rationalism, then, “gifts” people with a wholly unwarranted apodictic certainty that results in an untenable epistemic hubris. It is this type of approach to reality that gets all worked up over the notions offered in a nietzschean nihilism, a sophistic solipsism or humean critiques of induction and common sense notions of causality. Human knowledge doesn ’t advance solely through formal syllogistic reasoning and abstractions. We do away with such silliness through an informal reductio ad absurdum, which is to say that we evade such stupidity by ignoring it, for all practical purposes, and not, rather, by formal refutation (or building another castle in the air a la Kant). At any rate, there are constructive postmodern approaches that are superior to both the classical foundational epistemologies with their naive realism and the radically deconstructive forms of postmodernism. One that comes to mind is the semiotic realism of Charles Sanders Peirce, whose work largely influenced the great Catholic novelist, Walker Percy, who, in turn, has had a profound influence on Brian McLaren. The above critique of McLaren was facile and too cursorily dismissive. His peircean derived perspective is most adequate to the task and affirms both metaphysical and moral realisms, which is to say, does not at all correspond to the caricature other commentators have made of McLaren ’s epistemic stance by equating it with a vulgar postmodernism. This ain’t high octane. It ’s high vitriol. Speaking of First Things, I am pleased to see its sponsorship of a postmodern conservatism. As for McLaren ’s discussion of the neoconservative approach, it seems to me that he was critiquing it as a political philosophy, which is to say, as a matter of practical judgment, which is methodologically distinct from our moral calculus and religious beliefs. Some people mistake political ideology and religion (and most certainly not readers of FT). +++ This whole notion of Brian’s reinventing Christianity as if what he ’s proposing is wholly new or even heterodox is being WAY overblown! His theory of Incarnation very much resonates with that of Duns Scotus and the Franciscans, who believed that Jesus ’ coming was not occasioned by any human felix culpa (oh, happy fault!) in response to a need for a grand cosmic repair job for some ontological rupture located in some vividly imagined past. Rather, the Incarnation was in the divine cards from the cosmic get go as a teleological striving oriented toward the future and we are active participants as created co creators. This also resonates with the teilhardian and whiteheadian perspectives of process theology. These would be considered “minority views ” o f atonement even in Catholicism but they are clearly not heterodox, except, perhaps, to fundamentalistic Biblical inerrantists, who consider a penal, substitutionary atonement as the only acceptable narrative. +++ Bravo, Michael. And, let ’s hear it for Scripture AND Tradition AND Reason AND Experience! Enough of this fundamentalistic sola scriptura and solum magisterium and away with the modernistic rationalism and vulgar postmodern deconstructionism. McLaren offers a robustly constructive postmodern critique and not this strawman caricature bogeyman of epistemic and moral relativism at which so many continue to take cheap rhetorical shots. Thankfully, at least they know not to be fooled by relativism. Sadly, they too cursorily dismiss McLaren’s stance because they miss the nuance and mistake it for something it is not.

Send article as PDF to

Enter email address

Send

Send article as PDF to

Enter email address

Send

Tags: apophatic , Brian McLaren , Charles Sanders Peirce , encratism , fideism , John Duns Scotus , John of St. Thomas , John Poinsot , John Scottus Eriugena , Kabbalah , kata ph at i c , Neoplatonism , New Kind of C h r i s t i a n i t y , Origen , pietism , Plotinus , Pseudo Dionysius , quietism , rationalism , semiotic tradition , Walker Percy

A New Kind of Christianity? McLaren didn’t make this up. It’s worse than that! JB on February 13, 2010 in Axiological , Cosmological , Methods & Approaches , Practices & Experiences , Provisional Closures & Systems , the descriptive Science , the evaluative Culture, the interpretive Religion, the normative Philosophy | 11 Comments » I will cut to the chase, folks. I ’ve read most everything Brian McLaren ’s written. Most recently, A New Kind of Christianity . And, while I don ’t go looking for them, it ’s hard to ignore McLaren ’s detractors, whose chief complaint has been that, when it comes to Christianity, he ’s not just coloring outside the lines, he’s actually making stuff up! Now, being very familiar with his body of work and having slowly discerned just what this so called heretic has been up to, I ’m afraid the problem with McLaren is really worse than one might first imagine. It seems that few of his critics are even remotely aware of a rather disturbing pattern in his writings, speeches and blogging, a pattern that most egregiously rises to the surface in his answering of the Ten Questions that are Transforming the Faith , which is the subtitle of A New Kind of Christianity . The not so plain fact of the matter is that Brian McLaren manifestly ain’t making all this stuff up. I say “not so plain ” because, even when I tell you what ’s really going on, I ’m going to have to rather carefully make my case below. The plain deal is, gentle reader, that McLaren ain ’t fabricating a danged thang. He stole all this stuff! You heard me right. This ain’t McLaren’s work. Now, I can already imagine what you Emergent loyalists are thinking and can even empathize with how you must feel. I ’ve been there before. My Sweet Lord! It was 1976. No, this ain ’t no exclamation invoking God in vain. I ’m talking, rather, about the first solo Beatles single to hit number one. George Harrison wrote My Sweet Lord in December 1969. A US District Court judge in New York ruled in 1976 that Harrison had subconsciously infringed on the copyright of The Chiffons, who had recorded He’s So Fine. So, that’s all I’m saying about McLaren. While he didn’t manufacture his version of Christianity out of thin air, as his detractors claim, it is quite possible that he lifted a good bit of his material, some mindfully, some inadvertently, straight out of the Judaeo Christian tradition. Fortunately, for McLaren, no royalties are due because the Holy Spirit doesn ’t go around charging folks with copyright infringements. If no one picked up on this before, well, that’s likely due to the fact that much of the material that McLaren has, shall we say, rearticulated , is found in the more esoteric (not to be confused with heterodox ) aspects of the tradition. Further below, I commence a rather rigorous and technical analysis of the McLaren case . Before I do that, let me direct you to some materials that are much more accessible and intended for a general audience. Click on the link, below, to access 20 Good Online Resources to Help You Understand Brian McLaren ’s new book: A New Kind of Christianity —> Read the rest of this entry » Send article as PDF to

Enter email address

Send

Tags: A New Kind of Christianity , anthropology , Apache , apophatic , arationalism , axiology , b e a u t y , Becky Garrison , Bernard Lonergan , Bohm interpretation , Brian McLaren , Charles Sanders Peirce , Chinese taoists , Christianized neoplatonism , Christology , code , c o m m u n i t y , contemplative , Copenhagen interpretation , Copernican turn , cosmic boot camp , cosmology , creed , cult , culture , descriptive , dissolve or evade paradox , dogmatism , Doug Pagitt , dualistic mind , Duns Scotus , ecclesiology , encratism , eschatology , Eternal Now , e v a l u a t i v e , Everybody's Story , Evil and Original Sin , evolution , exploit paradox , faith , fallibilist metaphysics , fideism , goodness , Greco R o m a n n a r r a t i v e , Greek neoplatonists , Hegelian dialectical synthesis , Heisenberg , henosis , heterodoxy , Hindu vedantists , hope and love , Humean critique , iconography , incarnation , indigenous mysticism , indigenous religions , institutionalism , interpretive , irrationalism , Islamic sufis , Jewish kabbalists , John Duns Scotus , John H a u g h t , John of St. Thomas , John Poinsot , John Scottus Eriugena , Joseph Bracken , Kabbalah , Karl Popper , k a t a pha t ic , Kester Brewin , Kevin Beck , Kierkegaard , Kuhnian paradigm shift , Lakota , legalism , logical positivism , Lonergan's conversions , Ludwig Wittgenstein , Meister Eckhart , Mike Morrell , m y s t e r i u m t r e m e n d u m e t f a s c i n a n s , m y t h , naive scholastic realism , n a r r a t i v e , N a t i v e A m e r i c a n ,

Natural Theology , Navajo , Nietzsche , nihilism , nondual mind , n o r m a t i v e , Origen , orthodoxy , panentheism , pantheism , p a r t i c i p a t o r y i m a g i n a t i o n , penal , Peter Rollins , philosophy , Phyllis Tickle , pietism , platonizing cosmology , platonizing theology , Plotinus , p n e u m a t o l o g y , Postmodern Critique , propositional cognition , Pseudo Dionysius , q u a n t u m m e c h a n i c s , quietism , radical deconstructionism , radical empiricism , radical orthodoxy , rationalism , resolve , Richard Rohr , ritualism , Science , scientism , Scott Peck , Shane Claiborne , six line Biblical narrative , six line Greco R o m a n n a r r a t i v e , solipsism , soteriology , storytelling , substitutionary atonement , theology , Theology of Nature , theosis , Thomas Merton , Tim King , Tony Jones , t r u t h , Walker Percy , Zen Buddhists

10 Emerging Church Questions: Discovering What You Already Know but maybe didn’t realize you knew it (Walker Percyism) JB on February 11, 2010 in Axiological , Cosmological , the descriptive Science , the evaluative Culture, the interpretive Religion, the normative Philosophy | 6 Comments » Discovering What You Already Know but maybe didn ’t realize you knew it 1 ) What about hell? It’s a necessary theoretical construct. But it should only be used to console people who find a relationship with God positively repugnant. We need to comfort them with the notion that God would not coerce anyone into a relationship with Her. Otherwise, for all practical purposes, forget about it. 2 ) What about religion? Is it necessary? A religion is an axis of interpretation, an interpretive stance or axiology , around which our cosmology spins. Our cosmology is necessary to realize truth, beauty and goodness and, in that regard, it is also sufficient. Religion, then, is not necessary. One can live an abundant life without it. One can realize truth, beauty and goodness without religion. For example, many say they are spiritual but not religious ; they are not being disingenuous. 3 ) What do you mean by “our ” cosmology? I thought there were as many cosmologies as there were religions? Cosmology represents the relationship between science, culture and philosophy. Science is a descriptive method that asks: What is that ? Culture, an evaluative stance, asks: What is that to us? Philosophy is a normative method that asks: How do we best acquire or avoid that ? Now, humankind celebrates this cosmological reality in many diverse and beautiful ways. But this story of the cosmos and our place in it is not really up for grabs. It’s Everybody ’s Story. We are stardust. We are golden. But we’re not necessarily making our way back to the garden (although that ’s a rather popular interpretive stance). Our cosmological knowledge has advanced slowly but it does advance inexorably. It includes both cosmic and biological evolution, for example, and the paradigm of emergence . 4 ) How does religion fit in? If there ’s no hell (for all practical purposes) and an abundant life of truth, beauty and goodness already available to us, what ’s left for religion to do? Religion looks at cosmological reality and asks: How does all of this tieback together or religate ? Put more simply, it looks at life’s truth, beauty and goodness and asks: Is there, perhaps, more ? Religion, then, is our pursuit of superabundance . To the extent that life is a journey, we aspire to travel even more swiftly and with less hindrance toward truth, beauty and goodness. Religion seeks to augment these value realizations by amplifying the risks we have already taken in science, culture and philosophy. Religion amplifies these risks through faith, hope and love and realizes these augmented values in creed, cult and code. In creed , we articulate truth in doctrine and dogma. In cult , we cultivate beauty in liturgy, ritual and practices. In code , we preserve goodness in law and disciplines. And this new law, by the way, is love . And its justice is known as mercy . And its methods are not coercive; they ’re nonviolent . (Where nonviolence is concerned, I often think of Polanyi ’s tacit dimension or of how in semiotic science and Baldwinian evolution there can be a downward causation without any violation of physical causal closure. Such forms of non energetic or formal causation can be ineluctably unobtrusive while, at the same time, utterly efficacious. This provides a great analog for the gentle, yet powerful, influence of the Spirit on all of creation, always coaxing but never coercive . If it’s any consolation to our human passions, Jesus suggests that our nonviolent responses are experienced by our detractors like the heaping of burning coals upon their heads. ) Above all, we enjoy our unitive fellowship in community . A community ( koinonia ) of peace or grand shalom , where we find – not perfection – but wholeness . 5 ) If everyone is, so to speak, saved vis a vis any conception of hell and all religions are about the task of aspiring to superabundance, then why all the fuss about, for example, an insidious indifferentism , a facile syncretism or false irenicism regarding different religions? Well, we are not indifferent in that we want to give God the greatest possible glory, ad majorem Dei gloriam . So, while it is one great image to conceive of us all there together in Eternity, lighting up the firmament to our fullest capacity, fired up by the very glory of God, it might otherwise be a somewhat sobering thought to also imagine that many of us will have escaped as through a fire with our little 40 watt bulbs while folks like Mother Teresa shine forth as a blazing helios . We can believe, in my view, that every trace of human goodness, every beginning of a smile, will be eternalized. Each moment of our lives is ripe for eternalization or will be burned off as ever to be forgotten chaff. But, far more than any fanciful contemplation of our eternal state, we are not indifferent because not all are equally able to enjoy and realize life ’s truth, beauty and goodness, life ’s intrinsically good and potentially abundant nature. And, yes, I affirm life ’s beauty and goodness and abundance, unconditionally, very much aware of some rather significant cosmic irony, not indifferent to the

But, far more than any fanciful contemplation of our eternal state, we are not indifferent because not all are equally able to enjoy and realize life ’s truth, beauty and goodness, life ’s intrinsically good and potentially abundant nature. And, yes, I affirm life ’s beauty and goodness and abundance, unconditionally, very much aware of some rather significant cosmic irony, not indifferent to the immensity of human pain, the enormity of human suffering. And, while I haven ’t ignored some of those French existentialists ( Camus and Sartre), I have paid more attention to their Russian counterparts (Dostoevsky ). I do believe that it is when we awaken to our solidarity that compassion will ensue. So, it seems like we would want to aspire to practice such a religion as would best foster human development and growth: intellectual, affective, moral, sociopolitical and religious. We want to get religion as right as we can in order to help as many as possible to run life ’s race more swiftly and with less hindrance, sharing and enjoying life ’s abundance. We seek enlightenment for ourselves, even, out of compassion for our fellow wo/men who would otherwise have to suffer our unenlightened selves. It may be too early on humankind ’s journey to successfully discern which religions are best fostering such growth and conversion, but these are criteria about which we should care very deeply. We need to dialogue deeply and with great humility. I will say this: Religions that get away from Everybody ’s Story and tinker wily nilly with cosmology are indeed out to lunch. Cosmology is not something one can just make up; it’s comprised of autonomous methodologies, like science and philosophy. 6 ) Where, then, does the Incarnation fit in? Well, it is about atONEment but not, in my view (or that of Scotus and the Franciscans), a penal, substitutionary atonement. In other words, it was not occasioned by some felix culpa (happy fault) as if in response to some grand ontological rupture located in the past. Rather, it was in the divine cards from the cosmic get go, this, Godiswithus, Emmanuel . It has more to do with a Teilhardianlike teleological striving oriented toward the future. Most concretely, it ’s all about a profound intimacy with a deeply caring Lover . It’s a dance, perichoresis . 7 ) What, then, about soteriology and eschatology? Well, I’m with all the existentialists in recognizing that we are in a predicament of sorts. But I ’m also with those who affirm a radically incarnational view, which sees us as co creators in an unfinished universe, hence the moaning and groaning in this grand act of giving birth. I suppose I could join the theodicists and suggests that, surely, there must’ve been a better way! But I ’ve finally quit beating my head against that wall just because it felt good when I stopped and have decided to just put my shoulder to the plow and plant a few seeds for the Kingdom. Eternity is not something that happens before or after time. It is an atemporal and thoroughly NOW thing! As has been said, it ’s heaven all the way to heaven, hell all the way to hell. Heavenly thoughts that are of no earthly significance will not be realized in eternity because by not being now here they ’ll end up being nowhere . The truth of religion is found in a soteriology that measures its success in terms of how well we are fostering an eschatological realism grounded in conversion (Lonergan ’s) and compassion (leading to diakonia, service), NOW. 8 ) What about Godtalk, metaphysics and such? There is a type of Godtalk that begins with cosmology. We could call that philosophical or natural theology . I am a metaphysical realist, even regarding Godconcepts. Here we clarify categories, disambiguate vague concepts, frame up questions and formulate arguments. Here we affirm the reasonableness of our questions. This is not unimportant. But it is woefully insufficient for a number of reasons, like the excess of meaning we are dealing with, for example and to say the least. With Peirce, however, after forming the argument and asking the question, we then stop! We don’t pretend to have answered the questions and we don ’t proceed with God proofs via syllogistic argumentation, which Peirce considered a fetish (and I agree). There is another type of God talk that proceeds from within the faith. We call that a theology of nature . Here we wax metaphorical with our analogical imaginations. All metaphors eventually collapse of course, but it is my belief that those drawn in fidelity to our cosmology are going to be the most resilient because our analogs will be better, our tautologies more taut. Of course, there are other descriptors for God talk, such as kataphatic and apophatic , both aspiring to increase our descriptive accuracy of God, the former through positive affirmations and the latter through negations. These categories apply to both natural theology and a theology of nature. Most Godtalk is going to come from our theology of nature. We can exhaust what can be known from the perspective of natural theology in a single afternoon ’s parlor sitting. The currency of natural theology is the affirmation: Good question! This does not mean, however, that the lingua franca of a theology of nature is going to therefore be: Good answer! A theology of nature traffics, instead, in iconography. It brings us to value realizations via a more nondual, contemplative stance toward reality. The chief caveat emptor where icons are concerned is their elevation into idols. In this regard, our 21st Century religion could use a huge therapeutic dose of ancient apophatic mysticism to ensure that our icons do not become idols. Another good distinction between natural theology and a theology of nature is that the former is philosophical and engages our problem solving dualistic mindset while the latter is robustly relational and nondual. Even some of the best theologies of nature, like Jack Haught’s aesthetic teleology and Joe Bracken’s divine matrix , with all of their sophisticated references to the biological and cosmological sciences, are poetic ventures, metaphorical adventures, much more akin to St.

Another good distinction between natural theology and a theology of nature is that the former is philosophical and engages our problem solving dualistic mindset while the latter is robustly relational and nondual. Even some of the best theologies of nature, like Jack Haught’s aesthetic teleology and Joe Bracken’s divine matrix , with all of their sophisticated references to the biological and cosmological sciences, are poetic ventures, metaphorical adventures, much more akin to St. Francis ’ hymns to nature than, for example, G ödel’s modal ontological argument. 9 ) What do you make of institutional religion and such approaches as involve clerical and hierarchical models? Well, for starters, we shouldn ’t confuse means and ends. And, once we ’ve identified the means, we shouldn ’t so quickly insist that they are the only means. The Spirit, it seems, is well capable of work arounds? Even the hierarchical structures I ’m familiar with are conceived in a way that gives primacy to bottom up dynamics. In other words, in theory, the top down dynamic is a dissemination of what ’s been received from below, not a de novo fabrication emanating from above. When a hierarchy, on occasion, loses this integral relationship or integrity, it is in a state of ex communication, a reality that travels a two way street. 10 ) What about interreligious dialogue? We have made progress in moving from our exclusivistic ecclesiocentrisms to a more inclusivistic Christocentrism. I think our next good step is a pneumatological inclusivism , which needn ’t bracket our Christology but should lead, at least, with the Spirit. Those of us with a radically incarnational view of reality can affirm the Spirit at work in science, philosophy and culture and can recognize the truth, beauty and goodness realized on the human journey, which is pervasively graced. And we can recognize the value realizations that have been augmented by our great religious traditions, affirming the efficacies and recognizing the inefficacies in their attempts to foster intellectual, affective, moral, sociopolitical and religious growth, development and conversion. We need to dialogue regarding what we ’re getting right and what we ’re getting wrong — not preoccupied with heavenly destinations, but — in order to give God the greatest possible glory and in order to compassionately console and help others to travel more swiftly and with less hindrance on life ’s journey, realizing life ’s deepest values and greatest goods. Footnote: Walker Percy spoke of Kierkegaard ’s On the Difference Between a Genius and an Apostle :

Like the readings that mean most to you, what it did was confirm something I suspected but that it took Søren Kierkegaard to put into words: that what the greatest geniuses in science, literature, art and philosophy utter are sentences which convey truths sub specie aeternitatis , that is to say, sentences which can be confirmed by appropriate methods and by anyone, anywhere, any time. But only the apostle can utter sentences which can be accepted on the authority of the apostle, that is , his credentials, sobriety, trustworthiness as a newsbearer. These sentences convey not knowledge sub specie aeternitatis but news.

The Art of Fiction XCVII: Walker Percy by Zoltan AbadiNagi/1986. This reiterates the distinction between our cosmology as knowledge sub specie aeternitatis and our axiology as Good News .

Click on the Questions symbol above to meet Bill & Jacki Dahl, whom I “met” via Ron Cole !Bill & Below are the methodological presuppositions that situate my outlook as articulated above. Click on the following link to continue. >>> Read the rest of this entry » Send article as PDF to

Enter email address

Send

Tags: ad majorem Dei gloriam , aesthetic teleology , Amos Yong , analogical imagination , apophatic , apophatic mysticism , axiological epistemology , axiologically integral , beauty and goodness , b e h a v i n g , believing , belonging , C a m u s , Charles Sanders Peirce , Christocentrism , clerical , cocreator , compassion , contemplative , cosmic irony , cosmology , creed , critical realism , critical scriptural scholarship , cult , culture , descriptive method , Divine Matrix , Dostoevsky , dualistic mindset , ecclesiocentrism , e c umeni c a l , e c u m e n i s m , ega l it arian , emergence , eschatolgical realism , eschatology , esoteric mystical spirituality , Eternal Now , Eternity , Everybody's Story , evolutionary epistemology , exclusivism , exoteric mythic spirituality , faith , felix culpa , French existentialists , God talk , Gödel's modal ontological argument , h e a v e n , hell , h i e r a r c h i c a l , holon , hope and love , h u m a n a u t h e n t i c i t y , incarnation , inclusivism , indifferentism , institutional religion , inter religious unity , irenicism , ka ta pha ti c , marginalized , methodologically autonomous , Natural Theology , naturalistic epistemology , nondual , n o n d u a l i t y , n o r m a t i v e , orthocommunio , orthodoxy , orth opathy , o r t h o p r a x y , penal , performative , perichoresis , philosophy , pneumatological imagination , pneumatological inclusivism , preferential option for the poor , prophetic protest , Russian existentialists , Sartre , Science , social justice , solidarity , soteriology , Spirit , substitutionary atonement , s y n c r e t i s m , theodicy , Theological Anthropology , Theology of Nature , t r u t h

hermits with an informal, occasional apostolate JB on February 11, 2010 in Uncategorized | No Comments » Thomas Merton in Disputed Questions writes of the thirteenth century Carmelite hermits that they “initiated something quite original and unique: a loose knit community of hermits with an informal, occasional apostolate … their life was left free and informal so that they could do anything that conformed to their ideal of solitude and free submission to the Holy Spirit.” Send article as PDF to

Enter email address

Send

« Older Entries

Today ’s Liturgy

Translator

By N2H

Amos Yong apophatic Axiological axiologically integral

Bernard Brian Lonergan McLaren Charles Sanders Peirce contemplative

cosmology emergence emerging church Enlightenment

epistemology faith False

Self fideism Hans Kung James K. A. Smith Jesus Creed John Duns Scotus kataphatic Kevin

Beck Kurt Godel Merton

metaphysics Mike Morrell Natural

Theology nihilism

nondual nonduality

orthodoxy radical emergence radical orthodoxy rationalism

Richard Rohr Science

scientism semiotic theodicy Theological Anthropology

Thomas Tim King Merton transformation

True Self Walker Percy WP C u m u l u s b y Roy Tanck and Luke Morton requires Flash Player 9 or better.

Cultivating the Roots, Nurturing the Shoots MARCH 2010 M

1 8 15 22 29

2 9 16 23 30 « FEB

3 10 17 24 31

4 11 18 25

5 12 19 26

6 7 13 14 20 21 27 28

Recent Posts The Emerging Church is BIGGER t h a n C h r i s t i a n i t y – how to spot it in other traditions Abortion & the Senate Healthcare Bill – a prudential judgment 10 historical developments propelling Emerging Christianity ~ Richard Rohr Why Brian McLaren ’s Greco Roman Narrative is NOT a caricature THE BOOK: Christian Nonduality – Postmodern Conservative Catholic Pentecostal

Recent Comments christiannonduality.com Blog » Blog Archive » Thoughts re: today ’s debate – Philip Clayton vs Dan Dennett on Intelligent

Design – a poorly designed inference christiannonduality.com Blog » Blog Archive » Why Brian McLaren ’s Greco Roman Narrative is NOT a caricature on A New Kind of Christianity? McLaren didn ’t make this up. It ’s worse than that! christiannonduality.com Blog » Blog Archive » Why Brian McLaren ’s Greco Roman Narrative is NOT a caricature on E v e r y t h i n g T h a t ’s Old is New Again – this (McLaren ’s “ New ” Christianity) is truly an old time religion Kieran Conroy on A New Kind of Christianity? McLaren didn ’t make this up. It ’s worse than that! Philip Clayton on Thoughts re: today ’s debate – Philip Clayton vs Dan Dennett

Type, Hit Enter to Search

We Distinguish in Order to Unite Select Category

Blogroll Andrew Sullivan Beyond Blue Brian D. McLaren Commonweal Crunchy Con Cyn t hia Bo urgeault Emergent Village Emerging Women First Thoughts Fors Clavigera Francis X. Clooney, S.J. Joseph S. O'Leary NCR Today – the Catholic Blog Per Caritatem Phyllis Tickle Post Christian Postmodern Conservative Radical Emergence Sojourners Tall Skinny Kiwi The Website of Unknowing Transmillenial Vox Nova Weekly Standard Blog Worship Blog Zoecarnate

Worthwhile Sites Amos Yong Boulder Integral Brother David Steindl Rast Center for Action and Contemplation Christian Nonduality Co nt empl a t ive Outre ac h David Group International Dialogue Institute Ecumene Franciscan Archive Innerexplorations Institute on Religion in an Age of Science Metanexus Monastic Interreligious Dialogue National Catholic Reporter Radical Orthodoxy Shalomplace Sojourners Thomas Merton Center Virtual Chapel Zygon Center for Religion and Science

Cloud of Unknowing

Amos Yong apophatic Axiological axiologically integral

Bernard Brian Lonergan McLaren Charles Sanders

Peirce contemplative

cosmology emergence emerging church

Enlightenment epistemology faith False Self Hans Kung James K. A. Smith Jesus Creed John Duns Scotus kataphatic Merton Mike Morrell Natural Theology nondual orthodoxy radical emergence rationalism

fideism

Kevin Beck Kurt Godel

metaphysics nihilism

nonduality radical orthodoxy Richard Rohr Science scientism semiotic theodicy Theological Anthropology

Thomas Tim King Merton transformation True

Self Walker Percy

Join Other Visitors in Prayer Light A Candle & Pray

Join Us in the Liturgy of the Hours

Get the Cathlimergent on Twitter widget and many other great free widgets at Widgetbox ! Not seeing a widget? ( More info )

Tweets johnssylvest: Abortion & the Senate Healthcare Bill – a prudential judgment http://bit.ly/aS2DwT johnssylvest: 10 developments propelling Emerging Christianity ~ Richard Rohr http://bit.ly/a4AMtg johnssylvest: RT @pdclayton7: "Theology After Google" opens Wed. 23 of the best speakers on emerging religion in Google Age; live stream at http://o ... johnssylvest: RT @jonestony: New Blog Post: Society for Pentecostal Studies Paper: What Pentecostals Have to Learn from Emergents http://ow.ly/16KREU johnssylvest: THE BOOK: An Emerging Church Conversation with a Postmodern Conservative Catholic Pentecostal http://bit.ly/91D570 #fb John Sobert Sylvest

Johnboy Was Here Feedjit Live Blog Stats

Feedjit Live Blog Stats

Follow this blog

Visit Cathlimergent Conversations

Visit Anglimergent

Meta Log in Entries RSS Comments RSS WordPress.org

CHRISTIANNONDUALITY. C O M

BL O G

beyond thinking & proposing to imagining & participating Home About

Why I Love New Orleans: Iko Iko ah-nay Joc-a-mo-fee-no-ah-nahnay Joc-a-mo-fee-nah-nay

T o d a y’ s L i t u r g y

JB on February 10, 2010 in Uncategorized, the evaluative - Culture | No Comments » It’s not WHAT you see of life when you come to N’awlins; it’s HOW you see life!

Translator

I was born here. I still live here. And I don’t leave often. Why the hell should I? Anybody with common sense and a half a heart wishes they lived here, too, especially after watching us on TV the past few weeks! By N2H

Lemme ‘xplain how we see life. We ain’t pollyannas, mind ya, but … we’re easy like a Sunday … Take that statue in the Cathedral. Look on dat lady-saint’s face and stare into it but good. Now, you told me whether that’s pain you see dere or some type o’ really good pleasure. Ya can’t do it, no? One moment it’s as if she’s in dem dere – what dey call ‘em? never seen it for myself, oh, yeah – trows of orgasmic ecstasy, poo-yie-yie! But in the very next instant, just tilt you little head to da side a bit and, mon cher, you could swear she was at the Rock ‘n Bowl on South Carrollton and had just dropped a bowling ball on her used-to-begood foot. Yep. One day it’s Mardi Gras. The next day it’s Lent. Dat’s N’awlins. Jes sayin’. No one can tell us here in N’awlins ’bout famine & feast, agony & ecstasy or tragedy & comedy. Just read some of that highfalutin fiction by our own Walker Percy ’bout how we hold it all together, both predicament & sacrament. Ain’t nobody here gonna quote you Job. Ain’t nobody gonna take the blame on hisself. And, fer sure, dere ain’t no fool preacher blaming life’s crap on the devil. We got our own wisdom tradition that’s hard to trace ‘xactly but our indians, blacks and creoles pretty much got it figured out dat Joc-a-mo has got something to do with it. Now, ‘gain, Joc-amo ain’t the devil and he ain’t even necessarily your enemy. He’s just a jester is all, not one to be figured out, just one to be dealt with. We reckon that, if God’s got plans, dem designs are kinda whatcha might call loose or easy. God, the Really Big Easy, makes a move. We make a move. Joc-amo makes a move. Some moves work out, like when Elvis gets the girl. And some, like dem world class biotches, Betsy and Katrina? What can I say? Sometimes, it’s like dropping bowling balls on both yo’ feet, which is to say, it don’t work out too well, n’est pas? But here in N’awlins, there ain’t no bitching and moaning. We just sing, instead. Through the yellow fever and malaria, fire and flood, the Battle of New Orleans, first we ask Our Lady to pray with us for prompt succoring and next we sing:

Amos Yong apophatic Axiological axiologicallyintegral

Bernard Lonergan Brian McLaren Charles Sanders Peirce contemplative cosmology emergence emerging church Enlightenment

epistemology faith False

Self fideism Hans Kung James K. A. Smith Jesus Creed John Duns Scotus kataphatic Kevin

Beck Kurt Godel Merton

metaphysics Mike Morrell Natural

Theology nihilism

nondual nonduality

orthodoxy radical emergence radical orthodoxy rationalism

Richard Rohr Science

scientism semiotic theodicy Theological Anthropology

Thomas Merton Tim King transformation True Self Walker Percy W P-C u m u l u s b y R o y T a n c k a n d Luke Morton requires F l a s h P l a y e r 9 or better.

Talkin ’bout Hey now, Hey now Iko Iko ah-nay Joc-a-mo-fee-no-ah-nah-nay Joc-a-mo-fee-nah-nay enòn enòn Aìku Aìku nde Jacouman Fi na ida – n – de Jacouman Fi na dè And that roughly translates into: God is watching Jacouman causes it; we will be emancipated Jacouman urges it; we will wait And sometimes we wait a very long time. It’s called patience. Look it up. It’s a virtue. And it doesn’t mean we sit on our asses. We keep working hard. And when our backs are against the Superdome wall, whether for Katrina or the NFL Playoffs, still we sing:

Good for your bod-y And it’s good for your soul I said hey, hey hey hey Hey pocky-a-way I said hey, hey hey hey Tuway pakyway T’ouwais bas q’ouwais Hou tendais

Cultivating the Roots, Nurturing the Shoots MARCH 2010 M

1 8 15 22 29

2 9 16 23 30 « FEB

3 10 17 24 31

4 11 18 25

5 12 19 26

6 13 20 27

7 14 21 28

Recent Posts The Emerging Church is BIGGER t h a n C h r i s t i a n i t y – how to spot it in other traditions Abortion & the Senate Healthcare Bill – a p r u d e n t i a l judgment 10 historical developments propelling Emerging Christianity ~ Richard Rohr Why Brian McLaren’s GrecoRoman Narrative is NOT a caricature THE BOOK: Christian N o n d u a l i t y – Postmodern Conservative Catholic Pentecostal

And that roughly translates into: I’ll kill you if you don’t get out the way! And the proper response to N’awlins would be: Entendez! And that roughly translates into: I hear ya! Now, don’t get us wrong. We mean kill ya metaphorically, which is to say, in a nice kinda way! With red beans & rice, creole gumbo and our boys, the Saints. Bless You, Boys!

Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Send

Blog Archive » W h y B r i a n McLaren’s Greco-R o m a n Narrative is NOT a caricature on A New Kind of Christianity? McLaren didn’t make this up. It’s worse than that! christiannonduality.com Blog » Blog Archive » W h y B r i a n McLaren’s Greco-R o m a n Narrative is NOT a caricature on E v e r y t h i n g T h a t’s Old is New A g a i n – this (McLaren’s “ N e w” Christianity) is truly an old time religion K i e r a n C o n r o y on A New Kind of Christianity? McLaren didn’t make this up. It’s worse than that! Philip Clayton on Thoughts re: t o d a y’s debate – Philip Clayton vs Dan Dennett

Type, Hit Enter to Search

We Distinguish in Order to Unite Tags: H e y P o c k y w a y, H u r r i c a n e K a t r i n a, Iko Iko, Jocamo, New Orleans, New Orleans Saints, Super Bowl, S u p e r d o m e, t h e o d i c y, W a l k e r P e r c y

I’ve already got truth, beauty & goodness! Why bother with faith, hope & love? JB on February 3, 2010 in Axiological, Cosmological, Methods & Approaches, Practices & Experiences, Provisional Closures & Systems, the descriptive - Science, the evaluative Culture, the interpretive - Religion, the normative - Philosophy | 3 Comments » This Post is a Syncroblog. Join our Syncroblogathon by blogging on the question: “What does it mean to express faith, hope, and love in the 21st Century (or postmodern world)?” And then cross-reference the following links in your post: Mike Morrell – Faith. Hope. And Love. (A Syncroblog) Jeff Goins – Faith, Hope, and Love in the 21st Century: A Manifesto? John Sylvest – I’ve Already Got Truth, Beauty, & Goodness! Why Bother with Faith, Hope & Love? Matt Snyder – Faith, Hope, and Love: Expressed in Simplicity To answer this most concretely —

Select Category

Blogroll Andrew Sullivan Beyond Blue Brian D. McLaren Commonweal Crunchy Con Cynthia Bourgeault Emergent Village Emerging Women First Thoughts Fors Clavigera Francis X. Clooney, S.J. Joseph S. O'Leary NCR Today – the Catholic Blog Per Caritatem Phyllis Tickle Post Christian Postmodern Conservative Radical Emergence Sojourners Tall Skinny Kiwi The Website of Unknowing Transmillenial Vox Nova Weekly Standard Blog Worship Blog Zoecarnate

Worthwhile Sites

We should amplify the risks we took when we moved from our exclusivistic ecclesiocentrisms to a more inclusivistic Christocentricism by exploring a robust pneumatological inclusivism in our interreligious dialogue. Put simply, we should take more risks in our faith outlook by being more open regarding where we expect to find the Spirit at work in our world, for example, among other peoples, in both sacred and secular settings, thereby augmenting the value to be realized from a broader ecumenism.

We should amplify the risks we’ve already taken liturgically being more open to how it is the Spirit can form our desires, recognizing that we can fruitfully adopt the spiritual technology of other religions, such as certain asceticisms, disciplines and practices, without necessarily adopting their conclusions, thus augmenting the value to be mined from desiring the Kingdom above all else and being sensitive to its less visible manifestations.

Amos Yong Boulder Integral Brother David Steindl-Rast Center for Action and Contemplation Christian Nonduality Contemplative Outreach David Group International Dialogue Institute Ecumene Franciscan Archive Innerexplorations Institute on Religion in an Age of Science Metanexus Monastic Interreligious Dialogue National Catholic Reporter Radical Orthodoxy Shalomplace Sojourners Thomas Merton Center Virtual Chapel Zygon Center for Religion and Science

Cloud of Unknowing

We should amplify the risks involved in our dualistic, problem-solving mind, with its empirical, rational, practical and moral approach to reality to engage reality more holistically and integrally with our nondual mind and its contemplative stance thus augmenting the value of relationship to God, others, the environment and even self.

Amos Yong apophatic Axiological axiologicallyintegral

Bernard Lonergan Brian McLaren Charles Sanders Peirce contemplative cosmology emergence emerging church

E n l i g h t e n m e n t epistemology

We should amplify the risks involved in our moral ventures by moving beyond our legalistic approach to moral realities in society to a more social justiceoriented approach, striving less for a theocratic and coercive moral statism and more for the establishment of the Kingdom via our successful institutionalization of the corporal works of mercy, thus augmenting the value to be mined on behalf of those who’ve been marginalized.

faith False Self fideism Hans Kung James K. A. Smith Jesus Creed John Duns Scotus kataphatic

Kevin Beck Kurt Godel Merton

metaphysics Mike Morrell Natural Theology nihilism nondual

nonduality orthodoxy radical emergence radical orthodoxy rationalism

Richard Rohr Science scientism We should amplify the risks involved in conducting a more scientifically rigorous Biblical exegesis, unafraid of historical-critical methods, literary criticism and honest Jesus scholarship, thus augmenting the value of the Good News for all people of the world through enhanced reliability, credibility and authoritativeness.

semiotic theodicy Theological Anthropology

Thomas Merton Tim King transformation True Self Walker Percy

Join Other Visitors in Prayer Light A Candle & Pray

We should amplify the risks involved in ministering to the world through noninstitutional vehicles, affirming them as partners and mining the value they create in the ecclesiological models they afford us, egalitarian models that are free of clericalism, paternalism, hierarchicalism, colonialism, parochialism, sexism, institutionalism and so on, thereby augmenting the value to be realized from a more dutiful engagement of the Sensus Fidelium. Be Not Afraid. Take risks for God’s sake! For those interested in the theological development of the above-described Risk-based Approach to Value-Realization: Faith, hope and love are adventures in that they involve risk or what Pascal called a wager. And it is a grand cosmic adventure in which we are invited to participate as we unconditionally assent to the proposition that the pursuits of truth, beauty and goodness are their own reward. This quest, itself, becomes our grail. This journey becomes our destination.

Join Us in the Liturgy of the Hours

Get the C a t h l i m e r g e n t o n Twitter widget and many other great free widgets a t Widgetbox! Not seeing a widget? (More info)

Tweets

As we observe this 13.7 billion year old universe, notwithstanding humankind’s cumulative advances in science, philosophy, culture and religion, questions still beg regarding the initial, boundary and limit conditions of the cosmos. There is, however, an overarching narrative that begins to address these questions. It is the story of Emergence. Emergence gifts the universe with an increasing complexity as its novel structures and properties present the beauty that surrounds us. It is a complexity, however, that is willing to run the risk of disintegration. The greater the number of bifurcations and permutations involved in any given system, the more fragile. And, the more fragile, the more beautiful. Put most simply, an emergent cosmos amplifies risk and thus augments beauty. These are realities we can understand without the benefit of special divine revelation. A descriptive human science queries reality asking: What is that? Our evaluative human culture inquires: What’s that to us? And our normative human philosophy then aspires to answer the ensuing question: How do we best acquire or avoid that? The answers we have derived for these perennial questions take the form of truth, beauty and goodness. And while each individual asks these questions everyday, as radically social animals, these values are realized in community. Because we are radically finite, hence needy, we form communities of value-realizers. Thus we talk about the scientific community, philosophic community, cultural community and so on. Each such community, in its pursuit of value, in its own way, embarks on a risk-taking adventure, amplifying risks in order to augment our human value-realizations of truth, beauty and goodness.

johnssylvest: Abortion & the Senate Healthcare Bill – a prudential judgment http://bit.ly/aS2DwT johnssylvest: 10 developments propelling Emerging Christianity ~ Richard Rohr http://bit.ly/a4AMtg johnssylvest: RT @pdclayton7: "Theology After Google" opens Wed. - 23 of the best speakers on emerging religion in Google Age; live stream at http://o ... johnssylvest: RT @jonestony: New Blog Post: Society for Pentecostal Studies Paper: What Pentecostals Have to Learn from Emergents http://ow.ly/16KREU johnssylvest: THE BOOK: An Emerging Church Conversation with a Postmodern Conservative Catholic Pentecostal http://bit.ly/91D570 #fb John Sobert Sylvest

The scientist, for her part, ventures forth with hypotheses that are inherently falsifiable by design. The philosopher, for his part, articulates a provisional closure, which is represented as this school or that. Human culture has been a veritable laboratory, wherein our falsifiable sciences and provisional philosophies have played out as anthropological explorations, as we know, sometimes to humankind’s utmost benefit but, all to often, to humanity’s everlasting dismay.

Johnboy Was Here Feedjit Live Blog Stats Feedjit Live Blog Stats

Before we introduce competing meta-narratives, or axes of interpretation of reality, we already observe our communities of value-realization in pursuit of the intrinsically rewarding values of truth, beauty and goodness. And we observe science, philosophy and culture harvesting these values in abundance in what is an inherently spiritual quest. Before our interpretive narratives (religions) are introduced, our descriptive, evaluative and normative narratives are in place, as a cosmology, amplifying risks and thereby augmenting our valuerealizations. In this regard, they might very well be considered both necessary and sufficient. Still, as the ultimate value-realizer, our species might naturally wonder: Is there, perhaps, more?

Follow this blog

In our distinctly human way, most of us not only wonder but also pursue more truth, more beauty and more goodness, than is already realizable by science, culture and philosophy. In so doing, we ask: How does all of that tie-together? And this religation query is a distinctly religious question. It is, then, our axiology. Now, if science, culture and philosophy, each in their own way, comprise a risk-venture in pursuit of truth, beauty and goodness, amplifying our epistemic, normative and evaluative risks toward the end of augmenting these intrinsically rewarding values, then what inheres in the very fabric of the religious quest is a further amplification of risks. These amplified risks are nothing less, then, than faith, hope and love. It is no accident, then, that the world’s literature has ubiquitously employed the journey, the quest, the adventure as its root metaphor for the religious quest and that its preferred allegory has been an erotic love that risks all for the sake of all. We’ve come a long way in this presentation without addressing the postmodern influence on our 21st Century expressions of faith, hope and love. And if you’ve hung in here with me thus far, know that we’re now on the threshold of describing the postmodern prescription for what has ailed our modernistic religious quest. The chief problem with the modernistic approach to the religious quest is that it lost touch with the essential risk-taking nature of faith, hope and love. Perhaps due to our natural human anxiety to banish all mystery, perhaps due to our rather feeble ability to tolerate ambiguity, and perhaps due to our insatiable need to either resolve, dissolve or evade all paradox, humanity has largely surrendered to a neurotically-induced hubris that imagines that all mystery has thus been comprehended, all ambiguity has thus been eliminated and all paradox is subject to either synthetic resolution, perspectival dissolution or practical evasion. The practical upshot of such hubris is that we begin to imagine that there are no risks to undertake, much less amplify, no further values to pursue, much less augment, no quests to launch, no journeys on which to embark. Life, then, is no longer an adventure. The chief malady of such a malaise is that an insidious ennui settles over us. It’s not so much that we think we have all the right answers, which is bad enough, but that we imagine that we even have all the right questions. Our science devolves into scientism. Our culture caves into a practical nihilism. Our philosophies decay into a sterile rationalism. The only thing that remains to be seen is whether our planet will go out with a silent ecological whimper or a fiery nuclear holocaust. Our religion, for its part, gets hyper-eschatological with heavenly notions that are of little earthly use. A once enchanted world becomes inhabited with terribly disenchanted denizens. Modernism, in its pretense, bottled up the elixir of risk and offered us instead a vile concoction that it mistook for some type of truth serum, a formula with all the answers, which diluted any risk. It’s ingredients included a fideism, which walled itself in to a house of language game mirrors claiming immunity for religion to cultural critique. It also mixed in an inordinate amount of theological nonrealism due to a hyper-active dialectical imagination that approached God as not only wholly incomprehensible (which He is), but as not even partly intelligible (which She is). It suggested that no reasons could be given for religious belief as if all reasons necessarily derived from empirical and rational argumentation with their informative propositions and epistemic warrants, when, so much of human reasoning, instead, is prudential and moral with performative significance and normative justification. Put much more simply, modernism overemphasized reasons of the head and relegated reasons of the heart to history’s propositional dustbin. A radically deconstructive postmodernism, in one of philosophy’s most tragic ironies, ends up being nothing more than a hypermodernistic outlook, with great hubris putting a priori limits on human knowledge … except, well, for one singular exception, which would be the limits they refuse to place on their own anthropology. In their caricature of all human communication as language games, the Wittgensteinian fideists misappropriate Wittgenstein as they saw off the epistemological limbs wherein their own ontological eggs are nested. In their anxiety to annihilate metaphysics, both the social construction theorists and the scientistic cabal do away with the very analogia that fuel both highly theoretical science and speculative cosmology. This is just as insidious as the tautologies that were inhabited by those who bought into Feuerbach, Marx, Freud, Nietzsche and others, whose anthropological conclusions were buried in their reductionistic premises and hidden in their cynical definitions. None of this is to deny that we do not all inhabit elaborate tautologies with their various circular references, causal disjunctions, infinite regressions and question begging. It is to suggest that not all tautologies are equally taut and that we can and should attempt to adjudicate between them based on such anthropological metrics as provided by Lonergan’s conversions (expanded by Gelpi): intellectual, affective, moral, sociopolitical and religious. And this is not to claim that such sociologic metrics are readily available or easily interpretable but, come on folks, some religious cohorts are rather transparently dysfunctional, wouldn’t ya say? And judging different approaches to faith by employing such pragmatic criteria is admittedly not robustly truth-conducive but it is certainly reasonable to imagine that it is truth-indicative. Our inability to finally discriminate between all religious approaches, some which end up being quite equiplausible, even if not equiprobable, does not make our approach moot; rather, it makes it problematical. It does not mean that we do not have reasons (and very good reasons, at that) to embrace one faith approach and to eschew another; it only means that those reasons will not be universally compelling.

Visit Cathlimergent Conversations Visit Anglimergent

Meta Log in Entries R S S Comments R S S WordPress.org

Faith, hope and love in the 21st Century will look like an adventure. It will look like a risk-filled adventure where believers run the cosmic risk of disintegration in selfemptying kenotic love. Like Pip in Great Expectations, we will embark on a search for our Benefactor. Like Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn, we will be a people of hope, always looking in expectant anticipation for what’s around the river’s bend. Like the cosmos, itself, and with the grand Cosmic Adventurer, we will actively participate, not without some moaning and groaning, in the great act of giving birth. Faith, hope and love in the 21st Century will look a lot more like that time of enchantment in the early days of Christianity, when the apostles and disciples and closest confidants of Jesus, Himself, took great risks in following Him. It will look a lot less like that self-righteous certitude of fundamentalistic religion, scientistic philosophy or even, ironically, a social constructionist nonrealism. These are, in the end, very pessimistic anthropologies whether gnostic or agnostic. We simply cannot a priori know how knowable or unknowable reality will turn out to be. In makes a lot more sense to believe that, as we progressively enhance our modeling power of reality, albeit in a very fallibilist way, our concepts and constructs and categories are making some of our tautologies much more taut vis a vis reality writ large. And this includes our God-concepts, which, in-principle, must be inherently vague. If there is a grand telic design and we actively participate in same, there is every good reason to hypothesize that the inexorable advance of human knowledge gifts us with a more coherent outlook on both proximate and ultimate reality. To the extent we understand reality better, the analogs we apply to ultimate reality will improve. This is not to deny that such analogs will invoke an infinite number of dissimilarities over against the similarities they will reveal. It is to affirm that those similarities, however meager, have profound existential import because they pertain to a VERY BIG reality, indeed. Over against any radically positive theology (kataphasis) of the gnostics, fundamentalists and rationalists, and over against any radically negative theology (apophasis) of the agnostics, nonrealists and fideists, a postmodern theology eschews both an epistemic hubris and an excessive epistemic humility in favor of a Goldilocks approach that is just right, an epistemic holism with an integral approach to reality. In our postmodern milieu, science, culture, philosophy and religion are intertwined. When one advances, they all advance. When one regresses, they all regress. This is not to say that they are not otherwise autonomous methodologies. A postmodern theology recognizes and affirms this autonomy. It is to say that these approaches to reality are integrally-related in every human value-realization. They are, then, methodologically-autonomous but axiologically-integral. Enhanced modeling power of reality, whether in science, culture, philosophy or religion, translates into an enhanced modeling power of reality writ large. We best not set these value-pursuits over against or in competition. A modernist rationalism is a failed risk-management technique, attempting to domesticate this risk and ameliorate its adventuresome nature. A modernist fideism is a failed riskelimination technique, attempting to immunize faith from critique by reducing it to mere expression. Only a constructive postmodern approach can successfully retrieve, revive and renew our sense of adventure, enchantment and risk-taking, inviting us anew to journey on a quest for a grail worthy of our ineradicable human aspirations for more, a LOT more! Thus we amplify our risk in our pursuit of truth into a faith, often articulated in creed; in our pursuit of beauty into a hope, often celebrated in the cultivation of liturgy and ritual; in our pursuit of goodness in love, often preserved in our codes and laws; in our pursuit of community, often enjoyed in our fellowship and unity of believers. Thus humankind augments truth, beauty, goodness and unity in creed, cult, code and community. Thus we participate in the grand cosmic adventure, amplifying risks and thereby augmenting values, courageously running the risk of disintegration as God’s fragile, but beautiful creatures. Footnote: A Relevant Ping-Back from Mike Morrell’s Zoecarnate: ‘All Will Be Well’ – Polyanna Platitude or Responsible Mystical Theodicy?

Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Send

Tags: aesthetic teleology, a n a l o g i a, axes of interpretation, a x i o l o g i c a l l y-i n t e g r a l, b r o a d e r e c u m e n i s m, c l e r i c a l i s m, colonialism, c o m p l e x i t y, c o m p l e x i t y t h e o r y, constructive postmodern approach, constructive postmodernism, c o n t e m p l a t i v e s t a n c e, corporal works of mercy, C o s m i c A d v e n t u r e, cosmology, deconstructive postmodernism, descriptive science, d i a l e c t i c a l i m a g i n a t i o n, e m e r g e n c e, epistemic holism, e p i s t e m i c w a r r a n t, e v a l u a t i v e c u l t u r e, f a i t h, fideism, grail quest, Great Expectations, h i e r a r c h i c a l i s m, hope, hope and love, H u c k l e b e r r y F i n n, informative propositions, i n s t i t u t i o n a l i s m, i n t e g r a l a p p r o a c h, interreligious dialogue, Jesus scholarship, kenotic love, l a n g u a g e g a m e s, Lonergan's conversions, l o v e, m e t a-n a r r a t i v e, methodologically autonomous, modeling power, m o r a l s t a t i s m,

n i h i l i s m, n o n d u a l m i n d, noninstitutional vehicles, n o r m a t i v e j u s t i f i c a t i o n, n o r m a t i v e p h i l o s o p h y, p a r o c h i a l i s m, Pascal, Pascal's wager, p a t e r n a l i s m, p n e u m a t o l o g i c a l i n c l u s i v i s m, Popperian falsification, postmodern, p r a g m a t i c c r i t e r i a, r a t i o n a l i s m, religious quest, risk of disintegration, r i s k-e l i m i n a t i o n, r i s k-m a n a g e m e n t, root metaphor, s c i e n t i f i c c o m m u n i t y, scientism, sensus fidelium, s e x i s m, social justice-oriented, special divine revelation, spiritual quest, spiritual technology, Theological A n t h r o p o l o g y, theological nonrealism, t r u t h-c o n d u c i v e, t r u t h-i n d i c a t i v e, v a l u e-realization, Wittgensteinian Fideism

We Are Church: Our local community is 200 years old but its foundation is 2000 years old JB on January 30, 2010 in Uncategorized | No Comments » We are the people of God of East St. James Parish. We are the Houmas, Chetimacha, Quenipessa, Bayougoula and Choctaw. We lived and moved and had our being here along the Mississippi River’s banks in the roosting place of the wild ducks, Cabahanoce. During the summer when the kernels of the corn crop filled out and could be roasted and eaten we had our most important religious celebration, the Green Corn festival, which was a ceremony of thanksgiving and selfpurification. It was followed by two days of fast, a reconciliation of social conflicts fostering forgiveness and then concluded with a fire ritual. We are the Acadians who arrived in two waves after deportation from Canada to settle on the Acadian Coast of the Mississippi River and who were joined by other settlers from France and elsewhere. We, too, were a Eucharistic community, celebrating thanksgiving and reconciliation. And we have our fire rituals, too – of Easter liturgy and Christmas levee. We are the French and Spanish Capuchins who traveled the Great River Road and ministered to its earliest settlers. Parish in Convent.

We are the founders and members of St. Michael the Archangel

We are the local slaves who manufactured the red bricks for the first major building to be constructed in St. James Parish, a temple to God the Most High under the patronage of St. Michael the Archangel, which also houses the Lourdes Grotto, constructed only 18 years after the apparition of the Blessed Virgin to Bernadette Soubirous. Some of us were baptized and catechized. Most of us integrated Catholic rituals into our expressions of spirituality. We are the Religious of the Sacred Heart, who established an academy for girls near St. Michael’s Church. Many families moved into the area to be part of the vitality we brought to the community. We are the survivors of cholera, yellow fever and floods, of the Battle of New Orleans and a terrible Civil War. We are the Society of Mary, who opened St. Mary’s Jefferson College, and the Society of Jesus, who oversaw the establishment of two chapels, St. Mary of the River for the community of Union, which hosted several railroad lines, and St. Joseph’s in Longview (Paulina). We are the students and teachers of St. Joseph’s School for African-Americans, the first parochial school for African-Americans in the South. We are the beneficiaries of St. Katerine Drexel, founder of the Sisters of the Blessed Sacrament, who assisted the Sacred Heart sisters spiritually and finanically in St. Joseph’s administration and in ministry to the AfricanAmerican field workers. We are the students and teachers of St. Michael Parochial School, built from materials of the school buildings of Jefferson College, which were torn down. We are the members of St. Vincent de Paul Society, who minister to the poor and needy. We are the people of Grand Point, who have worshiped at our own St. Vincent de Paul Chapel, which, when rebuilt after a hurricane, was renamed for St. Philomena, whose statue was found intact amidst the storm destruction. St. Mary’s and St. Joseph’s were eventually outgrown and replaced as our communities of faith grew. We are the members of St. Joseph Parish in Paulina, established at the turn of the 20th Century. We are the builders of Our Lady of Prompt Succor Chapel in Lutcher. We are the religious orders of men and women who would serve the Church in East. St. James for its first 200 years. We are the Knights of Columbus, Gramercy Council 1817, who helped establish the Sacred Heart Chapel in Gramercy and have provided spiritual and social nourishment of our community through many service projects. We are the Kinghts of St. Peter Claver Council 65 and Ladies Auxiliary, sponsoring service projects in our community and encouraging ministries in our parishes. We are the Catholic Daughters of the Americas, chartered in all three parishes of the River Road, doing works of charity and service for Church and community, providing fellowship for the important celebrations of our parish lives.

We are the students of the St. Joseph Parochial school and the Dominican sisters who formed them. We are the students of St. Peter Chanel. We are the members of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus Parish in Gramercy, originally part of the New Orleans Archdiocese, now part of the Diocese of Baton Rouge. We are the Men of Manresa and hosts of the Manresa House of Retreats, established on the property of the St. Mary’s Jefferson College, serving Louisiana and surrounding states and staffed with retreat masters from the Society of Jesus. We are mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, grandparents and cousins, lots of cousins. We are the survivors of fires and floods and hurricanes. We are the growers of sugarcane and the builders of bonfires on the levee. We are homemakers and cooks extraordinaire. We are ministers, ordained and lay. We are religious, secular and regular. We make a living in business and commerce, in farming and industry, in government and public services. We are proud members of the US Armed Forces: veterans, guardsmen, active duty and reservists. We are professionals, medical and legal. We are teachers and principals, students and coaches, scholars and athletes. We are volunteer firemen, law enforcers and civil defense workers. We are grocers and pharmacists and news reporters. We are hosts and hostesses to tourists and travelers. We celebrate festivals and fundraisers. Do we celebrate! And we are proud members of the Who Dat Nation. We are a refuge for evacuees. Yes, our Eucharistic community gives thanks and forgives 24/7 and 365. We minister to one another in sacrament and song and celebration, to young and old, married and single, in every kind of ministry: liturgical, spiritual, financial, administrative, social, catechetical and community life. We worship together and celebrate the sacraments together. We gather in groups, large and small, and are commited adorers, alone, in our Adoration Chapel. We assist one another through bereavement and reach out to the hospitalized and shut-ins. We have baptized 32,524 new Christians and prepared and married 7,517 new couples. Together, we have articulated a vision grounded in a beautiful tradition. A tradition that is 200 years old. We are Stones Beside a River … of bricks, mortar and stucco … Living Stones of a people of faith and love. Our local community is 200 years old but its foundation is 2000 years old, apostles and prophets of Christ Jesus, who is our capstone. We have a story to tell. Each event above has a year attached to it and evokes images. More importantly, it has the names of our families and our pastors. Wouldn’t you like to know those dates, see those faces, once again, and learn those names? Fr. Frank Uter, who pastored us through a transition to the Church of East. St. James Parish, through another labor of love, now leads us through this story of two centuries in poem and prose, in picture and narrative, in his new book: Stones Beside a River: A History of the Catholic Church on the East Bank of St. James Parish, 1809-2009. Each generation of each family will want this treasure in their home to consult again and again, to evoke wonderful memories, to reflect on a tradition and remember how important it is to pass it on with a vision to our precious future, our children and grandchildren. What more could we possibly give them?

Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Send

Emerging Church & Pentecostalism: a creative tension JB on January 30, 2010 in Axiological, Practices & Experiences, Provisional Closures & Systems, the evaluative - Culture, the interpretive - Religion | No Comments » Below are my archived responses to Tony Jones’ question: “What Do Emergence and Pentecostalism Have to Learn from One Another?”. I encourage all to visit that thread on his blog. It has been said that those who’ve done the best at evangelizing have not always done as well at catechizing and vice versa. While there is danger in overgeneralization, there is often some insight we can gain. To the extent catechesis fosters re-cognition, evangelization fosters real-ization. The first movement is propositional, evidential, rational, presuppositional, moral and practical and the next is existential, experiential and robustly relational. The distinction is between seeing the path and walking it, between conceptual mapmaking and participatory imagination.

Both the emerging church conversation and pentecostalism do seem, in my view, responses to a modernist rationalism. Interestingly, my own reflections on these matters have not so much dealt with the emergent and pentecostal as recent phenomena via a vis the postmodern critique, but have employed a postmodern (postfoundational) approach to bring together emergence as a useful heuristic device as has been appropriated in the hard and human sciences, in general, and a pentecostal perspective as gathered from the Biblical narrative re: the implications of the Incarnation & Pentecost. So, there are two contexts that interest me, one being an overarching narrative and the other a specific historical event. Regarding the recent phenomena, to some extent, pentecostalism has better instilled first fervor and a fully realized first naivete. Emergence has perhaps better served as a vehicle for 2nd naivete. This works much like the Zen formulation of first, there is a mountain (precritically), then there is no mountain (critically), then there is (post-critical). It might be rendered: first there is a premodernist essentialism (naive realism & enchantment), then there is a modernist nominalism (nonrealism & disenchantment), then there is a constructive postmodernism (critical realism & re-enchantment). Emergent and pentecostal perspectives, held together in a creative tension, provide an answer to modernist excesses that have led to a/theological nonrealism, moral relativism and practical nihilism, as well as sterile scholastic rationalisms and Wittgensteinian fideisms. Taken together, we get a more holistic theological anthropology that mines all of the value to be realized from our pre-modern, modern and postmodern experiences without the need to cut out and invalidate large swaths of our Christian tradition. We do not want to lose our “First, there is a mountain”encounter of Pentecost and the fire of first fervor gifted by our participatory, analogical imagination, nor do we want to lose the “Then there is no mountain-recognition” provided by our conceptual map-making and dialectical imagination, as we move into the reappropriation of “Then there is” and we realize through our 2nd naivete and pneumatological imagination that everything that’s old is new again, as we see the original realities come alive in inculturated forms that reveal that the Good News is as fresh and vibrant and relevant to humankind as it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be. I have seen some in their Pentecostal experience get rather stuck in a pre-critical first naivete. I have encountered some who, from an Emergent stance, have gotten stuck in a radically deconstructive nonrealism, what some have called Evangellyfish, washed up on postmodern shores, unable to get fully back into the swim. Those who severely critique both movements are generally describing these elements of Pentecostalism and emergence, which are mere caricatures of what these movements are and can become as they exploit the creative tension that they offer each other in ongoing and ever-fruitful mutual critique. We have enjoyed the fruits, in interreligious dialogue, as our rather exclusivistic ecclesiocentrisms have slowly yielded on the ecumenical front to a more inclusivistic Christocentrism. Without forsaking our own Christocentric stances, we might foster an even more fruitful interreligious dialogue by opening same with a pneumatological inclusivism. Pentecostals & Charismatics have led the way on such mutual understanding within Christianity, sharing our experience of Spirit. This may be the model for advancing dialogue and understanding between the Great Traditions, too? Pentecostals might have some suggestions for a way forward. Pentecostals also have something to offer regarding emergence, human anthropology, epistemology and the science and religion dialogue. Counterintuitive on the surface? Scroll down to this list of articles in the Dec 2008 Zygon: Pentecostal Voices in the TheologyScience Conversation . Finally, I’m sure most have at least heard of the distinction between our dialectical and analogical imaginations. Amos Yong has made some proposals regarding the pneumatological imagination and the difference it can make in one’s approach to reality. My own panSEMIOentheism, what I call a radical emergence, is grounded in my experience in the Charismatic Renewal in the 70’s.

Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Send

Tags: A m o s Y o n g, a n a l o g i c a l i m a g i n a t i o n, catechesis, C h a r i s m a t i c R e n e w a l, c o n s t r u c t i v e postmodernism, c r i t i c a l r e a l i s m, d i a l e c t i c a l i m a g i n a t i o n, e m e r g e n c e, e m e r g i n g c h u r c h, epistemology, essentialism, e v a n g e l i z a t i o n, E v a n g e l l y f i s h, exclusivistic ecclesiocentrism, first fervor, f i r s t n a i v e t e, inclusivistic Christocentrism, interreligious dialogue, modernist rationalism, m o r a l r e l a t i v i s m, n a i v e r e a l i s m, n o m i n a l i s m, n o n r e a l i s m, panSEMIOentheism, p a r t i c i p a t o r y i m a g i n a t i o n, Pentecostalism, p n e u m a t o l o g i c a l i m a g i n a t i o n, p n e u m a t o l o g i c a l i n c l u s i v i s m, postfoundationa, Postmodern Critique, p r a c t i c a l n i h i l i s m, r a d i c a l e m e r g e n c e, science and religion dialogue, second naivete, Theological A n t h r o p o l o g y, theological nonrealism, Tony Jones, Wittgensteinian Fideism, Z e n

Emerging Church: What’s This About Nurturing the Creative Tension of Paradox? JB on January 27, 2010 in Axiological, Cosmological, Methods & Approaches, Practices & Experiences, Provisional Closures & Systems, Uncategorized, the descriptive - Science, the evaluative - Culture, the interpretive - Religion, the normative - Philosophy | No Comments »

The dialectical imagination (think Barth and apophasis) and analogical imagination (think catholic and kataphasis) are best held in a creative tension where neither drowns the other. Wittgenstein correctly affirmed the methodological autonomy of science, philosophy and religion, but a Wittgensteinian fideism fails to recognize that these different horizons of human concern are axiologically integral, which is to suggest that they mutually influence each other. Whether we employ a language game paradigm or an ontology with a chosen root metaphor, these human endeavors, while not logically-related, are very much intellectuallyrelated. And this is to further suggest that religion is not merely expressive but also interpretive and to further recognize that it is not immune to cultural criticism employing prudential, pragmatic and practical criteria, which in themselves are at least weakly inferential or truth-indicative even if not robustly inferential and truth-conducive. The dialectical imagination enjoys a certain primacy in God-talk and it critiques the analogical imagination in that, where God is concerned, we employ the weakest of analogies in metaphor, which express dissimilarities that differ infinitely vis a vis any similarities they may otherwise invoke. The analogical imagination critiques the dialectical insofar as the exclusively dialectical would so distance God in a radical apophaticism as would render all God-talk incomprehensible and suggests that, however meager our metaphorical knowledge, it is precisely because we are grappling with a reality on the order of an infinitude that such knowledge becomes increasingly significant to us who, as radically finite creatures, greet such knowledge recognizing that it has profound existential import to us in our human condition. This is to say, then, while our dialectical approach properly invokes God’s utter incomprehensibility, our analogical approach affirms His infinite intelligibility. God dwells in ineluctable mystery and it would drown us if we tried to drink it all in, but we can taste and see His goodness in drops because He is not wholly unintelligible. It is a false dichotomy, indeed, that juxtaposes a choice between incomprehensibility and a final theory of everything. Rather, we move slowly but inexorably in our partial apprehensions and with our fallibilist provisional closures regarding ultimate reality, closures that do not aspire to the level of robust theory but, instead, to the presentation of a rather vague heuristic. A radical apophaticism and hyper-active dialectical imagination quickly devolve into such a theological nonrealism as will cut large swaths out of our Christian tradition, leading finally to insidious metaphysical and moral nonrealisms, too, which support nothing, in the end, but a practical nihilism and sad cynicism. This is existentialism, to be sure, but not of the Christian variety. It is Sartre and Camus and not Dostoevsky and Kierkegaard. In science and philosophy, we evaluate paradox and attempt to resolve it dialectically in synthesis, or to dissolve it perspectivally via paradigm shift, or to even evade it practically, such as by ignoring it. When it comes to life’s most ultimate concerns and deepest mysteries, any attempts to resolve, dissolve or evade paradox are futile. What we do rather, such as where God-talk is involved, is we exploit paradox, transformatively, nurturing the creative tensions that present in the mutual critique, for example, between our dialectical and analogical imaginations. While it is certainly true that our existential move into faith involves an unconditional assent, quite often it will be pragmatic arguments that lead us to the ocean’s edge and prudential criteria that will inspire our leap, where we discover the buoyancy of faith. And we will be thus tempted by the psalmist to taste and see the goodness of the Lord. And sometimes our human predicament will make us feel as if we’re about to drown. But when Jesus knew for certain, only drowning men could see Him, he said all men shall be sailors, then, until the sea shall free them (Leonard Cohen). So, our life of faith will very much require us to many times praise the Lord, anyway. And so we believe with a certain resiliency despite life’s tragedies. And we nurture God’s analogical goodness in a creative tension with His infinitely dissimilar dialectical goodness, exploiting the paradox transformatively, neither banishing the mystery with our ill-conceived aspirations to an exhaustive theodicy nor refraining from our frail theodicies, which, in the end, must properly retain the element of mystery. Love is not a syllogism. God is not an argument. But incomprehensibility and unintelligibility are two radically different semiotic realities. A deeply compassionate pastoral sensitivity will help us to hold our God-analogs loosely without letting go of our apophatic dialectic and to nurture the creative tension in the paradox presented by natural evil in a world created by, yes, a good God, as we suffer with God and transform our suffering co-creatively. Only a puerile iconoclasm inspired by a seriously misguided theological nonrealism would try to snatch these consoling God-analogs, however simplistic, out of a suffering world’s hands. Cajoling people with the distinctions of theo-esoterica in an attempt to dispossess them of the exoteric apprehensions of their God is at best an exercise in pedantry and at worst may leave others feeling not edified but bullied. Finally, it’s just plain philosophically indefensible to resolve such paradox in a wholly dialectical manner. Note: In applying scholastic notations like possible, plausible, probable, certain, uncertain, improbable, implausible and impossible to arguments and propositions regarding our ultimate concerns, while it may be true that we are at most dealing with equiplausible or equiprobable propositions and while it may also be true that the lex dubia non obligat axiom applies, meaning one has no obligation in conscience, it is manifestly not true that one can find no reasons to assent to one proposition rather than another, especially employing pragmatic criteria and prudential & relational (trust) arguments, which also happen to have normative epistemic force as truth-indicative criteria. Such existential moves might be transrational or suprarational or super-reasonable, but they need not be irrational or arational or without reason.

Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Send

Tags: a n a l o g i c a l i m a g i n a t i o n, a p o p h a t i c, C a m u s, creative tension, c u l t u r a l c r i t i c i s m, dialectical i m a g i n a t i o n, Dostoevsky, existential, existentialism, f a i t h, fallibilism, God-a n a l o g, God-t a l k, h u m a n condition, iconoclasm, k a t a p h a t i c, K i e r k e g a a r d, l a n g u a g e g a m e, m e t a p h o r, m e t a p h y s i c a l n o n r e a l i s m, m o r a l n o n r e a l i s m, n a t u r a l e v i l, o n t o l o g y, p a r a d i g m s h i f t, p a r a d o x, pastoral sensitivity, p r a c t i c a l n i h i l i s m, p r a g m a t i c a r g u m e n t, provisional closure, p r u d e n t i a l c r i t e r i a, radical apophaticism, religion, root metaphor, S a r t r e, theological nonrealism, u l t i m a t e c o n c e r n, u l t i m a t e r e a l i t y, unconditional assent, W i t t g e n s t e i n, Wittgensteinian Fideism

What’s all this fuss about nondual awareness? JB on January 27, 2010 in Uncategorized | No Comments » The following is a response I provided to a correspondent on the first day of our new year 2010. The question was: “What’s all this fuss about nondual awareness?” EVERYBODY has contemplative, nondual moments. The only reason for the fuss is that too often we squander them or allow them to be taken from us. A nondual stance toward a reality is that moment of pure raw awareness prior to any problem-solving processing. If that reality is another person, for example, if our encounter of that person places us immediately in a problem-solving mode, whether from our perspective or their’s, whether of a moral or a practical nature, then we are using our dualistic mind, which is empirical (measuring), rational (logical), practical (making use or meeting a need of either person) or moral (evaluating right and wrong, good and evil) and so on. Sometimes this functional mode is absolutely what is called for. On the other hand, if our encounter of that other person is sheer enjoyment of presence and wholly relational and involving verbs like trust, love, forgive and such, and if we are engaging in what is more like pure play and growing intimacy and self-forgetful ecstasy, then we are using our nondual mode. One can think in terms of paradox, too. In our problem-solving mode, we can resolve paradox (dialectical synthesis), dissolve paradox (thru paradigm and perspectival shifts) or evade paradox, practically (for example by ignoring it). Life’s biggest paradoxes, its cosmic ironies and deepest mysteries (like theodicy questions), it seems, do not lend themselves very readily to problem-solving resolutions, dissolutions or evasions but require, instead, what I like to call exploitation, whereby we take a tension and exploit it transformatively by maintaining the tension as a creative tension. In a nutshell, if you read the Old Testament and make a list of all of the complaints issued by the Psalmists and questions raised in Job, or even look in the New Testament, you notice that the age-old time-honored philosophical questions regarding life’s deepest mysteries like 1) what about creation, how and when did that take place 2) suffering and why THAT? and 3) other questions put directly to Jesus — are not answered in philosophical or scientific or empirical or rational terms. God did not answer our night terrors from our beds with explanations and ideas. He answered by showing up, hugging us, telling us everything will be alright. He answered in a relational way but not a problem-solving way. He doesn’t deconstruct our boogeymans. He holds us and sings us a lullaby. And we forget how scared and lonely we were. The nondual is robustly RELATIONAL. The problem is that people think religion is mostly about what is right and wrong, morally, or what we can do to earn God’s love; or religion is about how to have our practical needs met, our pocketbooks and health and prosperity Gospel garbage; or that religion answers our empirical questions about creation; or that religion shows us how to think logically to solve philosophical puzzles. If you listen to fundamentalistic evangelists, whether Protestant or Catholic, if they are preoccupied with empirical, rational, practical and moral questions, which are NOT unimportant or irrelevant, but spend very little time on RELATIONAL questions, like growing in trust, intimacy, forgiveness and love, then they are reinforcing the dualistic mindset and human socialization processes but neglecting the nondual stance and human transformational processes. We do not need special divine revelation to know what is true empirically, logically, rationally, practically or morally for that is all transparent to human reason (general revelation). The value-added aspect of special divine revelation is the GOOD NEWS of Jesus that God is not the deistic watchmaker but the lover, the Daddy. That’s where the emphasis needs to be placed — on the Good News and less on the old news that anyone could figure out (like how to be good), even without Jesus.

Nondual awareness is what one does when they are being loved, being love, beloved one.

Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Send

Tags: c o n t e m p l a t i v e, creative tension, n o n d u a l, p a r a d o x

Sartre, Camus, Huckleberry Finn & Jesus JB on January 25, 2010 in Axiological, the evaluative - Culture, the interpretive - Religion | 1 Comment » We can back up and look at the overall thrust of Jesus’ life, and that of other traditions even, from a more vague perspective, and we can reasonably come away with the idea that the saints and mystics and authentic practitioners of these traditions are testifying to profound experiences of a reality that is ultimately unitive and love-filled, that awakens us to solidarity and inspires in us compassion, and that inspires a trust-relationship with and toward reality, itself. This, then, is a rather universal testimony to the idea THAT reality is, at bottom, friendly, even as we might be left to wonder exactly HOW this may be so, because the evidence, of course, is ambiguous. Once we situate Christianity and its specific message in the context of the other great traditions, its specific hopes – that all may be well – do not appear wholly unreasonable. I think the novelist Walker Percy was very faithful in his articulation of the human predicament, as informed by his appreciation of the French existentialists and folks like Dostoevsky and Kierkegaard. Sartre and Camus et al and their perspectives on the human condition are not to be facilely engaged and then casually dismissed. Tillich was spot on in recognizing that faith was a polar reality with doubt an indispensable element, a state of being ultimately concerned and not, rather, propositionally certain.

Walker said: “I suppose my typical protagonist or hero or anti-hero is a fellow to whom a great deal has happened, who sees all the dark things that we are talking about, who’s more or less dislocated like a Sartrean or a Camus character, but who, nevertheless, despite everything, sees a certain hopefulness, but has a certain resilience and reserve, and a feeling that there is something around the bend, like Huckleberry Finn.” Now, that Walker quote strikes me as a distinctly axiological take on reality. It interprets and evaluates reality and speaks to the forming of our desires and the nurturance of our hopes. It’s an interpretive-evaluative posit that has neither denied nor ignored the ambiguous and often brutal cosmological evidence. It’s a practical existential response that goes beyond but not without the evidential and rational perspectives. To some extent, until we move beyond the extrinsic reward and punishment paradigm — driven by the what’s in it for me approach of our early moral and affective development — in order to enjoy the intrinsic rewards of the pursuit of truth, beauty, goodness and unity for their own sakes, an approach associated with a more advanced affective and moral development, our religion has only socialized us and not really transformed us.

for truth.

Transformed folks have stared into the abyss, in one way or another, and not unflinchingly, and have nevertheless said: “Let’s see what’s around the bend!” and then go on loving, creating beauty and searching

The journey becomes their destination. The quest becomes their grail. Our questions and concerns, hopes and desires, unite us far more than any metaphysical propositions and theological answers ever will.

Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Send

Tags: C a m u s, Dostoevsky, faith and doubt, French existentialists, g r a i l, H u c k l e b e r r y F i n n, K i e r k e g a a r d, m e t a p h y s i c a l, S a r t r e, theological answers, T i l l i c h, u l t i m a t e c o n c e r n, W a l k e r P e r c y

Affirming an Ancient-Future Impulse – but what about Norah Jones? JB on January 19, 2010 in Uncategorized | No Comments » My good friend, Kevin Beck, writes: The Protestant impulse to embrace an “ancient-future” faith (to use Robert Webber’s phrase) seems like it could be a welcome attempt to bridge the ages. However, I’m a bit pessimistic about the endeavor for various reasons. I encourage all to take a look at Kevin’s reasons. In my view, Kevin is really onto something. We do not want to too narrowly conceive when and where it is that value is to be mined, and not just liturgically speaking, but broadly speaking, philosophically, culturally, scientifically and religiously. The primary value to be realized from an Ancient-Future approach, as I conceive it, is the retrieval, revival and renewal of a harmony that existed between science, culture, philosophy and religion. This is not to ignore the fact that each of these human endeavors was being conducted at a much earlier stage of development than the stage we enjoy now. However, it is to suggest that the relationship between these human values was more holistic and integral. This is to recognize and affirm that theology must always be contextual, which is to say, related to our concrete lived experiences, where we can recognize how the Gospel speaks to the problems we encounter, here and now. A contextual approach requires, then, an inculturated theology, which involves much more than worship forms. To the extent our outlook is radically incarnational and robustly pneumatological, we will be on the lookout for the treasures of different cultures, whether across time or geography, because the Spirit has helped place them there. And we will want to preserve their diversity, form, expression and integrity. Such cultural realities not only include song, dance, meditative practices, story-telling and worship forms. They also include social realities like conceptions of marriage and family life, community interactions, pastoral approaches, philosophical norms and scientific-technological adaptations. Such cultural values are to be integrated into Christianity, which in turn is to be inserted into each culture. Ancient-Future covers only a temporal dimension, which needs to be complemented by a geographic dimension, North-South and East-West, vis a vis inculturation. We do not have to choose between the old and new or East & West; we get to have it all! We especially don’t want to cloak the Gospel in exclusively European garments for others to put on. We risk not only the renewal of an authoritarian approach but a terribly parochialistic, colonialistic, paternalistic and hierarchicalistic approach. The most salient issue is making the Gospel relevant in this place, in this time, to this person, to these people. And we are called to pay attention to that truth, beauty, goodness and unity that have already emerged within a given culture, because the forms those values have taken are gifts from created co-creators, who’ve responded to the same Spirit. The harmony to be rediscovered, retrieved, revived and renewed is the holistic, integral relationship between the distinct value-endeavors of science, philosophy, culture & religion, whereby our descriptive, normative, evaluative and interpretive methodologies are affirmed as methodologically-autonomous but axiologically-integral. This DOES seem to more so characterize our premodern situation, wherein we affirmed approaches to reality that were robustly participatory and common sensical. It is a harmony that can heal the Cartesian split of modernism and bridge the nihilistic abyss of a radically deconstructive postmodernism. It is nothing less than an affirmation of the mind, spirit, heart and soul in proper relationship to one another within each person and each people. We don’t want to too narrowly conceive how this harmony can be nurtured and sustained, not temporally, not geographically. These are cute lyrics:

Call me a relic call me what you will Say I’m old fashioned say I’m over the hill Today’s music don’t have the same soul Just give me old time rock and roll But the fact of the matter is that today’s music DOES have soul, just like yesterday’s. And African drums and Indian sitars do, also. Who wants a world without Ravi Shankar and the cultural intermingling he fostered in more ways than one? We’d have no Norwegian Wood! Worse yet, we’d have no Norah Jones! I shudder to think about it.

Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Send

Response to: The Earthquake in Haiti, God, and the Arbitrariness of Life JB on January 15, 2010 in Uncategorized, the interpretive - Religion | 4 Comments » The following musing is in response to The Earthquake in Haiti, God, and the Arbitrariness of Life, which provides a video and reads:

In a recent review of Life.Support.Music., I referenced the question, “Is God as Arbitrary as Life?,” that was posed to the theologians at the Transforming Theology conference last spring. The response with which I most resonated was that of Tom Reynolds of the University of Toronto. In my words, he well captured both “the now” & “the future” aspects of the Kingdom. There are fruits we enjoy now even as we orient to a more complete realization in the future. The question of God being arbitrary involves all of the philosophical issues surrounding how we apply predicates to God via kataphasis, where we attempt an increase in our descriptive accuracy of a reality by employing positive affirmations via analogy and metaphor, and apophasis, where we increase such accuracy through negative descriptions of what God is not (literally) or is not like (metaphorically). For example, God is true, good and beautiful. God is like a parent. God is not indifferent. God is not uninvolved. So, one might go back and notice how each theologian must first deal with the disambiguation of the concept, arbitrary, and then must grapple with its application as a divine attribute through alternating kataphatic and apophatic descriptions. On the surface, one may come away with the initial impression that there has been some disagreement between these theologians. Upon further review, this is not really the case, whatsoever, because not everyone, when disambiguating and clarifying the concept, defined it & then employed it in the same way. Some were more so kataphatic in tenor, others more apophatic. Some were grappling via a propositional approach to the question, metaphysically. Others addressed the question in a more relational way, de-emphasizing conceptual map-making and more so engaging our participatory imaginations and how they engage God nonpropositionally via our existential & trans-rational orientations with their evaluative posits and affective dispositions. Put another way, we can answer that question with our mind, our spirit, our heart or our soul, but best answer it, holistically, with Ignatius engaging and then surrendering, our memory, understanding, our entire will, seeking only love. This is not unrelated to our postmodern giftedness, whereby our ontological modal categories changed from the possible, actual and necessary, to the possible, actual and probable. No longer is ours a philosophical or existential tug of war between pattern or paradox, order or chaos, chance or necessity, symmetry or asymmetry, or the random or systematic. These are false dichotomies, just like arbitrary or nonarbitrary. Reality is, instead, probabilistic. On one hand, it appears to have initial, boundary and limit conditions, while, on the other hand, it seems to be coaxing us forward toward a somewhat open future. I suppose we might suggest that Einstein was wrong in that it does look very much like God does indeed play dice; but the nihilists are manifestly wrong insofar as those dice very clearly appear to be loaded. Everywhere in reality, especially in mathematics and logic, the modal category of the necessary seems to suggest itself. But nowhere in reality have we ever encountered its physical instantiation! God may very well be the Ens Necessarium, but this doesn’t leave us with a choice between determinism and indeterminism, ontologically. Instead, it leaves us in a fallible position, epistemologically, where our takes on reality are variously over- and under-determined. I suppose my final answer (Is this your final answer?), is that if we take the word arbitrary as a mathematical conception related to chance and necessity, then it cannot be predicated of God, metaphorically, because nowhere in reality can we find their physical analog, for reality is, instead, probabilistic.

If we take the word arbitrary as an interpersonal reality related to the whimsical, then we are dealing with an affective disposition and I would find it very difficult to suggest that reality, from a human perspective, does not appear somewhat ambiguous for me and clearly ambivalent toward me. What I choose to imagine is that, should reality be less ambiguous for me and ambivalent toward me, it would somehow limit my freedom and coerce my relationship to God, Who, in spite of the apparent ambiguity and ambivalence, already seems true enough, beautiful enough and good enough to encourage my trust, inspire my awe and abide with my doubt and fear. But even when I cannot even imagine that inchoate theodicy, I believe, anyway, hope, anyway, love, anyway and trust, anyway. To Whom else can we go? As Hans Kung notes, we all have a fundamental trust in uncertain reality. For some, this trust is paradoxical and nowhere anchored. Others anchor this trust in God. Anchor is too strong an analogy to describe my trust. A sailing metaphor would seem more apt. I’ve seen so many of my sisters and brothers throughout history, time and time again, who catch the winds of both incredible fortune and outrageous misfortune, alike, in the fragile but resilient sails of their human spirits. And then I’ve watched them courageously tack and jibe their way back to the shores of faith, hope and love. I want to be like them. We can trust these winds, and use them, even when we cannot predict or understand their variable nature. And even when they are headwinds and not rather tailwinds.

Read the rest of this entry »

Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Send

Tags: apophasis, d i v i n e a t t r i b u t e, Ens Necessarium, f u n d a m e n t a l t r u s t i n u n c e r t a i n r e a l i t y, H a i t i e a r t h q u a k e, H a n s K u n g, k a t a p h a s i s, t h e o d i c y

What Does p2p Networking have to do with Epiphany? JB on January 14, 2010 in Practices & Experiences, Uncategorized, the interpretive - Religion | No Comments » The following essay was evoked by Mike Morrell’s blog post: Ministry without Hierarchy. When Reuther uses the phrase “intrinsic aspect of the mission of the church,” I sense in that a subversion of some of the logic employed by many in her (our) church’s teaching office. There is an old, sterile scholasticism that employs a substance metaphysic as an ontology from which a deontology then issues forth with all manner of descriptions that specify the intrinsic nature of this reality or that. Where sex and gender issues are involved, such an approach is sterile because it is too rationalistic, a prioristic, biologistic and physicalistic and therefore divorced from the concrete lived experience of the faithful. (My memory of things taught by Richard McBrien, Charles Curran & Richard McCormick). It’s all abstractions, like the sentences above, which leave us scratching our heads and asking: say what? Put differently, such an approach takes too narrow a view of the way things are (ontology) and then reasons to how things ought to be (deontology) from their very nature (intrinsically). A male is created like this and a female like that, therefore a male must do this and a female must do that and neither must do otherwise because that would go against one’s intrinsic nature. This then pervades one’s views of church polity, moral doctrine, sacramental theology and church disciplines.

Now, I’m all for deontology- is it right? (complemented by consequentialist- is it helpful?, contractarian- is it fair? and aretaicis it virtuous?, approaches), but it is premised on starting with a good ontology, which, when we’re talking about people, means a good anthropology. We can ask the question, what if we as created co-creators, rather than being passive observers and characters playing out an author’s script, have been gifted with a participatory role in creation such that we have something to contribute to how things are supposed to unfold (teleologically)? What if this whole notion of original sin as some ontological rupture rooted in the past is bass-ackwards and our experience of a most radical finitude is due, instead, to Somebody’s unfinished business, which we experience as a teleological striving oriented toward the future? (Recalling Jack Haught’s aesthetic teleology.) In that case, we as created co-creators, while still partially determined and bounded (by our genetic inheritance & environmental parameters), would also be autopoietic (self-organizing) and free (quasi-autonomous in the divine matrix). (cf. Phil Hefner’s theological anthropology and Joe Bracken’s Divine Matrix) From an axiological (value-oriented) perspective, as semiotic (meaning-making) animals, we would not just discover meaning and values, but, without in any way disvaluing those we have discovered, or violating them, we would create new meanings and new values, which is to say that they would be novel, emergent realities. (Combining Robert C. Neville’s axiology and Charles Sanders Peirce’s triadic semeiotic) If we thus change our perspective on the nature of our finitude, then we must change our understanding of the nature of atonement. This is to say that, if we change our assessment on what we think is wrong with reality (original sin and the Fall), this changes our view of how reality is to be fixed (soteriologically), which changes our view of the incarnation, itself (why God became man and why the Spirit so profusely permeates our reality, panentheistically). This would suggest that the incarnation, rather than being some grand cosmic repair job of some ontological rupture located in the past (“the” Fall), was a grand telic design built into the plan from the cosmic get-go, teleologically (think Teilhard and Scotus & Jack Haught’s Cosmic Adventure). This would all then change our perspective on 1) where things might be headed in the future (eschatologically, HT Transmillenial) 2) Who the Cosmic Christ is (Christologically), and 3) how the Spirit empowers us (pneumatologically), all which then bear directly on 4) how we will experience one another in community (ecclesiologically). And I think the answers to these questions will have to take into account a radically incarnational and profusely pneumatological reality, which is then “intrinsically” participatory, profoundly inclusive and wonderfully universalist in its indelible catholicity. (Hat Tip to Amos Yong) This need not, in the least, call into question the salvific efficacy of the incarnation and its indispensable role in effecting our at-one-ment. Rather, it broadens our conception of how deep is the love of the Trinity for creation and how we are called to a relationship of unspeakable intimacy in response to this divine eros, which then impels our agape’ toward self, toward other, toward our cosmos and toward our God, all in rightrelationship, shall we say, intrinsically. (cf. Thomas Merton re: these 4 vectors of love) A servant-leader’s role becomes that of a host, patterned after this grand cosmic hospitality that I just described. (I think of Chad Crawford & Tripp Fuller’s Homebrewed Christianity & Philip Clayton’s Transforming Theology) As such, this role more so resembles that of a scribe or note-taker, asking each Participant where they’ve been, what they’ve been up to and where they’ve witnessed the Spirit at work and inviting each to give voice in hymn, psalm, story-telling, ritual-sharing and fellowship-enjoying community, as they say, lex orandi lex credendi, our worship birthing our creeds. There is nothing exclusively top-down about this. It’s all peer to peer (p2p), in essence. Do we institutionalize sacrament? Sure we do, as the radically social animals we are. Is there a clerical role? Sure there is, but we needn’t be clericalistic. Neither do we need to be institutionalistic, over-identifying the Mystical Body with one aspect of an institution or another, denying the salvific efficacies of other traditions, institutions or even what are, ostensibly, noninstitutional vehicles (Hat Tip Tim King & Kevin Beck). We might ask what the role of a hierarchy is in a p2p environment and whether that need be an intrinsic feature of its architecture. Emergence, itself, is intrinsically hierarchical, which is to recognize that a system’s novel emergent properties can indeed effect a top-down causation. But we must also recognize that it is also in the nature of this causation to not violate the structures and properties from which it emerged. Complex emergence is a rich reality with both bottom-up and top-down causations. The essential element of the systems approach is that the value added to the system comes from the relationships between the parts and not from the parts per se, which is to suggest that the hierarchy doesn’t impart value per se but that the value derives from the feedback loop as the hierarchy channels the information it has received from other system structures and processes, all for the good of the system as a whole. Anything else devolves into a degenerate hierarchicalism. In robustly semiotic systems, we must also pay heed to Walker Percy’s distinction between information and news, or what Benedict XVI calls the informative and performative, the latter which can be of profound existential import and eminently actionable. We might call such: Good News. (Yes, Brian McLaren opened and read the Message in a Bottle) What the hierarchy is to pass along, then, for example, is only that information first heralded by a shepherd who asked: Do you see what I see? Do you hear what I hear? Do you know what I know? It is only then that the king has any authority to say: Listen to what I say! That’s what an epiphany is per dictionary.com: a sudden, intuitive perception of or insight into the reality or essential meaning of something, usually initiated by some simple, homely, or commonplace occurrence or experience.

If it isn’t simple, homely or commonplace in origin, well … my advice is to leave it alone. David Foster Wallace said it well:

It is about the real value of a real education, which has almost nothing to do with knowledge, and everything to do with simple awareness; awareness of what is so real and essential, so hidden in plain sight all around us, all the time, that we have to keep reminding ourselves over and over: “This is water.” “This is water.” One might want to see: DAVID FOSTER WALLACE, IN HIS OWN WORDS. He says stuff way better than me. (Big HT Chris Frederic) The following essay is in response to: Philip Clayton talks with Spencer Burke about Theology After Google Charles Sanders Peirce drew a helpful distinction between the theoretic and the practical, suggesting that we should speculate boldly in our theoretical endeavors but move more tentatively in our practical affairs. One way of interpreting his approach might be to say that we should employ a progressive bias in our academic, propositional disciplines and a conservative or traditionalist bias in our practical and pastoral approaches. This strikes me as right-headed in that, while in the first instance, we are dealing with relationships between ideas, in the latter case we are dealing with relationships between people. This aphorism seems easy enough to apply when we are drawing a distinction such as between our theoretic sciences and our practical politics. It gets more complicated, however, when we adopt the view that theology, itself, is very much more a practical science, not so much a theoretical endeavor. What are the implications? For starters, this means that theology advances as a science much more inductively via empirical observation than deductively via rational considerations (ahem, or at least it should). It also means that when theology gets descriptive and normative, what it describes and norms are interpretive and evaluative realities, like religions and cultures, and not physical, metaphysical, practical and moral realities, like sciences and philosophies. More concretely, then, theology does not gift us with cosmological insights, such as taking positions on the philosophies of mind, the origins of species or the putative reconciliations of gravity & quantum mechanics. Theology gifts us with axiological insights, observing and reporting how it is that humankind interprets cosmological realities and what it is about these realities that humans value most. One needn’t be a distinctly Christian theologian to recognize that humankind, by and large, has interpreted reality pneumatologically, which is to say that it interprets reality with Spirit as a rather basic and universal category, and also participatively, which is to recognize that we all have co-creative roles. As we move from the vague to the more specific, our interpretations begin to diverge. Where we enjoy the strongest convergence, though, is evaluatively vis a vis what it is we most treasure or desire and, by and large, humankind desires the Kingdom of a God, Who is love. Again, as we move from the vague to the specific, there’s some divergence in value-realization strategies, what we call spiritual practices and disciplines, but, increasingly, we are eagerly exploring and profitably exchanging them. If human religious realities are pretty much universally conceived, then, as thoroughly pneumatological, robustly participatory and profitably pluralistic, then theology as a discipline, it would seem, is going to be incredibly open-sourced. Those whose gifts include teaching and leadership charisms will exercise those roles, primarily by hosting, listening and observing those who are participating and profiting from manifold and multiform interpretations and practices and then exchanging that information with the rest of us. This is how Scripture itself came about, as a collation of hymns, psalmody, prayers, meditative practices, myths, parables, wisdom sayings, narratives, stories, rituals and other traditions. This is how my own tradition’s magisterium is conceived as listening to and observing the faithful and then promulgating these hearings and observations to all via the articulation of truth in dogma, celebration of beauty in the cultivation of ritual & liturgy, preservation of goodness in code & law and enjoyment of fellowship in community. This is to say that what we promulgate is the sensus fidelium or sense of the faithful, which is an inherently bottom-up, grass roots activity and not a trickle-down reality, whatsoever. And no hierarchy goes around wily nilly making changes based on ivory tower theological abstractions and constructions. Instead, it involves an indispensable active listening and observing process. Caveat: Note I said that this is how the magisterium is conceived and did not represent that this is how it always works in practice. (Good grief!) What’s the practical upshot of all of this? Well, as our communication vehicles become increasingly peer to peer (p2p), the exchange of interpretations and practices will accelerate and will less and less require institutional channels. What is so very curious about all of this open-sourcing is that, perhaps counterintuitively, from a practical and pastoral perspective, rather than anarchically and indiscriminately jettisoning the old and embracing the wholly novel, what seems to be emerging is, instead, a radical orthodoxy, a returning to our roots, a retrieval, revival and renewal of our ancient interpretations and practices, an ardent appreciation for all that has been true in our creeds, beautiful in our cults, good in our codes and unitive in our communities. If joy is the infallible sign of the presence of God (Madeline L’Engle), then truth, beauty, goodness and unity are assuredly an indelible sign of the presence of the Spirit. Although humankind has often lacked much in the way of cosmological knowledge, it has more than compensated for this deficit with an abundance of axiological wisdom. That we move forward rather tentatively in our practical (most vital) affairs suggests that Peirce was more so making an observation rather than a suggestion. That’s why this open-source theology doesn’t scare me at all. If all the academic tongues were still, the noise would still continue; we rocks and stones, ourselves, will start to sing: Hosanna, heysanna, sanna, sanna, ho, sanny he, sanny ho, sanna!

Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Send

Tags: aesthetic teleology, A m o s Y o n g, a t o n e m e n t, autopoietic, Axiological, Benedict XVI, Brian McLaren, C h a d C r a w f o r d, C h a r l e s C u r r a n, Charles Sanders Peirce, Chris Frederic, C h r i s t o l o g y, c l e r i c a l i s m, Cosmic A d v e n t u r e, created co-c r e a t o r, David Foster Wallace, deontology, Divine Matrix, Do you hear what I h e a r ?, ecclesiology, e m e r g e n c e, e p i p h a n y, h i e r a r c h i c a l i s m, h i e r a r c h y, H o m e b r e w e d C h r i s t i a n i t y, h o s p i t a l i t y, i n s t i t u t i o n a l i s m, i n t r i n s i c n a t u r e, John Duns Scotus, J o h n H a u g h t, Joseph Bracken, K e v i n Beck, lex orandi lex credendi, Message in a Bottle, Mike Morrell, original sin, p 2 p, p a n e n t h e i s m, peer to p e e r, p e r f o r m a t i v e, Phil Hefner, Philip Clayton, p n e u m a t o l o g y, Richard McBrien, Richard McCormick, Robert C. Neville, Rosemary Radford Reuther, semiotic, soteriology, Teilhard de Chardin, Theological A n t h r o p o l o g y, Thomas Merton, T i m K i n g, top-down causation, T r a n s f o r m i n g T h e o l o g y, T r a n s m i l l e n i a l, triadic semeiotic, Tripp Fuller, W a l k e r P e r c y

« Older Entries

Newer Entries »

CHRISTIANNONDUALITY. C O M

BL O G

beyond thinking & proposing to imagining & participating Home About

The “Dead” Emerging Church – an Elvis sighting!

T o d a y’ s L i t u r g y

JB on January 9, 2010 in Uncategorized | 2 Comments » Today, Tall Skinny Kiwi provides us with Dr Paul Pierson’s criteria for How To Spot a Church Movement.

Translator

This strikes me as having some bearing on the timely consideration of whether or not the Emerging Church movement, as a movement, perdures even as, assuredly, it continues as a conversation. In reviewing Dr. Pierson’s list, it’s interesting to note that, while propositional or theoretical or creedal aspects of a movement are not unimportant, there seems to be a much greater emphasis on the primacy of the participatory and practical and experiential aspects. Thus questions of ecclesiology and pneumatology, or how to be church and respond in the Spirit, are being answered existentially in the way we live and move and have our being. One could not better describe our 20th Century church-emergent. To the extent theological breakthroughs occur, there are no new discoveries in anthropology, soteriology, Christology and eschatology, providing new propositions about what it means to be human, what is wrong with humanity and how to fix it, Who Jesus is and why our hopes are fixed on Him. Rather, there are rediscoveries of the truths long articulated in our creeds, of the beauties well cultivated in our celebrations of liturgy and ritual, of the goodness well preserved in God’s laws and of the fellowship long enjoyed in our communities. There are corrections in various over- and under-emphases as we then eschew any decay (seemingly inevitable & recurring) of dogma into dogmatism, ritual into ritualism, law into legalism & moralism, and institution into institutionalism. The latest iteration of our church-emergent precisely emulates such retrieval, revival and renewal dynamics. And there is a reawakened nurturance of creative tensions as we re-cognize that life’s deepest paradoxes remain ours to exploit, transformatively, and will not otherwise yield to our attempts to resolve (dialectically thru synthesis), dissolve (perspectivally thru paradigm shifts) or evade (practically by ignoring) them, reductively, as happens with life’s lesser paradoxes of science, philosophy and metaphysics. Our world remains enchanted and needs re-enchantment, on an ongoing basis it seems, but only in our stance toward reality and not in Nature, Herself, which is enchanted through and through! When it comes to life’s most important questions, then, the church-emergent du jour precisely resists the fundamentalistic, rationalistic, reductionistic strategies of dualistic problem-solving and nurtures a robustly nondual contemplative stance toward our ultimate concerns. (See this Cathlimergent essay.)

The paradox is really the pathos of intellectual life and just as only great souls are exposed to passions it is only the great thinker who is exposed to what I call paradoxes, which are nothing else than grandiose thoughts in embryo. … … Take away paradox from the thinker and you have a professor. ~ Soren Kierkegaard

By N2H

Amos Yong apophatic Axiological axiologicallyintegral

Bernard Lonergan Brian McLaren Charles Sanders Peirce contemplative cosmology emergence emerging church Enlightenment

epistemology faith False

Self fideism Hans Kung James K. A. Smith Jesus Creed John Duns Scotus kataphatic Kevin

Beck Kurt Godel Merton

metaphysics Mike Morrell Natural

Theology nihilism

nondual nonduality

orthodoxy radical emergence radical orthodoxy rationalism

Richard Rohr Science

scientism semiotic theodicy Theological Anthropology

Thomas Merton Tim King transformation True Self Walker Percy W P-C u m u l u s b y R o y T a n c k a n d Luke Morton requires F l a s h P l a y e r 9 or better.

Cultivating the Roots, Nurturing the Shoots MARCH 2010 M

1 8 15 22 29

2 9 16 23 30 « FEB

3 10 17 24 31

4 11 18 25

5 12 19 26

6 13 20 27

7 14 21 28

Recent Posts

To the extent our anthropologies, soteriologies, Christologies and eschatologies do get rearticulated propositionally, there does seem to be an ongoing and ever-growing universalizing tendency (an ecumenical and inclusivistic catholicity) to affirm the radically egalitarian nature of the Good News as we better come to realize — over against our own marginalizations, hierarchicalisms, colonialisms, patriarchicalisms, clericalisms, sexisms, ecclesiocentrisms, exclusivisms, traditionalisms, institutionalisms, gnosticisms and, finally, even movementisms — that, sooner or later, the Gospel’s preferential option for the poor will be consolation for every last one of us. To paraphrase Pogo: “We have met the poor and they are us.” So, as the Spirit moves when He wills, where She wills, how They will, may the Spirit of God’s love, now, move within me and you and all. That’s the fugal movement that perdures even as other movements, most assuredly, do come and go. When we look carefully at what is going on, what we call emergent, in one sense, might be the re-emergence of a reality that, inevitably, gets submerged, time and again. It’s a reignition and conflagration of a Fire lit long ago.

The Emerging Church is BIGGER t h a n C h r i s t i a n i t y – how to spot it in other traditions Abortion & the Senate Healthcare Bill – a p r u d e n t i a l judgment 10 historical developments propelling Emerging Christianity ~ Richard Rohr Why Brian McLaren’s GrecoRoman Narrative is NOT a caricature THE BOOK: Christian N o n d u a l i t y – Postmodern Conservative Catholic Pentecostal

Emergence also has a more generic sense and, in that sense, is inextricably associated with novelty, a reality that will not go away for those of us who buy into telos, an inexorable movement built into the very fabric of creation. What seems radically new is humankind’s conscious appropriation of emergentist dynamics and how they possess an autopoietic (selforganizing, for better or worse) trait, which is to say that we now know we can harness some evolutionary impulses and possibly kedge forward (HT Mike Morrell & Frank Spencer) with a more consciously competent emergence (cf. Jamie Smith’s “Desiring the Kingdom”), shaping and forming, as co-creators (cf. Phil Hefner), the unfolding of the Kingdom that we desire (Ps. 37:4). Conversely, we ignore this dynamic and forsake this movement at our own peril. Below is Cathlimergent Response to Deacon Hall’s Response to Is the Emerging Church Movement Waning? | Homebrewed Christianity Such wisdom. Amen to Emergence broadly conceived vis a vis the Church Universal. The more narrowly conceived particular movement seems to be an ecclesial reiteration of a constructive postmodernism. This pomo-impetus, in a nutshell, has transitioned science and philosophy, which I like to categorize as cosmological enterprises that are primarily descriptive and normative, from a naive realism to a more critical realism. This changed the way humankind engaged reality vis a vis propositional cosmology making our approach more fallibilist. If in our descriptive sciences our knowledge advances mostly involved standing on the shoulders of our forefathers, in our normative philosophies our perspectival changes have often more so resembled standing on their necks. There’s a related but distinct dynamism in play when we look at the effect of pomo-impetus on our axiological enterprises of evaluative cultures and interpretive religions, which are less propositional and more relational and existential. I suppose this is to suggest that, if a constructive postmodern approach will change the way we treat ideas, cosmologically, let’s say with an epistemic holism over against either the epistemic hubris of a sterile rationalism with its a prioristic and apodictic certainties or the excessive epistemic humility of a radical deconstructionism with its nihilistic tendencies, then, axiologically, we might expect it to change the way we treat one another. For example, one way we might change the way we treat one another would be to take my above two paragraphs with their dense and narrowly philosophic prose and to translate them into an idiom that can be engaged by our children and young adults. The conversations we are having in the academy are terribly important and we do not want to proceed without them. At the same time, without translation into a much more accessible and engaging form, they remain regrettably irrelevant. And I wrote all of this as an example and just to say: WOW !!! The questions Deacon raised and the response they evoked in Jo Ann are so incredibly right-on! To wit, Jo Ann wrote:

“It is possible that it could take on even yet a “new form.” This is all good. Keep people thinking, conversing, writing, communicating through song, dance, loving each other, learning and experiencing God, sharing our stories, etc. All of this is challenging and we must step up to the task. We must be “radicals” in a loving and spiritual way.” This discussion continues here >>> Read the rest of this entry »

Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Send

Recent Comments christiannonduality.com Blog » Blog Archive » Thoughts re: t o d a y’s debate – Philip Clayton vs Dan Dennett on Intelligent Design – a poorly designed inference christiannonduality.com Blog » Blog Archive » W h y B r i a n McLaren’s Greco-R o m a n Narrative is NOT a caricature on A New Kind of Christianity? McLaren didn’t make this up. It’s worse than that! christiannonduality.com Blog » Blog Archive » W h y B r i a n McLaren’s Greco-R o m a n Narrative is NOT a caricature on E v e r y t h i n g T h a t’s Old is New A g a i n – this (McLaren’s “ N e w” Christianity) is truly an old time religion K i e r a n C o n r o y on A New Kind of Christianity? McLaren didn’t make this up. It’s worse than that! Philip Clayton on Thoughts re: t o d a y’s debate – Philip Clayton vs Dan Dennett

Type, Hit Enter to Search

We Distinguish in Order to Unite Select Category

Blogroll Andrew Sullivan Beyond Blue Brian D. McLaren Commonweal Crunchy Con Cynthia Bourgeault Emergent Village Emerging Women First Thoughts Fors Clavigera Francis X. Clooney, S.J. Joseph S. O'Leary NCR Today – the Catholic Blog Per Caritatem Phyllis Tickle Post Christian Postmodern Conservative Radical Emergence Sojourners Tall Skinny Kiwi The Website of Unknowing Transmillenial Vox Nova Weekly Standard Blog Worship Blog Zoecarnate

Worthwhile Sites

Catholics in the Emerging Church Conversation – Cathlimergent (an archive of articles) JB on December 27, 2009 in Uncategorized | No Comments » Brian McLaren’s blog Catholics emerging: cathlimergent at http://www.brianmclaren.net/archives/blog/catholics-emerging-cathlimergent.html 10:34 PM Dec 10th from web Catholics & Others – Join Cathlimergent & our emerging church conversation at http://cathlimergent.ning.com/ 9:06 AM Dec 17th from web emergence = ecclesia reformata semper reformanda = aggiornamento (bring up to date) + ressourcement (return to earlier sources & traditions) 9:15 PM Dec 25th from web Anglimergent Baptimergent Presbymergent Methomergent Reformergent Luthermergent – and now Cathlimergent http://cathlimergent.ning.com/ 6:46 PM Nov 24th from web

Cathlimergent at http://cathlimergent.ning.com/ is set up to foster Catholic participation in emerging conversation. All are welcome. 6:56 PM Nov 24th from web Cathlimergent on Facebook http://bit.ly/4JCYUG 9:07 AM Dec 23rd from API Radical Emergence – It’s a small, small world – global dialogue http://bit.ly/7vDJzk 4:53 AM Dec 24th from web Catholics in the Emerging Church Conversation http://bit.ly/5TxhET 10:10 PM Nov 24th from web Tall Skinny Kiwi: 3 Things the Emerging Church Took From the Catholics http://bit.ly/74NV7w 1:14 PM Dec 26th from web Andrew Jones asks: What do Catholics have to do with the emerging church? A lot, actually. http://bit.ly/5QyCZT 9:05 PM Dec 25th from web In Search of the Emerging Church? – look on the margins http://bit.ly/5ne3kI 6:55 AM Dec 24th from API Radical Emergence: about roots & shoots http://bit.ly/73eF0D 10:47 PM Dec 23rd from web The Emergent Roaming Catholic – a pictorial autobiography http://bit.ly/OFh2d 9:46 PM Dec 23rd from web What do we mean by Convergence in the emerging church conversation? http://bit.ly/80ruuX 1:50 AM Dec 24th from web The 6 Moments, Dynamics & Dialogues of the Emerging Church Conversation http://bit.ly/547HJk 2:51 AM Dec 24th from web Emergence Happens When … http://bit.ly/2miXIx 8:56 AM Dec 24th from API Radical Emergence – the Emerging Church Conversation as Strategic Planning Exercise http://bit.ly/6ROszC 3:52 AM Dec 24th from API The emerging church conversation is less about positions and more about dispositions: http://bit.ly/80ruuX 9:36 AM Dec 22nd from web emerging church conversation: fugue-like interplay of boundary establishment, defense, negotiation & transcendence. http://bit.ly/2Bd34i 2:33 PM Dec 4th from web Radical Emergence – Institutional Religion – what’s up with that? http://bit.ly/4lOFh 2:02 PM Dec 24th from API Cathlimergent – its origins http://bit.ly/5Ococe 5:54 AM Dec 24th from web Radical Emergence – Right questions can be more important than right answers http://bit.ly/4tNCtb 3:02 PM Dec 24th from web

Virtual Chapel Zygon Center for Religion and Science

Cloud of Unknowing

Amos Yong apophatic Axiological axiologicallyintegral

Bernard Lonergan Brian McLaren Charles Sanders Peirce contemplative cosmology emergence emerging church

E n l i g h t e n m e n t epistemology

faith False Self fideism Hans Kung James K. A. Smith Jesus Creed John Duns Scotus kataphatic

Kevin Beck Kurt Godel Merton

metaphysics Mike Morrell Natural Theology nihilism nondual

nonduality orthodoxy radical emergence radical orthodoxy rationalism

Richard Rohr Science scientism semiotic theodicy Theological Anthropology

Thomas Merton Tim King transformation True Self Walker Percy

Join Other Visitors in Prayer Light A Candle & Pray

Join Us in the Liturgy of the Hours

Radical Emergence – What makes a Catholic, catholic? (nothing cultural, scientific, philosophical or metaphysical) http://bit.ly/4y3hK3 8:57 AM Dec 24th from web Radical Emergence – we are liturgical animals, Homo liturgicus http://bit.ly/EJeQm 10:59 AM Dec 24th from API Radical Emergence – Liturgical Spirituality serves an erotic love http://bit.ly/3a21Ge 4:28 PM Dec 24th from web Radical Emergence – Map-making & Story-telling – the twain shall meet http://bit.ly/7YpQhf 4:28 PM Dec 24th from web Radical Emergence – Searching for Reenchantment in all the wrong places http://bit.ly/YVGYU 10:11 PM Dec 24th from API Radical Emergence – Eucharist – sacrament of unity http://bit.ly/TL1z2 6:31 PM Dec 24th from web Prayer, in the True Self, would be as quiet as a sewing machine but as powerful as a cement truck http://bit.ly/3DjqiY 10:40 PM Dec 24th from API Radical Emergence – Thomas Merton – contemplative prayer http://bit.ly/3ORdxP 10:37 PM Dec 24th from API Radical Emergence – Merton – insoluble problems? http://bit.ly/1TINf9 10:36 PM Dec 24th from API Radical Emergence – Merton – It was Him! He done it! http://bit.ly/1uMs9e 9:35 PM Dec 24th from web Radical Emergence – Merton – on the risk of stagnation, desolation, aridity http://bit.ly/42gcsv 9:35 PM Dec 24th from API Radical Emergence – God is not a syllogism, Love is not a formal argument http://bit.ly/8Cb1Sb 9:10 PM Dec 24th from API Radical Emergence – Merton – move into crisis to lose crisis http://bit.ly/4kW1xy 8:34 PM Dec 24th from web Radical Emergence – Merton – the False Self (properly understood) http://bit.ly/4FaJMw 8:33 PM Dec 24th from web Radical Emergence – love eternal will not be denied http://bit.ly/8EEH15 8:09 PM Dec 24th from web Radical Emergence – Merton- New Seeds of Contemplation http://bit.ly/34bYJm 7:33 PM Dec 24th from API Radical Emergence – Praying Our True Self http://bit.ly/qcLuq 7:32 PM Dec 24th from API Radical Emergence – About Hesychasm http://bit.ly/5Lyxa 7:08 PM Dec 24th from API Radical Emergence – Fundamentalists versus Heretics? not really, not always http://bit.ly/38EUjD 7:07 PM Dec 24th from web Radical Emergence – Pouring out a welter of confused thoughts http://bit.ly/5dxdbT 6:32 PM Dec 24th from web

Get the C a t h l i m e r g e n t o n Twitter widget and many other great free widgets a t Widgetbox! Not seeing a widget? (More info)

Tweets johnssylvest: Abortion & the Senate Healthcare Bill – a prudential judgment http://bit.ly/aS2DwT johnssylvest: 10 developments propelling Emerging Christianity ~ Richard Rohr http://bit.ly/a4AMtg johnssylvest: RT @pdclayton7: "Theology After Google" opens Wed. - 23 of the best speakers on emerging religion in Google Age; live stream at http://o ... johnssylvest: RT @jonestony: New Blog Post: Society for Pentecostal Studies Paper: What Pentecostals Have to Learn from Emergents http://ow.ly/16KREU johnssylvest: THE BOOK: An Emerging Church Conversation with a Postmodern Conservative Catholic Pentecostal http://bit.ly/91D570 #fb John Sobert Sylvest

Radical Emergence – Let There Be Peace on Earth – preambles to dialogue http://bit.ly/3rbM8W 6:06 PM Dec 24th from web Radical Emergence – Social Networks Can Be Thoreau’s Post Office http://bit.ly/1yFLTe 6:05 PM Dec 24th from API Radical Emergence – Simone Weil – the rest of the story http://bit.ly/8aLIqr 5:30 PM Dec 24th from web

Johnboy Was Here Feedjit Live Blog Stats Feedjit Live Blog Stats

Radical Emergence – Simone Weil – unbaptized & outside the church http://bit.ly/UyKoq 5:29 PM Dec 24th from API Follow this blog

Radical Emergence – the Oneness to which we can awaken http://bit.ly/7XBleG 5:04 PM Dec 24th from API Radical Emergence – Ecstatic, Enstatic & Epektasis – we bear the future Oneness now http://bit.ly/s0gIu 4:04 PM Dec 24th from web Science vs Natural Theology vs Theology of Nature http://bit.ly/4abouU 3:27 PM Dec 24th from API One: Essential Writings in Nonduality – a review http://bit.ly/3rZrNM 2:26 PM Dec 24th from web An elucidation of Buddhism by Dumoulin with an assist from Peirce, Polanyi and Lonergan http://bit.ly/1ask9Z 2:25 PM Dec 24th from web Radical Emergence – East Meets West interreligiously – but how? http://bit.ly/406Mli 1:25 PM Dec 24th from web The Non-dual Way – Fr. Richard Rohr at Boulder Integral – podcasts http://bit.ly/5d0fxu 1:03 PM Dec 24th from web Radical Emergence – The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh http://bit.ly/CvRgM 1:02 PM Dec 24th from web Radical Emergence – Desiring the Kingdom http://bit.ly/2onevG 12:24 PM Dec 24th from web Radical Emergence – Montmarte, Colorado Springs & the Kingdom http://bit.ly/YgLX0 12:24 PM Dec 24th from API Radical Emergence – Why PostmodernISM & ModernISM are Both Silly http://bit.ly/4p787B 11:59 AM Dec 24th from API Radical Emergence – From Mild Woman to Wild Woman (for the church, of course) http://bit.ly/BQ16F 11:23 AM Dec 24th from web Radical Emergence – Maiden, Mother, Crone & Queen: archetypes & transformation http://bit.ly/3Mz1HH 10:22 AM Dec 24th from web DOUBT: nagging late-night and early-dawn questions http://bit.ly/3b434r 9:58 AM Dec 24th from API Radical Emergence – Ki, Qi, Chi, Prana & Kundalini (& Reiki) http://bit.ly/2VLXcX 9:22 AM Dec 24th from API Radical Emergence – Angel, let me help you with your wings … http://bit.ly/bq1Bn 8:21 AM Dec 24th from web Science, Theology, Zen, Contemplation – podcasts http://bit.ly/4A1sTg 7:20 AM Dec 24th from web Radical Emergence – What differentiates the Gospel in the marketplace? http://bit.ly/HI29Q 7:20 AM Dec 24th from API Radical Emergence – Theodicy – love is all you need (Beatles) http://bit.ly/3d2kzk 6:19 AM Dec 24th from web Radical Emergence – Intelligent Design – a poorly designed inference http://bit.ly/vVNSe 5:18 AM Dec 24th from API Radical Emergence – The New Atheism, a wimpy caricature of the old http://bit.ly/2XZfsS 4:17 AM Dec 24th from web Radical Emergence – Church & State – aspiration & coercion http://bit.ly/49JTPM 4:16 AM Dec 24th from web Radical Emergence – Spirit Move When You Will, Where You Will, How You Will http://bit.ly/1tjMBW 3:16 AM Dec 24th from API Radical Emergence – There’s No Place Like Home – common sense & simple faith http://bit.ly/rh68E 2:14 AM Dec 24th from web Radical Emergence – to value our yearning, treasure our wanting & embrace our incompleteness http://bit.ly/3EGqYK 1:13 AM Dec 24th from web Radical Emergence – Science, Philosophy, Culture & Religion http://bit.ly/8G6alS 12:49 AM Dec 24th from API Radical Emergence – Meaning in Life – abundance for believers & unbelievers http://bit.ly/2909vC 12:13 AM Dec 24th from API Radical Emergence – Nonduality & the Emerging Church http://bit.ly/4cvmNc 11:48 PM Dec 23rd from web Radical Emergence – The Fugue: truth, beauty, goodness & unity http://bit.ly/77Y9A 11:12 PM Dec 23rd from web What could one possibly mean by convergence in the emerging church conversation? http://bit.ly/80ruuX 10:14 AM Dec 21st from web I view the emerging conversation as dialogue & prayer, the fruits of which are quite unpredictable http://bit.ly/547HJk 12:05 PM Dec 20th from web johnssylvest

Visit Cathlimergent Conversations Visit Anglimergent

Meta Log in Entries R S S Comments R S S WordPress.org

4 ways we most often deal w/paradox & 1 way is very much related to prayer See http://bit.ly/547HJk 12:03 PM Dec 20th from web Retweeted by you The 6 Moments, Dynamics & Dialogues of the Emerging Church Conversation http://bit.ly/547HJk 6:15 PM Dec 19th from web Do Xtn universities do enough to instill DOUBT: those nagging late-night and early-dawn questions? http://bit.ly/3b434r 11:25 AM Dec 19th from web My Version of Mary & Elizabeth Story: Ode to Mothers Who Had Lost Their Boys http://bit.ly/5jSEy2 3:41 AM Dec 19th from web in reply to revdebmatt Many atheists have rejected gods whom I would never choose to worship either. Many believers worship gods I wouldn’t X the street to meet. 7:18 PM Dec 18th from web Merton – insoluble problems? http://bit.ly/1TINf9 4:33 PM Dec 18th from web Merton – It was Him! He done it! (losing our existential fears thru praise) http://bit.ly/1uMs9e 3:33 PM Dec 18th from web johnssylvest If You Are In Distress, Spiritual or Otherwise http://bit.ly/17kOVj 5:17 PM Oct 17th from web Retweeted by you Merton – on the risk of stagnation, desolation, aridity http://bit.ly/42gcsv 1:32 PM Dec 18th from web the 3rd Way; nondual thinking; contemplative stance – Richard Rohr video http://tinyurl.com/rohr-newMind 1:09 PM Dec 18th from API nondual thinking; a new reformation; Richard Rohr video: http://tinyurl.com/rohremerging 1:06 PM Dec 18th from web Merton – move into crisis to lose crisis http://bit.ly/4kW1xy 12:33 PM Dec 18th from API Merton – the False Self (properly understood) http://bit.ly/4FaJMw 12:32 PM Dec 18th from web We don’t enter the monastery or undertake a life of prayer to make us better human beings — rather http://bit.ly/34bYJm (Merton) 11:30 AM Dec 18th from web honest vs dishonest questions? Richard Rohr video: http://tinyurl.com/rohr-honestQuestions 11:05 AM Dec 18th from API being tribes without being tribal; Richard Rohr video: http://tinyurl.com/rohr-noTribalism 11:04 AM Dec 18th from API Prayer, in the True Self, would be as quiet as a sewing machine but as powerful as a cement truck http://bit.ly/3DjqiY 10:30 AM Dec 18th from web an evening w/Brian McLaren video: http://tinyurl.com/McLaren-Quest Your questions can send you on a Quest! 10:04 AM Dec 18th from web Praying Our True Self http://bit.ly/qcLuq 9:29 AM Dec 18th from API commonalities between emergents; Brian Mclaren video: http://tinyurl.com/mclarencommonality 9:03 AM Dec 18th from API “The contemplative mind is really just the mind that emerges when you pray instead of think first.” – Richard Rohr 8:38 AM Dec 18th from web Ever think of John of the Cross as dark, dry, arid? Think again! http://bit.ly/4uzsh3 8:16 AM Dec 18th from web why so much focus on convincing others re: our versions of heaven and so little effort providing them just a small taste of it NOW? 8:16 AM Dec 18th from web Christianity’s not an intellectual system, collection of dogmas, or a moralism; it’s an encounter, a love story, an event. Benedict XVI 4:08 PM Aug 31st from web Retweeted by you and 5 others johnssylvest I think it pisses God off if you walk by the color purple in a field somewhere and don’t notice it.~Alice Walker 11:48 AM Sep 4th from web Retweeted by you the 3rd Way; nondual thinking; contemplative stance – Richard Rohr video http://tinyurl.com/rohr-newMind 8:35 AM Dec 17th from web Twitter’s a real Godsend to my longsuffering correspondents, who use to get 140,000 words of my obfuscatorily dense prose but now enjoy the What SECULAR society? The supermajority of humankind prays to a Spirit, Who is Holy, variously conceiving God in our PLURALISTIC society! 12:14 PM Dec 16th from web The preferential option for the poor, sooner or later, will be consolation for every last one of us. http://bit.ly/5ne3kI 10:11 AM Dec 16th from web the question one should pose to gurus, mystics & saints is not what they think about reality’s essential nature, it’s Lord, teach us to pray 9:34 AM Dec 16th from web It ain’t rocket surgery… 9:30 AM Dec 16th from web Then he went away and hanged himself. Mt 27:5 Go and do thou likewise. Lk 10:37 Or why we shouldn’t take (Biblical) things out of context. 9:29 AM Dec 16th from web ¿Who’s searching for YOU on social networking sites? Click to find out ► http://tinyurl.com/tweetfinder411 To Share ► http://bit.ly/KHcw5 9:24 AM Dec 16th from web A Lucky Dog vendor in New Orleans’ French Quarter asked: “Would you like me to make you one with everything?” Panentheism’s just everywhere! 9:19 AM Dec 16th from web While theologians quibble over what’s necessary for salvation, let’s busy ourselves with what’s necessary to give God the greatest glory! 9:00 AM Dec 16th from web

Faith provides a response, not an answer, to the mystery of suffering. We defer our “Why?” in trust & proceed with our “Here I am” in love. 8:59 AM Dec 16th from web I’ve met quite a few atheists over the years, all who’d rejected gods whom I would never choose to worship either. 8:55 AM Dec 16th from web Richard Rohr on Action and Contemplation: Homebrewed Christianity 41 http://34i26.th8.us 8:46 AM Dec 16th from web And if u would know God be not therefore a solver of riddles. Rather look about u and u shall see Him playing w/ your children. ~ Gibran 8:45 AM Dec 16th from web Follow this link & its step by step directions & you will experience peace. Light A Candle http://bit.ly/38RwEV Please Share 12:02 AM Dec 16th from web @ROFTERS FT Influence the Obama Doctrine? Gary Dorrien: neocon Niebuhrians are kidding selves about having much in common with Niebuhr 8:56 PM Dec 15th from web in reply to ROFTERS Liturgy There are 37 responses to the discussion: There’s probably no God? http://bit.ly/7Uc2zS Come and read, add your bit, & plz RT 12:28 AM Dec 15th from TweetDeck Retweeted by you and 1 other Resolved: not all traditionalists are fundamentalistic & not all emergents are hard pomos. In sheer numbers, however, the bigger problem is? 8:28 PM Dec 14th from web Denis Read OCD, calls Juan the “liturgical mystic” and sanjuanist spirituality “liturgical spirituality” http://bit.ly/3a21Ge 8:00 PM Dec 14th from web Retweeted by you There’s Probably No God? Be good for goodness’ sake! http://bit.ly/52V3yq 7:56 PM Dec 14th from web Resource Center (mp3, DVD, books, CD, audiotape, Radical Grace Magazine, donations) – Center for Action & Contemplation http://bit.ly/90V9pL 9:55 PM Dec 13th from web template for a Liturgy of Lament (pdf) fr Center for Action & Contemplation (Fr. Rohr) http://bit.ly/59sZJS 9:52 PM Dec 13th from web We Need to Take Better Care Of Sister Earth by RichardRohr 2009-Nov-02 (pdf) http://bit.ly/8uQMrT 9:47 PM Dec 13th from web Fr Richard Rohr Homilies (mp3 files) at Holy Family Church Albuquerque NM http://bit.ly/6JkIwe 9:45 PM Dec 13th from web Subscribe to Center for Action & Contemplation Mailing Lists http://bit.ly/6hQVu incl Daily Meditation (Reflections by Fr. Richard Rohr) 9:43 PM Dec 13th from web Cathlimergent on Facebook http://bit.ly/4JCYUG 7:03 PM Dec 13th from web Don’t waste years of your life being against anybody, talking past those who don’t even share our concepts & categories http://bit.ly/4GpKWe 2:51 AM Dec 12th from web Emerging fr modernity’s preoccupation w/boundary establishment & defense is a postmodern openness to boundary negotiation & transcendence. 12:08 PM Dec 11th from web Have you experienced these tensions on your journey? Can you see them playing out in our churches & culture? Join us! http://bit.ly/7S7JKf 7:47 AM Dec 11th from web Here we are, as Fr. Rohr says, tribal but not tribalistic. We avoid, then, institutionalism and hierarchicalism. 7:45 AM Dec 11th from web more on the Manhattan Declaration http://bit.ly/65kdHb 11:14 AM Dec 9th from web The Stem Cell Challenge (in response to Jesus Creed thread) http://bit.ly/6dr5fU 3:45 PM Dec 8th from web God is not a syllogism, Love is not a formal argument http://bit.ly/8Cb1Sb 10:30 AM Dec 7th from web Retweeted by you Ain’t heterodox to believe that there ain’t a snowball’s chance in the Superdome that anyone will ever end up in hell. http://bit.ly/8EEH15 2:12 PM Dec 6th from web Retweeted by you love eternal will not be denied http://bit.ly/8EEH15 1:58 PM Dec 6th from web Retweeted by you sacrament & song & psalmody & story-telling & bread-breaking came first in our tradition & remains first in our lives http://bit.ly/6ROszC 8:21 PM Dec 4th from web Liturgy Wonderful responses & discussions about: does blog exist? http://bit.ly/5QIwwp 2:32 PM Dec 4th from TweetDeck Retweeted by you mincemeat pie recipe fr scratch: 1) begin w/ quantum vacuum fluctuation 2) Big Bang 3) Turn stardust into elements ~ more later 11:20 PM Dec 3rd from web don’t miss @zoecarnate the Promiscuous Love of God http://bit.ly/7×5NX1 4:32 PM Dec 3rd from web Jesus was a Capricorn, but was He an ESFJ? an Enneagram 2? http://bit.ly/7NixyL 2:03 PM Dec 3rd from web “Introverts In The Church: Finding Our Place In An Extroverted Culture” by Adam McHugh http://bit.ly/7NixyL 2:02 PM Dec 3rd from web Emergent Village is a growing, generative friendship among missional Christians http://bit.ly/Xdlnv 1:31 PM Nov 29th from web emergingchurch.info : a touching place for the emerging church http://bit.ly/4j492I 1:30 PM Nov 29th from web changing church for a changing world | Fresh Expressions http://bit.ly/6pxKDd 1:30 PM Nov 29th from web common root http://bit.ly/4B9tPa 1:29 PM Nov 29th from web

Resonate: growing missional friendship of Canadians http://bit.ly/5okmNW 1:28 PM Nov 29th from web presbymergent http://bit.ly/bbMYZ 1:27 PM Nov 29th from web Luthermergent http://bit.ly/4b9X8 1:26 PM Nov 29th from web emergingumc http://bit.ly/14tzW 1:25 PM Nov 29th from web Convergent Friends http://bit.ly/6kjpKR 1:24 PM Nov 29th from web Baptimergent – An emergent baptist network of friends. http://bit.ly/67uYN9 1:23 PM Nov 29th from web Anglimergent http://bit.ly/1mfnft 1:23 PM Nov 29th from web Emerging Pentecostal http://bit.ly/ed0PO 1:22 PM Nov 29th from web Here’s how the sun came up on Cathlimergent on one of the very first days of its presence in cyberspace: http://bit.ly/7vDJzk 12:30 PM Nov 28th from web Our approach would be vastly changed if we shifted from universalis to katholikos in our understanding of Catholicity http://bit.ly/7k6dRa 2:11 AM Nov 28th from web Father Roy Bourgeois from our hometown, Lutcher, Louisiana, nominated for the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize. http://bit.ly/7a4d3u #fb 10:16 PM Nov 27th from web The preferential option for the poor, sooner or later, will be consolation for every last one of us. http://bit.ly/5ne3kI 10:08 AM Nov 27th from web Set a guard, O LORD, over my monitor; Keep watch over the door of my keyboard. 8:28 PM Nov 25th from web RT @zoecarnate: Catholic? Emerging? Join the CATHLIMERGENT social network! http://cathlimergent.ning.com // emerging is invading everywhere 8:24 AM Nov 25th from SimplyTweet Retweeted by you RT @transmillennial: Cutting edge Catholics. Emerging Catholics. Check out CATHLIMERGENT. http://bit.ly/7k6dRa Thanks Kevin! 1:32 PM Nov 25th from CoTweet Andrew’s right. Neither emergence nor convergence are novel for Catholics. Catholics & Emerging Church http://bit.ly/6ThpfE 11:00 AM Nov 25th from web tallskinnykiwi What do Catholics have to do with the emerging church? A lot, actually. http://bit.ly/5QyCZT 8:55 AM Nov 25th from TweetDeck Retweeted by you and 3 others Where are all the ‘Emerging’ Catholics? « this fragile tent http://bit.ly/4NSdpu 10:49 AM Nov 25th from web

Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Send

What do we mean by Convergence in the emerging church conversation? JB on December 21, 2009 in Practices & Experiences, Uncategorized, the interpretive Religion | No Comments » What could one possibly mean by convergence in the emerging church conversation, especially once recognizing and acknowledging that we remain, in the same instance, Anglimergent, Baptimergent, Cathlimergent, Luthermergent, Presbymergent and so on? To the extent the conversation primarily involves a consideration of methods, practices and experiences and not, rather, belief systems, conclusions and propositions, and given the conversation’s postfoundational orientation, what emerges will not be in the form of arguments in the strict sense. Instead, we are discovering a convergence that is more so of nonpropositional nature. This is to say that this convergence does not articulate, for example, a new narrative arch of a distinctly descriptive, normative or speculative nature, which would be a cosmological enterprise. Rather, this convergence has an axiological trajectory, which is to say that it fosters a harmonic resonance of an evaluative, interpretive or existential nature. Interpretively, we are coming away with a deepened sense of solidarity. Evaluatively, we share a profound sense of compassion. We share, then, a great unity of mission even as we recognize our diversity of ministry and acknowledge our plurality of belief systems. What emerges, then, is not so much a convergence of metanarratives but, instead, of meta-perspectives. It is a convergence of perspectives that conditions HOW we will first see and experience reality, so to speak, desiring the Kingdom, and not of narratives setting forth WHAT we will eventually think about reality in order to somehow argue and prove the Kingdom.

A lot of people, who remain immersed in dualistic mindsets with their problem-solving orientation to all of reality, have a difficult time evaluating the emerging church conversation. These are likely the same tweeple who are repeatedly tweeting their frustration with trying to nail jello to the wall in their coming to grips with what the emerging conversation is all about. For so many, apologetics is primarily evidential, rational and presuppositional, proceeding with empirical, logical, practical and moral reasoning. And, by all means, this approach to reality is indispensable and necessary. When it comes to life’s deepest mysteries, more ultimate concerns and most significant value-realizations, however, we must go beyond this dualistic approach and engage reality with a more nondual, contemplative stance. So, when we speak of a convergence in the emerging conversation, we are not suggesting a novel set of concepts and categories. Neither should one look for a specific political agenda. It is not a convergence of moral reasoning, such that emergent folk will all necessarily share the same positions on one moral reality or another. Even regarding cosmological matters, we are not suggesting a convergence of views regarding such things as philosophy of mind, theological anthropology, divine interactions and so on. A distinctly nonpropositional convergence of shared practice and shared experience, of a deepened sense of solidarity and heightened sense of compassion, will very much condition our approach to environmental & social justice, ecclesiology, worship and Jesus. Notice how these are not primarily propositional realities but are, first and foremost, relational realities. We are not first preoccupied with getting answers right as if we were mostly dealing with ideas. This convergence is not about getting the correct relationships between ideas, whether through a harmony of reasons or even intuitions. This is about realizing the right relationships between humankind and God, ourselves and one another, ourselves and nature and even our relationship to our own self. This harmonic convergence, then, is like a symphony of many instruments, each with its own sound and timbre, all playing together in the same key, in harmony and to the rhythm of the same Drum. This is not to deny, however, that to the extent that we are conditioned, shaped and formed by a convergence of nonpropositional influences, that it will not eventually transvalue our more propositional approaches, effecting their convergence also. It will. But that requires a great deal of patience. I have to run. The exigencies of life press in. But I will elaborate on all of this later and hopefully in a more accessible way. Update: Really, the best articulation of the emerging conversation trajectory from a Catholic perspective is in this video clip of Fr. Richard Rohr: Fr. Richard Rohr describes the Emerging Church Conversation Also, here’s the latest HomeBrewed Christianity Podcast of Fr. Rohr: Get your Nondualism on with Richard Rohr Day 3 – continuing Beyond socialization, we are opening ourselves up to ongoing transformation and a deep desiring of the Kingdom. We experience a deep desiring for environmental and social justice in solidarity with and compassion for humankind and our cosmos. Ever more identified with Jesus and His deep desiring of communion with the Father, we long for the coming of the Cosmic Christ. Our ecclesiology is more ecumenical and egalitarian as we go beyond institutional structures (and not necessarily without them) seeking authentic community in manifold and multiform ways, wherever two or more can gather in His Name. Our worship becomes the practice of the Presence of God as we seek an abiding relationship with Him – not Whom we possess, but – Who possesses us. In solidarity and sharing this same deep desiring, we may otherwise differ in HOW we see justice playing out morally, practically and politically, in HOW we see the Kingdom unfolding eschatologically and metaphysically. And we can abide with these differences because of our deep humility and deep love for one another, encouraging and forgiving one another, sharing a vision THAT in the Kingdom all may be well, all will be well, all shall be well and we will know that all manner of things shall be well. The emerging church conversation is less about positions and more about dispositions, about being disposed to a Deep Awareness, Deep Solidarity, Deep Compassion, Deep Humility, Deep Worship, Deep Justice, Deep Ecology and Deep Community. That these realities will play out in our lives we are confidently assured. How they will play out is something we explore in humility and civility with all people of goodwill. Ours is foremost a shared axiology, interpretively and evaluatively, of what we deeply desire and deeply value. We share practices that shape, form, cultivate and celebrate these desires and values. We believe that, one day, this will lead also to a shared cosmology, descriptively and normatively, consistent with the best science and best philosophy.

“Your life is shaped by the end you live for. You are made in the image of what you desire.” Thomas Merton Below is a contribution evoked by Kevin Beck’s question re: empathy & compassion: Read the rest of this entry »

Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Send

Tags: compassion, c o n t e m p l a t i v e, c o n v e r g e n c e, d i v e r s i t y o f m i n i s t r y, dualistic mindset, e m e r g i n g c h u r c h c o n v e r s a t i o n, m e t a-n a r r a t i v e, m e t a-perspective, n o n d u a l, plurality of belief systems, s o l i d a r i t y, unity of mission

The 6 Moments, Dynamics & Dialogues of the Emerging Church Conversation JB on December 19, 2009 in Uncategorized | 1 Comment » This is a follow to the Emerging Church Conversation as Strategic Planning Exercise. Below are some touchpoints for the emerging church conversation as it represents the fruits of prayer of individuals and of peoples gathered. This emerging church dialogue doesn’t really lend itself to categories used to describe systems, products, conclusions or movements; rather, it is more so about methods, processes, practices or conversations. This dialogue, then, is best conceived as prayer, as people interacting with God and one another. It is an ongoing exchange of Do You Hear What I Hear? as the Spirit moves among the People of God as always. Sometimes, the Spirit moves and we respond competently even if not wholly consciously. We respond implicitly even if not with an explicit awareness. At different times in church history, our response becomes a tad more self-reflective, explicitly-aware, self-critical and consciously competent. That’s what the emerging conversation is to me – not a novel move of the Spirit per se or a response of the church, but – another moment in time where many are simply paying more attention and appropriating a new awareness of what our gracious God has always been about. Certainly, efficacies will always flow when implicit faith is made explicit, when unconscious competence is made conscious, when we pause, from time to time, to reflect and resource and retrieve and revive and renew. Because I view the emerging conversation as dialogue and prayer, the fruits of which are quite unpredictable as they flow from the hand of a sovereign God, Who seems to have quite the sense of humor, I find it helpful to view the conversation through the lens of Lectio Divina, our prayer. If there is a “movement,” then it is really no more and no less than prayer, itself, which does not lend itself to specific programs and definite agenda but yields itself to transformation, solidarity and compassion. These are realities that come about quite spontaneously and outside of our preconceived channels. While in creation, novelty arises that transcends but does not violate the order from which it emerged, still we cannot really look behind to get a sense of where we’re headed. Rather, we can look back and realize that others have been in places like this before and have been superabundantly rewarded in unpredictable, novel ways when they have trustfully surrendered. Joy remains a surprise. What emerges from this conversation will inspire joy but will be no less a surprise. The Spirit is like that is all I can observe. Seldom do we know how God’s designs will be worked even as we look forward with a confident assurance that all will be well. Below, I will describe 6 moments in prayer and 6 dynamics at play during these moments. They capture, for me, 6 dialogues going on in the emerging church conversation. 6 moments in prayer 1 ) Creation reveals God in a moment of Creatio. In the beginning was The Word. 2 ) The Word is received in a moment of Lectio by the Witnesses to Revelation. 3 ) The Word is pondered in a moment of Meditatio as the Witnesses meditate together on Revelation. 4 ) As the Word is accepted and spoken in a moment of Oratio, Revelation transforms its Witnesses. 5 ) As transformed Witnesses in a moment of Contemplatio, we respire the Word in every contemplative breath as the Word becomes life, itself. 6 ) We act on the Word in a moment of Operatio as the Word is integrated into every aspect of our lives. 6 dynamics at play 1 ) In Creatio, Revelation pours forth in Truth, Beauty, Goodness & Unity in a Teleological Dynamic which speaks to the transcendental imperatives and divine attributes that we experience in our existential orientations. This includes a robustly relational dynamic with four vectors as each value is realized in the self, the other, the environment and God, trajectories emphasized by Merton and further explicated by his description of Bernardian love – of self for sake of self, of God for sake of self, of God for sake of God, of self for sake of God. This is what some have called Beginning with the End in mind. It’s articulated in the question What’s It All About Alfie? All of the great traditions have in their own way articulated truth, celebrated beauty, preserved goodness and fostered unity. 2 ) In Lectio, we encounter the witnesses to Revelation in a Perspectival Dynamic which listens to the voices of these witnesses from objective, intersubjective, interobjective and subjective perspectives that mutually critique each other. For example and respectively, Scripture, Tradition, Reason and Experience. Or, in apologetics, the evidential, presuppositional, rational and existential approaches.

We might think here of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, the Anglican Three-Legged Stool, Fides et Ratio. 3 ) In Meditatio, we employ a Methodological Dynamic which has four moments, the descriptive and normative moments of our cosmological methods and the evaluative and interpretive moments of our axiological methods. For example, we employ descriptive science and normative philosophy and evaluative culture and interpretive religion, each which is methodologically autonomous but axiologically-integral, which is to say all necessary but none sufficient, all intellectually-related though not strictly logically-related, in every human value-realization. Here we are reminded of the Science & Religion Dialogue, of Postmodern epistemology and other such discussions. 4 ) In Oratio, we speak the word as a first moment of accepting it and allowing it to work toward our transformation in a Developmental Dynamic, whereby we move toward authenticity in ongoing intellectual, affective, moral, socio-political and religious conversion. I especially think of Bernard Lonergan’s conversions as expanded and explicated by Donald Gelpi. 5 ) In Contemplatio, we live out of a Paradoxical Dynamic which takes us beyond but not without our dualistic, problem-solving mind to engage reality with a nondual approach that is more robustly relational. In our dualistic mind we have grappled with some success in dealing with paradoxical tensions, resolving some dialectically in synthesis, dissolving some perspectivally through paradigm shifts that introduce new concepts and categories, and evading others practically, although they are otherwise true antinomies, which reveal the limits of our formal approaches (as they would require our forsaking of some aspects of reason, itself, in order to eliminate certain apparent absurdities). These strategies of resolving, dissolving and evading paradox are somewhat successful as we grapple with life’s cosmological questions in science and philosophy, where we deal with how to describe and norm reality. When it comes to life’s most important questions, our most ultimate concerns and most significant value-realizations, as we grapple with life’s axiological questions in human culture and religion, our strategy shifts from getting the right answers through problem-solving to getting the questions right, in other words, to embarking on the right quest. This is about getting relationships right. Axiological paradox, which deals with how we value and interpret reality, does not yield to cosmological speculation with its empirical, rational and practical resolutions, dissolutions and evasions of paradox. Its paradoxical tensions are, instead, nurtured and maintained creatively. Creative tensions are the stuff of life’s deepest mysteries and most profound meanings and yield its most cherished value-realizations. One might say, then, when it comes to life’s deepest paradoxes, we exploit them transformatively. There is no better treatment of paradox and the nondual approach than that of Franciscan Richard Rohr. 6 ) In Operatio, where we act on the Word and integrate it into every aspect of our lives, we employ an Integral Dynamic, which fosters integrity and authenticity through an ongoing process of boundary establishment, boundary defense, boundary negotiation and boundary transcendence. These boundary dynamics can be healthy or unhealthy, hence efficacious or counterproductive, if not maintained in a creative tension. Dogma can decay into dogmatism, cult into ritualism, code into legalism and community into institutionalism. Creed can otherwise articulate truth. Ritual can otherwise celebrate beauty. Code can otherwise preserve goodness. Community can otherwise enjoy fellowship. 6 dialogues in the Emerging Conversation 1 ) The exploration of teleological dynamics is quite straightforward in that it reflects a collective voice of prophetic protest that is coming from the margins of institutionalized Christianity and calling us to snap back into awareness in order to quit mistaking the finger pointing at the moon for the moon itself. It’s nothing less than the age old clarification of means and ends.

See Brian McLaren break open the essentials of our quest. Brian McLaren, author of the groundbreaking Everything Must Change, again shows his penchant for challenging conventional thinking about faith and religion in this interview with host Dean Nelson as part of the 2009 Writers Symposium by the Sea, sponsored by Point Loma Nazarene University. Series: Writer’s Symposium By The Sea [5/2009] 2 ) The exploration of perspectival dynamics reflects the wisdom of mutual critique and the avoidance of various over- and under-emphases, whether sola scriptura or solum magisterium, whether a rationalistic foundationalism or a radically deconstructive postmodernism.

See Diana Butler Bass set forth a fresh perspective or narrative arch in her People’s History of Christianity. In the same spirit as Howard Zinn’s groundbreaking work The People’s History of the United States, Diana Butler Bass reveals the under-reported movements, personalities, and spiritual practices that continue to inform and ignite contemporary Christian worship, activism, and social justice reforms in the name of Jesus. 3 ) The consideration of methodological dynamics looks at the methods that are employed from within all of the perspectives and affirms their autonomy as each constrains and mutually critiques the others. Thus we avoid the conflation of science and religion and philosophy and respect what each contributes to every human value-realization. We therefore eschew scientism as well as fideism, for example.

See John Haught’s presentation: Genes and God: Explaining Life, Mind, Morality and Religion Scientists, philosophers and an increasing number of scholars in the humanities now to look to Darwinian and Mendelian science for the ultimate explanation of living phenomena including our own intellectual, ethical and religious characteristics. 4 ) The dialogue about developmental dynamics respects the human growth trajectory and recognizes that we are being transformed both as individuals and as a people. We think here of Bernard Lonergan’s conversions, Clare Graves Spiral Dynamics and so on.

See Tim King’s Meeting at the Intersection of Humility & Mystery. Summary: Tim King’s talk, delivered the International Peace & Reconciliation conference in Amman Jordan, December 17, 2009. Read by Mike Morrell of KedgeForward. For more on Tim & The David Group International, see http://postchristianblog.com and http://davidgroupinternational.com 5 ) Our interest in paradoxical dynamics draws its impetus from life’s inescapable mystery and inexhaustible depth dimensions. Here we explore the wisdom of uncertainty, the reality of doubt even in the midst of faith, the nondual nature of the contemplative stance.

See Fr. Richard Rohr talk about The Contemplative Mind. For Christians seeking a way of thinking outside of strict dualities, Fr. Rohr explores methods for letting go of division and living in the present. He draws his teachings from the Gospels, Jesus, Paul, and the great Christian contemplatives. He reveals how many of the hidden truths of Christianity have been misunderstood or lost and how to read them with the eyes of the mystics rather than interpreting them through rational thought. 6 ) Our exploration of integral dynamics is an exploration of boundary realities and how we are to establish, defend, negotiate and transcend this boundary or that, while maintaining our integrity and growing our authenticity.

See Phyllis Tickle as she emphasizes: This is God we’re talking about. Phyllis Tickle shares her thoughts on how we can spark new life in Christian communities at the Christianity 21 conference. Jesus is God (no metaphor) and this matters!

Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Send

Tags: Contemplatio, C r e a t i o, Creative tensions, c u l t u r e, D e v e l o p m e n t a l D y n a m i c, I n t e g r a l D y n a m i c, Lectio, Lectio Divina, Meditatio, Methodological Dynamic, Operatio, O r a t i o, P a r a d o x i c a l D y n a m i c, P e r s p e c t i v a l D y n a m i c, philosophy, religion, Science, Teleological Dynamic, v a l u e-realizations

There’s Probably No God? Be good for goodness’ sake! JB on December 14, 2009 in Uncategorized, the interpretive - Religion, the normative Philosophy | No Comments » Rev. Bosco Peters blogs this week: There’s Probably No God? He describes a situation:

New Zealand is following other countries in having an “atheist bus campaign”. Atheists are raising $NZ10,000 to mimic the UK campaign and place “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life” on several buses in major New Zealand cities. But then Rev. Peters suggests:

Rather than fear, or tut-tut, this campaign, I welcome the opportunity for some serious dialogue.

I agree with his suggestion and offer my comment below. Please click on the photo, above, to visit Liturgy.com and to read his excellent post and comments. It is true that the “New” atheists engage but a caricature of authentic belief. And they, in turn, offer us naught but a caricature of a more philosophically rigorous atheism. Those of us who subscribe to a radically incarnational view of reality certainly want to affirm that humankind can indeed be good for goodness’ sake. We can and do pursue truth, beauty, goodness and unity because such a pursuit is its own reward. Of course, we also view our existential orientations to these intrinsically rewarding values as transcendental imperatives. We believe that humans can recognize and realize these values without the benefit of special divine revelation. So, we acknowledge the possibility of an implicit faith even as we maintain that, with an explicit faith, believers can move more swiftly and with less hindrance toward these values on life’s transformative journey. I enjoy natural theology, metaphysics and philosophy but acknowledge that beyond our evidential, rational and presuppositional arguments, which, at the most, establish the reasonableness of faith, it is our existential experience of God that gifts us with a confident assurance in the things we hope for. Beyond our abstract speculative formulations and cognitive propositions, it is our participatory imagination that best engages reality, not just religiously but also scientifically and philosophically and relationally. This imagination is shaped and formed by liturgies of the mall, the marketplace, the stadium and our worship, where we learn (and finally decide) to most desire one Kingdom or another. So, we do not even want to deny that one can live a life of abundance and realize life’s great values without an explicit belief in God (even as we have our own faith-based interpretations of why this may be so and Who makes this possible). Neither would we deny, however, that a life of faith is a life of SUPERabundance, enabling us to journey more swiftly and with less hindrance along The Way. This discussion continues at this link>>> Read the rest of this entry »

Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Send

Tags: a t h e i s t b u s c a m p a i g n, existential orientations, implicit faith, m e t a p h y s i c s, N a t u r a l T h e o l o g y, p a r t i c i p a t o r y i m a g i n a t i o n, t r a n s c e n d e n t a l i m p e r a t i v e s, t r a n s f o r m a t i v e j o u r n e y

President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize Lecture Administrator on December 10, 2009 in the evaluative - Culture | No Comments » Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, Distinguished Members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, citizens of America, and citizens of the world: I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations — that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice. And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize — Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela — my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened of cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women — some known, some obscure to all but those they help — to be far more deserving of this honor than I. But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by 43 other countries — including Norway — in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks. Still, we are at war, and I am responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill. Some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the cost of armed conflict — filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other. These questions are not new. War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease — the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences. Over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers, clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a “just war” emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when it meets certain preconditions: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the forced used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence. For most of history, this concept of just war was rarely observed. The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God. Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations — total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred. In the span of 30 years, such carnage would twice engulf this continent. And while it is hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished.

In the wake of such destruction, and with the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor and vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to prevent another World War. And so, a quarter century after the United States Senate rejected the League of Nations — an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this Prize — America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide and restrict the most dangerous weapons. In many ways, these efforts succeeded. Yes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocities committed. But there has been no Third World War. The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantling a wall. Commerce has stitched much of the world together. Billions have been lifted from poverty. The ideals of liberty, self-determination, equality and the rule of law have haltingly advanced. We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations past, and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud. A decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats. The world may no longer shudder at the prospect of war between two nuclear superpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe. Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale. Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts, the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies and failed states have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In today’s wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sown, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed and children scarred. I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace. We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations — acting individually or in concert — will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified. I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King said in this same ceremony years ago: “Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: It merely creates new and more complicated ones.” As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King’s life’s work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there is nothing weak, nothing passive, nothing naive in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King. But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaidas leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is a recognition of history, the imperfections of man and the limits of reason. I raise this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter the cause. At times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the worlds sole military superpower. Yet the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions — not just treaties and declarations — that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest — because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other people’s children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity. So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another — that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldiers courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause and to comrades in arms. But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such. So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly irreconcilable truths — that war is sometimes necessary, and war is at some level an expression of human folly. Concretely, we must direct our effort to the task that President Kennedy called for long ago. “Let us focus,” he said, “on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions.” What might this evolution look like? What might these practical steps be? To begin with, I believe that all nations — strong and weak alike — must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I — like any head of state — reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards strengthens those who do, and isolates — and weakens — those who dont. The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self-defense. Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait — a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression. Furthermore, America cannot insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we don’t, our action can appear arbitrary, and undercut the legitimacy of future intervention — no matter how justified. This becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond selfdefense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region. I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That is why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.

America’s commitment to global security will never waver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering. And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come. The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries — and other friends and allies — demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage they have shown in Afghanistan. But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public. I understand why war is not popular. But I also know this: The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That is why NATO continues to be indispensable. That is why we must strengthen U.N. and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries. That is why we honor those who return home from peacekeeping and training abroad to Oslo and Rome; to Ottawa and Sydney; to Dhaka and Kigali — we honor them not as makers of war, but as wagers of peace. Let me make one final point about the use of force. Even as we make difficult decisions about going to war, we must also think clearly about how we fight it. The Nobel Committee recognized this truth in awarding its first prize for peace to Henry Dunant — the founder of the Red Cross, and a driving force behind the Geneva Conventions. Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe that the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America’s commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. And we honor those ideals by upholding them not just when it is easy, but when it is hard. I have spoken to the questions that must weigh on our minds and our hearts as we choose to wage war. But let me turn now to our effort to avoid such tragic choices, and speak of three ways that we can build a just and lasting peace. First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to change behavior — for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure — and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one. One urgent example is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them. In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear: All will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work toward disarmament. I am committed to upholding this treaty. It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy. And I am working with President Medvedev to reduce America and Russia’s nuclear stockpiles. But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted. Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia. Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war. The same principle applies to those who violate international law by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur, systematic rape in Congo or repression in Burma — there must be consequences. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression. This brings me to a second point — the nature of the peace that we seek. For peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict. Only a just peace based upon the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting. It was this insight that drove drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the Second World War. In the wake of devastation, they recognized that if human rights are not protected, peace is a hollow promise. And yet all too often, these words are ignored. In some countries, the failure to uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestion that these are Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation’s development. And within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists — a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values. I reject this choice. I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please, choose their own leaders or assemble without fear. Pent up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to violence. We also know that the opposite is true. Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace. America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens. No matter how callously defined, neither America’s interests — nor the worlds — are served by the denial of human aspirations. So even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal. We will bear witness to the quiet dignity of reformers like Aung Sang Suu Kyi; to the bravery of Zimbabweans who cast their ballots in the face of beatings; to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran. It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation. And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear to these movements that hope and history are on their side. Let me also say this: The promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach — and condemnation without discussion — can carry forward a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.

In light of the Cultural Revolution’s horrors, Nixon’s meeting with Mao appeared inexcusable — and yet it surely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from poverty, and connected to open societies. Pope John Paul’s engagement with Poland created space not just for the Catholic Church, but for labor leaders like Lech Walesa. Ronald Reagan’s efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe. There is no simple formula here. But we must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement, pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time. Third, a just peace includes not only civil and political rights — it must encompass economic security and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want. It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine they need to survive. It does not exist where children cannot aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from within. And that is why helping farmers feed their own people — or nations educate their children and care for the sick — is not mere charity. It is also why the world must come together to confront climate change. There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, famine and mass displacement that will fuel more conflict for decades. For this reason, it is not merely scientists and activists who call for swift and forceful action — it is military leaders in my country and others who understand that our common security hangs in the balance. Agreements among nations. Strong institutions. Support for human rights. Investments in development. All of these are vital ingredients in bringing about the evolution that President Kennedy spoke about. And yet, I do not believe that we will have the will, or the staying power, to complete this work without something more — and that is the continued expansion of our moral imagination, an insistence that there is something irreducible that we all share. As the world grows smaller, you might think it would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar we are, to understand that we all basically want the same things, that we all hope for the chance to live out our lives with some measure of happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our families. And yet, given the dizzying pace of globalization, and the cultural leveling of modernity, it should come as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish about their particular identities — their race, their tribe and, perhaps most powerfully, their religion. In some places, this fear has led to conflict. At times, it even feels like we are moving backwards. We see it in the Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines. Most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan. These extremists are not the first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded. But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint — no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or even a person of one’s own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but the purpose of faith — for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Adhering to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature. We are fallible. We make mistakes, and fall victim to the temptations of pride, and power, and sometimes evil. Even those of us with the best intentions will at times fail to right the wrongs before us. But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place. The nonviolence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached — their faith in human progress — must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey. For if we lose that faith — if we dismiss it as silly or naive, if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace — then we lose what is best about humanity. We lose our sense of possibility. We lose our moral compass. Like generations have before us, we must reject that future. As Dr. King said at this occasion so many years ago: “I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the ‘isness’ of man’s present nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal ‘oughtness’ that forever confronts him.” So let us reach for the world that ought to be — that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls. Somewhere today, in the here and now, a soldier sees he’s outgunned but stands firm to keep the peace. Somewhere today, in this world, a young protestor awaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to march on. Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her child, who believes that a cruel world still has a place for his dreams. Let us live by their example. We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strive for justice. We can admit the intractability of deprivation, and still strive for dignity. We can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that — for that is the story of human progress; that is the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth.

Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Send

more on the Manhattan Declaration JB on December 9, 2009 in Uncategorized, the evaluative - Culture, the normative Philosophy | No Comments » In the old thomist tradition, distinctions were drawn between an essentialist or idealist interpretation and application of Gospel norms and an existentialist or realist interpretation and application of them. This distinction is necessary because we live in a tension where we are undeniably realizing the Kingdom now even as we, as created co-creators, join all of creation in the labor and groaning of the act of giving birth to an ever more full Kingdom realization. The essentialist understanding seizes upon the efficacies of the Spirit’s help and the Word, itself, proclaimed and lived by faithful witnesses. The existentialist understanding recognizes our human frailty due to our radical finitude and sinfulness and so makes allowances knowing humankind will yet fall short of Gospel ideals. One would not want to say that the essentialist approach is theoretical and the existentialist practical, because one would not want to discourage any courageous persons from living out the Gospel, radically, as prophetic witnesses and lovers of God and all. We can say that the existentialist approach is pastoral, however, looking with compassion and understanding on us in our human condition, helping us to do the best we can. Concretely, then, for example, this tradition affirms both pacifism and just war principles as legitimate expressions of Gospel ideals. While I am not a pacifist, myself, I am in deep solidarity with and very much supportive of my pacifist sisters and brothers in my denomination and in other traditions. I would not want to live in a world without their voice of prophetic protest and without the witness of their lives. Your sharing of your personal experience with these tensions was depthful and generous. With respect to the law, the same distinctions apply, I think. Those who eschew any active and coercive legal and political engagements can also serve as authentic voices of prophetic protest and witnesses to the reality of the Kingdom, now among us and yet to come more fully. From a pastoral perspective, consistent with an incarnational outlook, we can also legitimately seek to permeate and improve the temporal order. I am thankful that our US founders integrated religion into the public square, strengthening its influence through nonestablishment and free exercise provisions. This was a healthy response to Enlightenment principles, healthier than the Enlightenment fundamentalism of the Continental experience, where religion was marginalized by secularistic forces.

counterproductive.

So, I’m for a robust engagement of religious and metaphysical perspectives in the public square. That’s not what’s wrong per se with the approach of the Manhattan Declaration drafters, in particular, and many on the Religious Right, in general. Where they go wrong, in my view, is two fold: 1) They too often fail to translate their moral stances into a language that would give their moral intuitions a normative impetus for other groups of believers and even unbelievers. 2) They too often give jurisprudential considerations short shrift, emphasizing form over substance, paying too little heed to whether a law will, in actuality, be efficacious and bring about its desired aim, especially in a pluralistic society where demographics reveal a proposed law as not only unenforceable but possibly even

There is a related problem, which is that the failure to successfully translate some religiously-derived moral intuitions results from the fact that certain of those intuitions are philosophically and anthropologically indefensible. More discussion follows here>>> Read the rest of this entry »

Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Send

Tags: essentialist, existentialist, Gospel ideals, Gospel norms, j u r i s p r u d e n c e, just war principles, Manhattan Declaration, p a c i f i s m, pastoral, prophetic protest, religion in the public square, Religious R i g h t, secularistic

The Stem Cell Challenge (in response to Jesus Creed thread) JB on December 8, 2009 in Uncategorized, the normative - Philosophy | No Comments » At Jesus Creed, there is a discussion about The Stem Cell Challenge, which evoked my response below. The Catholic Church does not have a position on ensoulment. Rather, the position is that, for all practical purposes, from the moment of conception, human life is to be treated with all the dignity of a human person. The Catholic teaching office addresses, in different ways, the sanctity of human nature, human life and human persons, and does not recognize a parvity of matter regarding offenses against same. This means that it views all offenses against human nature, life and persons as very grave matter.

Most people (most US Catholics, included) do draw distinctions in the relative gravity of such moral realities. The moral objects of the generative aspects of life (e.g. birth control, masturbation, erotic behaviors) are not deemed equal in significance to those of incipient human life, itself (e.g. abortifacients, embryonic stem cells, cloning, in vitro fertilization). Apparently, for many (most?) people, the moral status of the embryo increases as it advances through gestation from incipient through sentient to sapient human life, such that any human values in competition with the moral value of the embryo (e.g. medical research, life of the mother) must become increasingly more significant if one is to justify its destruction. The physicalist conception of the soul does not eliminate metaphysics; it advances yet another metaphysical hypothesis. Whether one employs a substance, process or some other root metaphor in one’s metaphysical approach, one will encounter the classical sorite paradox, which asks when an aggregate of individual grains of sand becomes a heap of sand. This paradox results from our conceptual confusion between efficient causation (adding grains of sand, in other words, the gestation process) and logical causation (defining a heap, in other words, a human person). The substance approach doesn’t square with our moral intuitions because its essentialism (overemphasis on logical causation) cannot account for the changing moral status of the embryo, which most people seem to – not unreasonably – impute. The process approach is equally unsatisfying because its nominalism (overemphasis on efficient causation) is dismissive of our most deeply felt epistemic and moral sensibilities regarding a person’s very identity, in which one’s personhood is grounded, even as a member of Homo sapiens, much less, as an imago Dei. I mentioned Charles Hartshorne’s concept of nonstrict identity based on asymmetric temporal relations (in another context on another thread) and it has some bearing, here. The practical upshot of this concept is that a human organism’s past, but not its future, comprises its identity, which basically means that, once ensouled, personhood perdures with all of its necessary and sufficient conditions (notwithstanding a lack of certain traits and characteristics such as in sleep and coma) until death. The collective moral intuitions that seem to ground the apparent consensus regarding the increasing moral status of the embryo as gestation advances, I strongly suspect, do not derive from most people’s metaphysical presuppositions and postures. Instead, they derive more holistically from a constellation of irrational, pre-rational, nonrational, rational and suprarational dispositions, which honor, even if only implicitly, ethical approaches that are somewhat aretaic (virtue), somewhat deontological, somewhat consequentialist (teleological), somewhat authoritarian & traditional & scriptural, somewhat contractarian and so on. For the most part, then, they are not apposite to formal argumentation with its clearly disambiguated and rigorously defined concepts, apodictic certainties and moral verities, but are more so an assortment of informal arguments, inclinations and dispositions that gift us with probabilistic notions and deeply felt epistemic, aesthetic and moral sensibilities. We must prescind from our robustly metaphysical approach to a more vague phenomenological perspective, then, which embraces a semiotic realism, while, at the same time avoiding the mutual unintelligibility, incommensurability and occlusivity of the old substance-process, essentialism-nominalism conundrum and associated paradoxes. This is to say that we are realizing values, making meaning and attaining, albeit fallibly, absolute moral truths. We have been gifted by scripture and tradition, reason and experience, with basic moral precepts, profound anthropological truths and theological insights. Beyond the most basic of precepts, however, we need to come together in charity and dialogue to wrestle with some very thorny bioethical issues, remaining open to divine guidance and civil public discourse, wherein the Spirit moves. Some of the most compelling arguments, then, in the public square, can indeed come from slippery slope appeals and reductio ad absurdum arguments, notwithstanding that they are otherwise considered logical fallacies in formal arguments. We do not enjoy, in my view, the luxury of indubitable formal arguments with apodictic certainties. Metaphysics, in the end, are neither irrelevant nor unimportant, but they are only one rational appeal among many others and, for manifold reasons, generally lack sufficient normative impetus because they are otherwise so descriptively elusive. Some of the most compelling arguments in the public square can come from nonbelievers, even, secularists like Nat Hentoff and Charles Krauthammer. One can read an excellent consideration of the topic at hand as articulated by Dr. Krauthammer at the following link, which has similar statements by many others on the Bioethics Commission appointed by Bush: Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry – Statement of Dr. Krauthammer It is for reasons such as those given by Dr. Krauthammer and others, as well as deference to the arguments advanced by the teaching office of my church and other conservative Christian leaders, that I believe that human life is sacred and deserves respect from its inception, requiring compelling reasons when one wants to manipulate it or interfere with it, even therapeutically. In my view, for all practical purposes, human life should be treated with the dignity of a human person well before the origins of sapience and, absent the most serious consideration and very compelling reasons, should still be considered inviolable well before the origins of sentience. As for the earliest days and weeks following conception, it is difficult to advance a formal metaphysical or theological argument, or even to make a more informal appeal, based on ensoulment or personhood. Still, regarding this early post-conception period, any such considerations and deliberations, in my view, if too casual, could have a morally corrosive effect and so deserve our utmost moral circumspection and dutiful deliberation. This discussion, now regarding soul & resurrection, continues here >>> Read the rest of this entry »

Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Send

Tags: abortifacient, a r e t a i c, Charles Hartshorne, C h a r l e s K r a u t h a m m e r, c l o n i n g, consequentialist, deontological, Divine Matrix, efficient causation, embryonic stem cells, e n s o u l m e n t, equiplausibility principle, essentialism, H a n s K u n g, h u m a n l i f e, h u m a n n a t u r e, h u m a n p e r s o n, imago Dei, i n v i t r o fertilization, Jesus Creed, John Polkinghorne, Joseph Ratzinger, logical causation, moral status of the e m b r y o, Nat Hentoff, noetic contributions, n o m i n a l i s m, n o n s t r i c t i d e n t i t y, p a n e n t h e i s t, p a r v i t y o f m a t t e r, physicalist conception of the soul, radically deconstructive postmodernism, semiotic realism, sorite paradox, Stem Cell

How tolerant are we to be of intolerance? (Tim King asks.) JB on December 7, 2009 in Uncategorized, the normative - Philosophy | No Comments » Brian McLaren and Tim King, among others, have been blogging about Uganda’s proposed anti-homosexuality legislation, the Bahati Bill. Both ask some pointed questions. Tim closes with:

So I have a question on top of Brian’s insightful question, but this one pointed at ‘us,’ the readers of this blog. 2,000 years ago Paul of Tarsus called those seeking to walk in the way of friendship with God ‘ministers of reconciliation.’ Reconciliation is something near and dear to my heart; reconcilers often get walked on by all kinds of shoes. Friends of God who are waking up and in the reconciling business might find themselves befriending and welcoming groups that are very different from one another; groups that do not like each other – like evangelicals and Muslims and gay people! So as we’re trying to befriend and extend hospitality to one other, what do we do with their prejudices? (What do they do with ours?) What when your heterosexism clashes with my poverty-phobia? How tolerant are we to be of intolerance? Do two intolerations cancel each other out…does one bleed into the other? How do we bear one another’s cultural convictions and burdens with integrity and love? I don’t have the answers…I’m just a guy asking questions. My musing follows: First, we acknowledge our grief and then naturally grieve all of this pain and misunderstanding. And we allow this pain to somehow transform us that we will not continue to somehow transmit it. How can MY response change is my first responsibility. Where others are concerned, we must recognize that such deeply held convictions, whether wholly or partly erroneous, are a very complex combination of irrational, pre-rational, nonrational, rational and supra-rational dispositions. As such, they do not yield in the face of superior logical argumentation, debates about religious epistemology, scriptural prooftexting, pragmatic appeals, enlightened self-interest, meta-ethical reformulations or natural law syllogisms. Such approaches only serve to further harden hearts and close minds. To reach people holistically, with a full body-soul-spirit and heart-mind “blow,” we need parables, stories, poems, songs, plays, movies and other musical & dramatic arts presentations. And, even more than that, primarily, we need to tell our relevant personal stories, share and exchange our personal, real life experiences, reinforcing our compassionate outlooks and forming and reforming our desires in prayer and liturgy. And we need to recognize that, such seeds that we plant, we may not be around to see sprout but others will assuredly reap the benefits. We must be willing to plant trees, the shade of which will not be ours to enjoy. Ministers of Reconciliation and Story-tellers are the most important people in the world (on average, about two generations after they’re dead.) In this vein, below is part of my personal story-telling, which I published years ago, elsewhere. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ How would you like it if that happened to you? My Keys Unlock Your Shackles: Our Unwitting Kinship? My fourth child, now a young man on the verge of adolescence, has always brought a great deal of sensitivity and tenderness to our family. From a young age, whenever he’d witness a tragedy on TV, he’d exclaim, for example, to no one in particular: “How would you like it if that happened to your house?!” One can substitute any noun, any person, place or thing, in place of the word “house,” and you’ll get my drift. His childhood angst remains palpable. Living in the New Orleans metro area will do that to one nowadays. I think it was in one of Rahner’s very first sermons, around 1946, that he noted that most people do not seem to experience a theodicy problem until tragedy overtakes them personally, this despite the fact that millions of “other” parents, each year, lose millions of “other” children, for example. I mention my son and Rahner’s sermon as a backdrop to my acknowledgment of how out of touch I have often been with the depth of suffering of so many who have been marginalized in different ways by our churches and societies.

Growing up in South Louisiana, I was sensitized to racial discrimination and am grateful that my conscience was properly formed by family and church in that regard. Regrettably, however, there is too much truth in one of my favorite jokes: “I was almost forty years old before I learned that not every serious sin is sexual!” That may sound like hyperbole but, realistically, possibilities for larceny, murder and heresy weren’t really blips on my ethical radar screen (so, if I wanted permanent existential alienation from God, illicit sex was one of my only options, as I understood such things). I say all of this by way of admitting that, earlier on my journey, I simply did not seriously engage many church-related issues and enjoy any ensuing aha moments until those issues overtook me, personally. For example, only when I got married did I seriously look at the birth control issue. Only when I had to catechize children did I try to better understand what the church was trying to say regarding masturbation. Teachings on liturgical renewal, social justice and just war theory were stimulating and engaging, compelling even, for those of us coming of age in the sixties; a natural law discussion of homosexuality was not even interesting to me. Long story short, the more I dug into the underlying philosophy and metaphysics of the church’s theology regarding gender and sexual behavior, prompted by my attempt to reconcile my own personal experiences and beliefs regarding same with that of the teaching office, the more it dawned on me that I had uncritically swallowed a doubtful perspective regarding other matters, too, especially such as masturbation, celibacy, women’s ordination, homosexual orientation and homoerotic behaviors. This realization was painful because certain of my earlier responses to certain of my very good friends had been tremendously hurtful and the resulting long estrangement so very unnecessary. (This is NOT to say that my response at all squared with the church’s supposedly sensitive pastoral guidance.) What could I say to my friends? How have I said it in so many ways? I am SO sorry. Forgive me; I did not know what I was doing. It was only in my attempt to free myself that I opened the gates that would free you, too. The Archbishop of Canterbury has been in town the past few days and the wounds of my past transgressions were feeling somewhat raw because of my again-raised consciousness regarding this divisive, almost schism-inducing misunderstanding. I am slowly learning to ask, more often: “How would you like it if that happened to you?” It seems that gender and sexuality issues have broad implications. People need to be able to see and understand that the keys that unlocked their fundamentalist shackles regarding manifold moral doctrines and church disciplines are the very same keys that will free all who are marginalized, in this way or that, by such as the “intrinsic disorder question.” If one group remains bound, all of us remain enslaved.

Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Send

Tags: Bahati Bill, Brian McLaren, T i m K i n g, U g a n d a’s proposed anti-homosexuality legislation

God is not a syllogism, Love is not a formal argument JB on December 7, 2009 in Uncategorized, the interpretive - Religion, the normative Philosophy | No Comments » Jesus Creed introduced Peter Kreeft’s series on Thomas Aquinas in a post called Learning St. Thomas Aquinas, recently, evoking these thoughts below. I can relate to people’s ambivalence regarding “proofs” of God. I like many of the distinctions Charles Sanders Peirce offers. He says that we can interpret Occam’s Razor vis a vis the word “simple” in terms of epistemic facility rather than ontological complexity. In other words, it’s not the needless multiplication of ontologies we need to avoid; instead, we need to pay attention to the facility or ease with which an abduction or hypothesis comes to mind when we’re confronted with a problem because that, in my words, is often truth-indicative. He also distinguishes between an argument, the initial abduction or hypothesis formulation, or, in his words, “any process of thought reasonably tending to produce a definite belief,” and argumentation, in his words, “an argument proceeding upon definitely formulated premises.” Peirce devised what he called the “Neglected Argument for the Reality of God,” but he derisively considered formal argumentation, where God was concerned, a fetish. He distinguished, too, between God’s so-called “existence” and God’s “reality.” I found it curious, at first, that folks like Charles Hartshorne and Kurt Godel would fool with (modal) ontological arguments but better came to appreciate what they were doing through time. One of the better modal arguments, in my view, has been advanced by Christopher McHugh. Those are all names worth Googling if one likes this type of approach. Also, Mortimer Adler and Ralph McInerny. Peirce employs a cable metaphor for knowledge, which takes our different arguments to be strands, any which alone could not lift this or that epistemic load without breaking (my crude wording), that when wound together gain strength and resiliency.

In other words, most of our knowledge in life does not proceed from mere formal argumentation via indubitable premises with clearly disambiguated concepts and logical validity to incontrovertible proof. Most of our knowledge comes from a cumulative case-like approach, is very much informal and probabilistic. From a rigorously philosophical approach, formal proofs of God, taken alone, lead only to Scottish verdicts of unproven. Taken together as arguments (facile abductions) along with other evidential, experiential, presuppositional and existential strands, we have quite a strong and resilient cable of belief that is eminently reasonable and existentially actionable, which is to say, with more than sufficient epistemic warrant. There is a reason that radical empiricism, logical positivism, scientism and modernistic rationalism fell into general disrepute, philosophically: pragmatically, they don’t work. Common sense is a better guide, as fallible as it is. Most people may not be able to articulate the reasons for their beliefs using epistemological jargon and many may thus be unconsciously competent, but they are competent, indeed, and their beliefs are very well warranted. My chief caveat is that metaphysical formal argumentation, taken to an extreme, can lead to a sterile, scholastic and naive realism, foundationalism and essentialism (with their overly a prioristic, physicalistic, biologistic, absolutistic, infallibilistic and rationalistic approaches to human moral realities, such as regarding gender roles and human sexuality). Postmodernity has gifted us a more critical realism, which comes in the form of weakened foundationalism, nonfoundationalism or postfoundationalism, all pretty much the same from a practical perspective as long as they affirm metaphysical and moral realism. Of course, it has also “gifted” us with postmodernISM, which as a radically deconstructive approach is epistemically bankrupt. I appreciate aristotelian-like thinkers as long as they do not caricaturize as strawmen all postmodern approaches, such as fallibilism, in terms of radical deconstruction. The postmodern, in and of itself, is not the bogeyman. Sometimes, Peter Kreeft and his ilk can be a tad too syllogistic, in my view.

Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Send

Tags: a prioristic, absolutistic, biologistic, cable metaphor for knowledge, Charles Hartshorne, Charles Sanders Peirce, Christopher McHugh, c r i t i c a l r e a l i s m, c u m u l a t i v e c a s e, e p i s t e m i c w a r r a n t, essentialism, fallibilism, foundationalism, infallibilistic, Kurt Godel, logical positivism, m e t a p h y s i c a l r e a l i s m, m o d a l o n t o l o g i c a l a r g u m e n t, m o r a l r e a l i s m, Mortimer Adler, n a i v e r e a l i s m, Neglected Argument for the Reality of God, nonfoundationalism, Occam's Razor, Peter Kreeft, p h y s i c a l i s t i c, postfoundationalism, p o s t m o d e r n i t y, Proofs of God, r a d i c a l e m p i r i c i s m, Ralph McInerny, r a t i o n a l i s m, rationalistic, scientism, syllogistic, weakened foundationalism

« Older Entries

Newer Entries »

CHRISTIANNONDUALITY. C O M

BL O G

beyond thinking & proposing to imagining & participating Home About

love eternal will not be denied

T o d a y’ s L i t u r g y

JB on December 6, 2009 in Uncategorized, the interpretive - Religion | No Comments »

Translator

By N2H

Amos Yong apophatic Axiological axiologicallyintegral

Bernard Lonergan Brian McLaren Charles Sanders Peirce contemplative cosmology emergence emerging church Enlightenment

epistemology faith False

Self fideism Hans Kung James K. A. Smith Jesus Creed John Duns Scotus kataphatic Kevin

Beck Kurt Godel Merton Mike Morrell muses in an evocative, for some, and provocative, for others, post at his blog, Blessings Not Just for the Ones Who Kneel – the Promiscuous Love of God:

metaphysics Mike Morrell Natural

Theology nihilism

nondual nonduality

orthodoxy radical emergence radical orthodoxy rationalism Bottom-line: God is love. Love is orthodoxy. (Agapetheism, as my friend Kevin Beck likes to put it) It’s God’s kindness that leads to repentance, not the big stick that you imagine God’s holiness to be. Let’s join together in the Great Work of our age – becoming the leaves of the Tree of Life for the healing of our relationships, our neighborhoods, our ecosystems, our economies – in short, our world. This begins, as Brennan Manning says, with healing our image of God – and the ones God loves. Which is all of us. God brings abundant blessings…not just for the ones who kneel. May we model this same lavish, indiscriminate, sloppy, positively promiscuous love. Amen and amen. PS: What songs, art, poetry and cultural artifacts remind you of God’s blessing breaking out of the confines of empire and religion?

Richard Rohr Science

scientism semiotic theodicy Theological Anthropology

Thomas Merton Tim King transformation True Self Walker Percy W P-C u m u l u s b y R o y T a n c k a n d Luke Morton requires F l a s h P l a y e r 9 or better.

Cultivating the Roots, Nurturing the Shoots MARCH 2010

As far as theological constructs go, I reckon one must affirm a reality like hell as necessary, in theory, only because true love is not coercive and God would force no one into relationship with Him, respecting our freedom. (How such a self-imposed alienation might be experienced in an atemporal existence, who knows? I doubt seriously fire and sulphur are involved.) As far as theodicy questions, trying to reconcile such disparate God-concepts such as omnipotence and omnibenevolence, I’d affirm the latter and ditch the former. For one thing, if creation was any less ambiguous for us and seemingly less ambivalent toward us, we might experience the reality of God too coercively, diminishing the need for faith and thereby limiting our freedom. In my view, we should abandon our puerile notions of substitutionary and penal atonement. We needn’t conceive of the incarnation as some type of divine initiative in response to some so-called felix culpa, as some type of cosmic repair job for an ontological rupture that took place in the past. Rather, from an emergentist perspective of cosmic evolution, we can conceive of a God who so loved created reality that the incarnation was in the plans from the cosmic get-go. What we experience, then, is His and our teleological striving ordered toward the future, where our role as created co-creators is robustly participatory, where our questions change from Why is there suffering? to What am I going to do about it? That all of creation is groaning in one great act of giving birth need never be conceived as divine punishment or retribution but can instead be envisioned as God’s shrinking to make room for creation, finally shrinking so far as to take on human flesh without ever deeming equality with God as something to be grasped at.

1 8 15 22 29

2 9 16 23 30 « FEB

3 10 17 24 31

4 11 18 25

5 12 19 26

6 13 20 27

7 14 21 28

Recent Posts The Emerging Church is BIGGER t h a n C h r i s t i a n i t y – how to spot it in other traditions Abortion & the Senate Healthcare Bill – a p r u d e n t i a l judgment 10 historical developments propelling Emerging Christianity ~ Richard Rohr Why Brian McLaren’s GrecoRoman Narrative is NOT a caricature THE BOOK: Christian N o n d u a l i t y – Postmodern Conservative Catholic Pentecostal

Recent Comments christiannonduality.com Blog » Blog Archive » Thoughts re:

Once we’ve recognized this divine initiative and fully experienced its efficacies in our lives, any notion that God employs the created order to punish us earthly heathen (as temporal punishment) seems rather facile. As for a theological construct like hell (an eternal punishment), such a theoretical necessity increasingly seems to be a practical improbability, for our God may be coy but She’s not timid, for, as a wily seductress and charming temptress, She will, eventually, have Her way with each and everyone of us, I just have to believe. And so did many of the Church Fathers, who articulated the notion of apokatastasis, which means that God’s loving initiatives are so overwhelmingly efficacious that, in the end, no one will escape them. It might be heterodox to deny the reality of hell as an indispensable theological construct but it is manifestly not heterodox to hope and believe that there ain’t a snowball’s chance in the Superdome that anyone will ever end up there. Rather, I believe that every beginning of a smile, every trace of human goodness, will be eternalized. We will each adorn the eternal firmament, filled to our capacity with the ever unobtrusive but finally inescapable love of God, some of us, perhaps like Mother Teresa, a blindingly bright and blazing helios, others, perhaps like that little altar boy, Hitler, but a tiny votive candle. Often, I imagine God singing, to each of us, that Moody Blues song:

t o d a y’s debate – Philip Clayton vs Dan Dennett on Intelligent Design – a poorly designed inference christiannonduality.com Blog » Blog Archive » W h y B r i a n McLaren’s Greco-R o m a n Narrative is NOT a caricature on A New Kind of Christianity? McLaren didn’t make this up. It’s worse than that! christiannonduality.com Blog » Blog Archive » W h y B r i a n McLaren’s Greco-R o m a n Narrative is NOT a caricature on E v e r y t h i n g T h a t’s Old is New A g a i n – this (McLaren’s “ N e w” Christianity) is truly an old time religion K i e r a n C o n r o y on A New Kind of Christianity? McLaren didn’t make this up. It’s worse than that! Philip Clayton on Thoughts re: t o d a y’s debate – Philip Clayton vs Dan Dennett

Type, Hit Enter to Search

We Distinguish in Order to Unite Select Category

I Know You’re Out There Somewhere Moody Blues I know you’re out there somewhere Somewhere somewhere I know I’ll find you somehow And somehow I’ll return again to you The mist is lifting slowly I can see the way ahead And I’ve left behind the empty streets That once inspired my life And the strength of the emotion Is like thunder in the air ‘Cause the promise that we made each other Haunts me to the end CHORUS I know you’re out there somewhere Somewhere somewhere I know you’re out there somewhere Somewhere you can hear my voice I know I’ll find you somehow Somehow somehow I know I’ll find you somehow And somehow I’ll return again to you The secret of your beauty And the mystery of your soul I’ve been searching for in everyone I meet And the times I’ve been mistaken It’s impossible to say And the grass is growing Underneath our feet CHORUS

Blogroll Andrew Sullivan Beyond Blue Brian D. McLaren Commonweal Crunchy Con Cynthia Bourgeault Emergent Village Emerging Women First Thoughts Fors Clavigera Francis X. Clooney, S.J. Joseph S. O'Leary NCR Today – the Catholic Blog Per Caritatem Phyllis Tickle Post Christian Postmodern Conservative Radical Emergence Sojourners Tall Skinny Kiwi The Website of Unknowing Transmillenial Vox Nova Weekly Standard Blog Worship Blog Zoecarnate

Worthwhile Sites Amos Yong Boulder Integral Brother David Steindl-Rast Center for Action and Contemplation Christian Nonduality

Contemplative Outreach David Group International Dialogue Institute Ecumene Franciscan Archive Innerexplorations Institute on Religion in an Age of Science Metanexus Monastic Interreligious Dialogue National Catholic Reporter Radical Orthodoxy Shalomplace Sojourners Thomas Merton Center Virtual Chapel Zygon Center for Religion and Science

The words that I remember From my childhood still are true That there’s none so blind As those who will not see And to those who lack the courage And say it’s dangerous to try Well they just don’t know That love eternal will not be denied CHORUS You know it’s going to happen I can feel you getting near And soon we’ll be returning To the fountains of our youth And if you wake up wondering In the darkness I’ll be there My arms will close around you And protect you with the truth

Cloud of Unknowing

Thus imagined, that song gives me chills and brings a tear.

Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Send

Amos Yong apophatic Axiological axiologicallyintegral

Bernard Lonergan Brian McLaren Charles Sanders Peirce contemplative cosmology emergence emerging church

E n l i g h t e n m e n t epistemology

faith False Self fideism Hans Kung James K. A. Smith Jesus Creed John Duns Scotus kataphatic Tags: A g a p e t h e i s m, apokatastasis, cosmic evolution, created co-c r e a t o r, felix culpa, h e l l, i n c a r n a t i o n, Kevin Beck, Mike Morrell, p e n a l a t o n e m e n t, s u b s t i t u t i o n a r y a t o n e m e n t, t h e o d i c y

Kevin Beck Kurt Godel Merton

metaphysics Mike Morrell Natural Theology nihilism nondual

the Emerging Church Conversation as Strategic Planning Exercise JB on December 4, 2009 in Axiological, Cosmological, Practices & Experiences, Provisional Closures & Systems, Uncategorized, the descriptive - Science, the evaluative - Culture, the interpretive - Religion, the normative - Philosophy | 1 Comment »

nonduality orthodoxy radical emergence radical orthodoxy rationalism

Richard Rohr Science scientism semiotic theodicy Theological Anthropology

Thomas Merton Tim King transformation True

Below, I will employ a Strategic Plan paradigm to characterize and organize the emerging church conversation employing what might, at first, appear to be characteristically Catholic categories. In doing so, I hope to emphasize how this conversation proceeds more from a consideration of questions rather than answers, practices rather than conclusions, methods rather than systems.

Self Walker Percy

Join Other Visitors in Prayer Light A Candle & Pray

Join Us in the Liturgy of the Hours

While there is certainly an implicit assumption that one will take from these conversations some best practices, which will then be integrated into some otherwise disparate ecclesial systems, we hope to show how such approaches as descriptive science, normative philosophy, evaluative culture and interpretive religion can be methodologically autonomous even while, at the same time, being axiologically integral, which is to say that each method is necessary, none alone sufficient, in every human value-realization. For example, put more plainly, how can we answer the normative question How does one best acquire or avoid that? without first answering the descriptive question What is that? much less the evaluative question What’s that to us? (I say to “us” rather than “me” in recognition of our radically social nature). And we dare not ignore our interpretive grand narratives, which, sometimes for better and sometimes for worse, contextualize all of these questions with their (often implicit, very often unconscious even) answers to the question How does all of this re-ligate or tie-back together? Before laying out a Cathlimergent approach, I want to build a conceptual bridge to the approaches taken by many of our Protestant sisters and brothers. Dialogue about prescriptive realities is very much dependent on fair and accurate descriptive representations (avoiding unnecessary strawmen and ad hominems). When it comes to good scholarship and civil discourse, few have gone about it better than the author of Deep Church, Jim Belcher, so I will employ his categories in our bridge-building effort. To wit, when Jim —

Get the C a t h l i m e r g e n t o n Twitter widget and many other great free widgets a t Widgetbox! Not seeing a widget? (More info)

prescribes Deep Truth in response to a captivity to Enlightenment rationalism he’s breaking open our category of normative philosophy; prescribes Deep Preaching in response to ineffective preaching he’s breaking open our category of orthodoxy vis a vis boundary establishment and defense; prescribes Deep Evangelism in response to an overemphasis on belief before belonging he’s breaking open our category of orthodoxy vis a vis inclusivism and boundary negotiation; prescribes Deep Worship in response to uncontextualized worship he’s breaking open our category of orthopathy; prescribes Deep Gospel in response to a narrow view of salvation he’s breaking open our category of orthopraxy in relationship to orthodoxy; prescribes Deep Ecclesiology in response to weak ecclesiology he’s breaking open our category of orthocommunio vis a vis church as institution and tradition; prescribes Deep Culture in response to tribalism he’s breaking open our category of orthocommunio vis a vis church as organism, in the world, transcending boundaries to permeate and improve the temporal order by being tribal not tribalistic (cf. Rohr).

Pentecostal Studies Paper: What Pentecostals Have to Learn from Emergents http://ow.ly/16KREU johnssylvest: THE BOOK: An Emerging Church Conversation with a Postmodern Conservative Catholic Pentecostal http://bit.ly/91D570 #fb John Sobert Sylvest

The emerging church conversation is lyrical in a sense as a pattern presents that reveals a fugue-like interplay of boundary establishment, boundary defense, boundary negotiation and boundary transcendence. Does everyone come out singing the same lyrics even if we all seem to be humming the same melody? Of course not! But there’s a not too distant drumbeat that has us all marching, sometimes swiftly with little hindrance, often bumbling and stumbling, to the same beat and beckoning us into a banquet hall where the banner over us all is love. To some extent, boundary establishment is largely a discursive, descriptive enterprise where orthodoxy enjoys its moment and has its say; it describes such as our essential creeds, theological anthropology and social ontology (marriage, children, family, institutions, etc). Boundary defense is a normative enterprise where orthopraxy exerts its influence in loving and compassionate action ordered to the end of orthocommunio or authentic unity in community, where we realize our telic aim of boundary transcendence. None of these boundary dynamics enjoy any efficacy in and of themselves, however, apart from the boundary negotiation that occurs in orthopathy, where our desires, themselves, are first shaped and formed by liturgy, whether of the mall, the marketplace or Eucharist. (I cannot more highly recommend Jamie Smith’s Desiring the Kingdom, in this regard.)

Johnboy Was Here Feedjit Live Blog Stats Feedjit Live Blog Stats

Follow this blog

Liturgy, then, nurturing our nondual, contemplative stance, enjoys an epistemic primacy in the fugal movement of orthopathic, orthodoxic, orthopraxic and orthocommunal moments. This is to recognize that sacrament and song and psalmody and story-telling and gathering for bread-breaking came first in our tradition, our ecclesial phylogeny, so to speak, and that it remains first, even now, in each of our lives, our spiritual ontogeny, in other words, as ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny in religion as well as biology and every other emergent reality. A question that begs regarding this exercise is if we are primarily about finding questions, exploring methods and exchanging practices, where might the theoretical rubber hit the road in next proposing concrete ecclesial changes? Where I hope to take my questions and concerns is here: American Catholic Council The outline below is meant to be comprehensive but not exhaustive. In each category are sample strengths, weaknesses, threats and opportunities and sample resources. It is intended as a catalyst for constructive conversation and a guideline for dialogue, a conceptual bridge-builder or heuristic device. It is expected that you will engage this outline, perhaps even suggesting an entirely different paradigm, certainly adding different strengths, weaknesses, threats, opportunities and resources, raising new questions and concerns, breaking open new categories. I’m a retired Bank CEO so thought, immediately, that this resembles strategic planning. A spiritual director might look and see a prayer ladder of lectio, meditatio, operatio, contemplatio. A social media consultant might see a P2P platform or a viral meme. A conflict resolution mediator might see (Greg, what DO you see?) … What, then, do YOU see? So, Catholics and nonCatholics, alike, please join us at Cathlimergent!

What’s Up? wussup? or WOTS up?: the Emerging Church Conversation as Strategic Planning Exercise (Risk Management) EXTERNAL OPPORTUNITIES & THREATS Axiological Visions as amplification of risks (through beliefs) ordered toward augmentation of value thru: DESCRIPTIVE SCIENCE (a cosmological methodology) asking What’s that? Threats: Scientism Opportunities: Technological Advance Dualistic, problem-solving approach Resources: The Cosmic Adventure: Science, Religion and the Quest for Purpose by John F. Haught

Visit Cathlimergent Conversations Visit Anglimergent

Meta Log in Entries R S S Comments R S S WordPress.org

Institute on Religion in an Age of Science Metanexus Zygon Center for Religion and Science EVALUATIVE CULTURE (an axiological methodology) asking What’s that to us? Threats: Practical Nihilism Consumerism Narcissism Opportunities: Story-telling Music & Dramatic Arts Resources: Inter Mirifica, Decree On the Means of Social Communication, 1963. Gaudium et Spes, Pastoral Constitution On the Church In the Modern World,1965. Ad Gentes, Decree On the Mission Activity of the Church, 1965. NORMATIVE PHILOSOPHY (a cosmological methodology) asking How do we acquire or avoid that? Threats: Enlightenment Rationalism – naïve realism Radically Deconstructive Postmodernism Opportunities: Critical Realisms thru weak foundationalism and nonfoundational (fallibilism) & postfoundational epistemologies Semiotic Realism Resources: Donald L. Gelpi, S.J. Centre of Theology and Philosophy INTERPRETIVE RELIGION & IDEOLOGY (an axiological methodology) asking How does all of this re-ligate or tie-back together? Threats: Religious Fundamentalism Enlightenment Fundamentalism Colonialism Paternalism Opportunities: Ecumenism Inter-religious & Inter-ideological Dialogue Resources: Dialogue Institute Ecumene David Group International Francis X. Clooney, S.J. Innerexplorations Dignitatis Humanae, Declaration On Religious Freedom, 1965. Monastic Interreligious Dialogue INTERNAL STRENGTHS & WEAKNESSES Religion as a further amplification of risk ordered toward the further augmentation of value thru: ORTHODOXY & TRUTH ARTICULATED IN CREED (DOGMA) or boundary establishment Weaknesses: Dogmatism Ecclesiocentric Exclusivism Strengths: Pneumatocentric Vision Christocentric Inclusivism Theocentric Inclusivism Honest Jesus Scholarship (cf. Rohr) Resources: Dei Verbum, Dogmatic Constitution On Divine Revelation, 1965. Fides et Ratio Gravissimum Educationis, Declaration On Christian Education, 1965. Unitatis Redintegratio, Decree on Ecumenism, 1964. Orientalium Ecclesiarum, Decree On the Catholic Churches of the Eastern Rite,1964. Nostra Aetate, Declaration On the Relation Of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, 1965. ORTHOPATHY & BEAUTY CELEBRATED & CULTIVATED (CULT / RITUAL) IN LITURGY or boundary negotiation

Weaknesses: Ritualism Dualistic Approach Traditionalism Strengths: Retrieval, Renewal, Revival of Tradition Contemplative Stance Nonduality Resources: Center for Action and Contemplation Fors Clavigera (Jamie Smith) Brother David Steindl-Rast Christian Nonduality Cynthia Bourgeault Contemplative Outreach Worship Blog The Website of Unknowing Shalomplace Sacrosanctum concilium, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, 1963. ORTHOPRAXY & GOODNESS PRESERVED IN CODE (LAW) or boundary defense Weaknesses: Legalism Strengths: Social Justice Resources: Religion Online â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Social Issues Sojourners Center for Action and Contemplation ORTHOCOMMUNIO & UNITY ENJOYED IN FELLOWSHIP or boundary transcendence Weaknesses: Institutionalism, Heirarchicalism,Patriarchalism, Sexism Strengths: Magisterial Reform Democratization Organic Growth Noninstitutional Vehicles Resources: Lumen Gentium, Dogmatic Constitution On the Church, 1964. Christus Dominus, Decree Concerning the Pastoral Office of Bishops In the Church, 1965. Perfectae Caritatis, Decree On Renewal of Religious Life, 1965. Optatam Totius, Decree On Priestly Training, 1965. Presbyterorum Ordinis, Decree On the Ministry and Life of Priests, 1965. Apostolicam Actuositatem, Decree On the Apostolate of the Laity, 1965. GENERAL RESOURCES Brian D. McLaren Commonweal Emergent Village Emerging Women Per Caritatem Phyllis Tickle Post Christian Radical Emergence Transmillenial Zoecarnate Anglimergent Boulder Integral Catholica Emerging Church Portal (international) Phyllis Tickle Taming the Wolf

Thomas Merton Center Virtual Chapel

Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Send

Tags: a x i o l o g i c a l l y-i n t e g r a l, belief before belonging, best practices, boundary defense, b o u n d a r y e s t a b l i s h m e n t, b o u n d a r y n e g o t i a t i o n, b o u n d a r y t r a n s c e n d e n c e, C a t h l i m e r g e n t, c o n t e m p l a t i v e s t a n c e, Deep Church, descriptive science, Desiring the Kingdom, e m e r g i n g c h u r c h c o n v e r s a t i o n, E n l i g h t e n m e n t r a t i o n a l i s m, e v a l u a t i v e c u l t u r e, g r a n d n a r r a t i v e, h u m a n v a l u e-realization, interpretive religion, James K . A . S m i t h, Jim Belcher, l i t u r g y, methodologically autonomous, n o n d u a l, n o r m a t i v e p h i l o s o p h y, o n t o g e n y r e c a p i t u l a t e s p h y l o g e n y, social ontology, S t r a t e g i c P l a n, Theological Anthropology, t r i b a l i s m

“Introverts In The Church: Finding Our Place In An Extroverted Culture” by Adam McHugh JB on December 3, 2009 in Uncategorized | 2 Comments » Adam McHugh’s “Introverts In The Church: Finding Our Place In An Extroverted Culture” has just been released. A few months ago, Jamie ArpinRicci interviewed Adam McHugh (<<< click on link to read this interview). This brings to mind a post I wrote seven years ago along the same lines. Enjoy! Jesus was a Capricorn, but was He an ESFJ? an Enneagram 2? There are some religious sects that have been turning out ESFJ’s based on research conducted utilizing MBTI personality testing. Critics of such groups and movements charge that leaders of these sects are 1) making members over after their own image, 2) controlling them in such a way that their personalities are changed to conform to the group norm and 3) argue that such personality changes are destructive psychologically and spiritually. Leaders of these groups claim that such research simply proves that Jesus was an ESFJ ! These are the ideas explored in __The Discipling Dilemma__ the Second Edition by Flavil R. Yeakley, Jr., Editor, Howard W. Norton, Don E. Vinzant and Gene Vinzant, which can be read online at the above link. They write:

quote:

“In some religious sects, it is a fact that the observed changes presented a clear pattern of convergence in a single type: ESFJ. There was a strong tendency for introverts to become extraverts, for intuitors to become sensors, for thinkers to become feelers, and for perceivers to become judgers. The observed results indicate a dangerous falsification of type produced by some kind of group pressure.”

What do you think? The discussion continues with a poem, here>>> Read the rest of this entry »

Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Send

Cathlimergent – its origins JB on December 3, 2009 in Uncategorized | No Comments » Below is an e-mail response to an inquiry about my writing an article to explain what Cathlimergent is and how it came about.

The emerging church conversation is an ecumenical meta-dialogue. While our different denominations all have their propositional elements, which are not unimportant, such a dialogue goes beyond the propositional to those aspects of religious experience that are more robustly relational and participatory. Our focus, then, is less on what to think and see and more on how to think and see. We search, then, less for the right answers and more for the right questions. What we take away from our exchanges are new and different practices, not so much new and different conclusions. In many ways, what we converse about are methods and, from these conversations, what we take away are best practices; we then discern for ourselves what their implications might be for our otherwise disparate systems. Our conversation radically “roots” its orthodoxy in Jesus, orthopathy in contemplation, orthopraxy in social justice & orthocommunio in authentic community. Cathlimergent is only 9 days old today! The most astonishing reality that has emerged with the network’s launch is the geographic diversity of the site visitors. See this in real-time: http://live.feedjit.com/live/cathlimergent.ning.com/ I quit counting the number of different countries represented, but one can look at the Visitors’ Map in the right column toward the bottom of the page: http://cathlimergent.ning.com/ I agree that an introductory article would be of interest to the wider emergent community, in part because Catholics remain quite the curiosity to so many. In such an article, one would need to address the historical-theoretical-theological context of the emerging church conversation, in general, and then demonstrate how the Catholic participants are situated in that context, in particular. A separate issue would be from the social-practical angle regarding what’s been happening on the ground with Catholics and their emerging church conversation partners. Regarding the first matter, the context, if one understands how the Anglicans are situated, then a conversation regarding how the Roman Catholics fit in would be something of a redundancy, especially to those of us who maintain that we are one in essentials or core elements or first order realities and differ only in accidentals or peripheral elements or second order realities. In other words, when it comes to creed, sacrament, incarnational outlook and liturgy, for example, we’re one. When it comes to certain moral doctrines, church disciplines and church polity, we differ. Other than that, as Andrew Jones points out, there are many things the emerging church movement inherited from the Catholics: Tall Skinny Kiwi: 3 Things the Emerging Church Took From the Catholics . Regarding the second matter, the most visible concrete social reality has been the recent collaboration between Fr. Richard Rohr of the Center for Action & Contemplation in New Mexico and other leaders like Brian McLaren & Phyllis Tickle. Less visible, but still very real, are the individual Catholics like myself who’ve been cybersquatting and inter-loping on the virtual real estate of the Protestant leaders of the emerging church conversation, variously lurking or actively contributing to their conversations in discussion forums, networking sites, Twitter, Facebook and so on. Also, there are a few of us Catholics who have been blogging as individuals, perhaps most notably, Carl McColman and Alan Creech, both whom personify, in my estimation, what it means to be a Catholic in this emerging church conversation. Bryan Froehle is another high profile Catholic participant, whom I met through Brian McLaren. In my case, which may be typical for most bloggers and tweeters (Twitter), Mike Morrell (a spiritual networking cyberforce extraordinaire) tapped Tim King’s cybershoulders, which led to me “meeting” Kevin Beck, Brian McLaren, Tony Jones, Steve Knight, Doug Pagitt and very notably, both TransFORM (a missional community formation network) and Anglimergent, which are also on the ning network and from whom I got the idea for Cathlimergent. Cathlimergent had only 8 Google hits a week ago (abstract references) but now has 800 or so (de novo virtual reality!). And why? Well, because everyone of my sisters and brothers aforementioned either implicitly endorsed the Cathlimergent network launch by joining and/or by explicitly mentioning and soliciting members for the network via their blogs, Twitter or Facebook. In other words, they made a proactive and selfless effort to help me gather in my emergent coreligionists from the vast regions of our great cyberdiaspora, with never a concern about poaching or territoriality or cannibalizing their own bases (alas, there’s a lesson there, too, n’est pas?). Here, I need to especially thank the Reverend Bosco Peters of @Liturgy, who is the Oprah Winfrey of Twitter & Facebook, tens of thousands of followers but interacting with each of us like BFFs (best friend forever, for those without access to urban dictionaries)! A few short months ago, when my annual domain subscription came around, I had resolved to surrender my domain name for http://christiannonduality.com/ . Instead, I even started to blog and decided to keep my cyberhomestead intact, mostly because Tim King, whom I did not know from Adam’s cat, was gracious and kind enough to e-mail me and say that he was so happy to find me, so appreciated my writing and research and encouraged me to persist because he thought it was a valuable contribution to inter-religious dialogue. (Object lesson: encouragement matters. It’s a primary mode of the Spirit.) And I’m here at Cathlimergent because Brian McLaren, about 10 days ago, encouraged me and said to stay in touch regarding ways to reach out to “Catholic folk.” The next day it dawned on me. No need to reinvent the wheel! Just look at what’s being done by my sisters and brothers at Agmergent (Assemblies of God), Anglimergent (Anglicans), Anglicans Fresh Expressions (Anglicans & Methodists in UK), Baptimergent (Baptist), Convergent Friends (Quakers), Emerging Church (Emerging Church Europe & UK), EmergeUMC (Methodist), Emerging Penetcostal, Emergent Village (ecumenical, USA), Luthermergent (Lutheran), Presbymergent (Presbyterian), Resonate (Canada. ecumenical) and The Common Root (Mennonite). More than anything else or anyone else, from the standpoint of religious formation, I’m here because of the ministry of my brother in the faith, Richard Rohr, whose books and other media, over recent decades, have continued to inspire me to go on making friends and exchanging stories, which is what Cathlimergent is all about, the greatest story of all being the One, Whose life we’re getting ready to celebrate: Jesus. If nothing else, this missive is a shout-out of gratitude to all of my sisters and brothers, especially those mentioned above (some whom I’ve omitted only due to neglect on my part), who are mentoring me and companioning with me on life’s journey. In some sense, this journey, itself, has been my destination; this quest for Jesus has, itself, been my grail.

So, I wrote this all as a prelude to protesting that I am not the one to write such an article and that it may be too early to do so. On the other hand, I may have provided a Letter to the Editor of some interest, which tells folks: Stay tuned!

Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Send

Tags: A l a n C r e e c h, Andrew Jones, A n g l i m e r g e n t, best practices, Brian McLaren, Bryan Froehle, C a r l M c C o l m a n, C a t h l i m e r g e n t, Center for Action & Contemplation, Doug Pagitt, Fr. Richard Rohr, K e v i n Beck, Mike Morrell, n i n g n e t w o r k, Phyllis Tickle, S t e v e K n i g h t, T i m K i n g, Tony Jones, TransFORM

Theology & Anthropology – body, soul, spirit? JB on December 3, 2009 in Uncategorized | No Comments » Consider this quote by Marc Cortez in EMBODIED SOULS, ENSOULED BODIES — AN EXERCISE IN CHRISTOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE MIND/BODY DEBATE:

quote:

The thesis thus comprises two major sections. The first develops an understanding of Karl Barth’s theological anthropology focusing on three major facets: (1) the centrality of Jesus Christ for any real understanding of human persons; (2) the resources that such a christologically determined view of human nature has for engaging in interdisciplinary discourse; and (3) the ontological implications of this approach for understanding the mind/body relationship. The second part of the study then draws on this theological foundation to consider the implications that understanding human nature christologically has for analyzing and assessing several prominent ways of explaining the mind/body relationship. This study, then, is an exercise in understanding the nature of a christocentric anthropology and its implications for understanding human ontology.

This doesn’t deny that science and metaphysics and philosophy are autonomous and even narrower foci of human concern that get appropriated by theology as a broader focus of human concern, but it does illustrate how theology can inform some of our axiomatic commitments or presuppositions for these other foci, such as, for example, requiring moral and metaphysical realism, epistemological realism, fundamental human dignity and so on.

Cortez closes with:

quote:

In this study, we have not attempted to resolve this theoretical conundrum. In fact, the approach developed in the course of this study suggests that theologians should resist the temptation to wed Christian theology to any particular theory of human ontology.

This is echoed by Alfredo Dinis, who is the Dean, Associate Professor, and Lecturer of Logic, Philosophy of Science and Cognitive Science, Faculty of Philosophy of Braga, Catholic University of Portugal, in this paper , which is entitled Body, Soul and God: Philosophy, Theology and the Cognitive Sciences. Dinis writes:

quote:

The concept of a soul is not theological but rather philosophical. As a consequence, one may leave it out of the theological discourse. Concepts like ‘mind,’ ‘soul,’ ‘self,’ and ‘consciousness’ are not specifically theological concepts. They are rather philosophical concepts. Theology has over the centuries used such concepts to express some religious beliefs, but such beliefs do not have a necessary connection with those concepts and certainly not with the metaphysical meaning they have in some philosophical traditions. Today, however, it is the sciences, especially the cognitive sciences, that wish to clarify such concepts.

In this task, they are most of the time against religious beliefs because such beliefs seem to be necessarily connected with those concepts. I want to argue that this is a mistake, and that most authors in the cognitive sciences are basing their analysis on misleading presuppositions. But it is also true that a new theology needs a new anthropology, one that is less dependent on the traditional metaphysics of Thomas Aquinas and more in line with a relational paradigm.

And in the spirit of those two papers cited above, I commend the following work of Nancey Murphy to all: THEOLOGY IN A POSTMODERN AGE: which included three lectures: 1) BEYOND MODERN LIBERALISM AND FUNDAMENTALISM; 2) BEYOND MODERN DUALISM AND REDUCTIONISM; and 3) BEYOND MODERN INWARDNESS.

A more concise summary can be found here and also here at Counterbalance, entitled Neuroscience & the Person and Neuroscience, Religious Experience and the Self, respectively. Finally, here are some interview transcripts of Nancey Murphy’s The Conscious Mind. Alfredo Dinis amplifies this:

quote:

The metaphysical mind-body dualism is now being systematically challenged by a growing number of Christian philosophers and theologians (Murphy 1998, Brown 1998, Clayton 1999, Gregersen 2000). Nancy Murphy, for example, argues philosophically in favour of a non-reductive physicalism, which she describes as “the view that the human nervous system, operating in concert with the rest of the body in its environment, is the seat of consciousness (and also of human spiritual and religious capacities).” (1998, 131) These Christian philosophers and theologians believe that we do not need either the concept of a metaphysical self or that of a metaphysical soul. A relational self seems more adequate to understand the nature of human beings than a metaphysical self. Indeed, every traditional metaphysical category appears increasingly to be inadequate and in need to be abandoned in our search for knowledge. A relational view of the person, and indeed of God, needs no immortal soul to assure immortality. Instead, immortality is a relational situation. Human relationships constitute the individuals as persons. For those who believe in God, it is God’s foundational relation with the whole creation that makes human immortality possible.

Now, let me say that the metaphysics of the human person remain an open question, especially vis a vis philosophy of mind issues and the hard problem of consciousness. And let me reassert that, on matters metaphysical, I am agnostic. I incline, however, to the more nondual approaches to the human person. And to the human person’s relationship to God as being only quasiautonomous. My panentheism is indifferent to metaphsyics, for the most part, and very much indifferent to whether or not any subjective aspect of human personhood is immortal.

Now, as to any teachings, dogmas or creedal elements, those are distinctly theological, necessarily vague, and certainly open to interpretation and rearticulation, metaphysically and philosophically. They certainly do not presuppose aristotelian or thomistic metaphysics, in general, or the soul, in particular. The “descent into hell” was possibly understood by the early church as an emphasis on Jesus’ death and the resurrection of the body is foundational for the doctrine of the Communion of Saints, the church militant, penitent and triumphant. For those in the church penitent (a state) and the church triumphant (heaven), we needn’t conceive of them as disembodied. With Kung, we can argue against the idea of a separated soul between particular judgment and the general resurrection as understood in either a platonic or aristotelian-thomist way, recognizing that, in Kung’s words, “man dies a whole, with body and soul, as a psychosomatic unity … into that eternity of the divine Now which, for those who have died, makes irrelevant the temporal distance of this world between personal death and the last judgement.” While theology certainly does have implications for our metaphysical and philosophical presuppositions, our authors above affirm, one will note that all of the above-listed authors consider other anthropological approaches, other than the distinctly dualistic conception, to be live options for the inquiring theological anthropologists. A reader wrote:

quote:

Some of these teachings are dogmas, one is even in the Creed — all long before the rediscovery of Aristotle and the teachings of Thomas Aquinas, Scholasticism, etc.

and, in fact, many of the earliest Christian writers of both the 1st and 2nd centuries, and even later Athanasius, did not believe in human immortality. It came later with hellenization.

Nancey Murphy summarizes:

quote:

Both Judaism and Christianity apparently began with a concept of human nature that comes closer to contemporary nonreductive physicalism than to Platonic dualism. But, both made accommodations to a prevailing dualistic philosophy, and combined a doctrine of the immortality of the soul with a doctrine of the resurrection of the body. The pressing question now, concerns whether to return to those earlier nonreductive physicalist accounts of human nature, as many Christian theologians have urged throughout this century.

As for any persistence of the soul after death, while Kung, in Eternal Life, finds a two-fold view of human nature unscientific and any life based thereon untenable, he allows for resurrection, as does John Hick, right after death. Kung has tried to rehabilitate the concept of purgatory, which is less problematical conceived as a state not a place (thanks JPII for clearing that up).

Alfredo Dinis also wrote:

quote:

From this externalist point of view, it is possible to think about immortality within a non-dualistic framework – within a relational and dialogical framework. In his book Introduction to Christianity Joseph Ratzinger, the actual Pope, has put forward a relational view of the soul: “ ‘having a spiritual soul’ means precisely being willed, known, and loved by God in a special way; it means being a creature called by God to an eternal dialogue and therefore for its own part capable of knowing God and of replying to him. What we call in substantialist language ‘having a soul’ we will describe in a more historical, actual language as ‘being God’s partner in a dialogue’.“ (2004, 355)

A dialogical concept of the human soul has for Ratzinger an immediate consequence: an equally dialogical concept of immortality: “man’s immortality is based on his dialogic relationship with and reliance upon God, whose love alone bestows eternity” (2004, 355). A dialogical concept of immortality needs no body-soul scheme, no natural-supernatural dualism. Thus, according to Ratzinger, “it is also perfectly possible to develop the idea [of immortality] out of the bodysoul schema” (2004, 355), and so “it becomes evident once again at this point that in the last analysis one cannot make a neat distinction between ‘natural’ and ‘supernatural’,” (2004, 355-6), since it is the dialogue of love between God and the human beings, and among the human beings themselves, that is truly the essence of every religious experience.

It is precisely Occam, who applied his razor to any philosophical demonstration of the immortality of the soul. Scotus, too, saw such arguments as inconclusive. Proper scriptural exegesis doesn’t allow proof-texting either on this metaphysical issue. While it remains, in my view, an open question, parsimony doesn’t needlessly multiply ontological layers for explanations that have ever increasing probabilities based on empirically falsifiable and verifiable observations regarding those faculties of the human brain once explained by those of the soul. With Peirce, I’m all for the mattering of mind and the minding of matter. Against Kung, however, I’m not ready to toss out psychic phenomena and other paranormal evidence. It is too early to draw such conclusions. Neither, however, do I want to foreclose on physicalist and/or naturalist accounts of the soul.

I think we have a situation where revelation and theology can certainly help us with an account that elevates human nature and dignity via a Christocentric anthropology. But I also believe that theology has overstepped its bounds if it leaves anyone with the impression that the metaphysics of philosophy of mind are loaded with inescapable philosophical presuppositions. This conversation continues at this link >>> Read the rest of this entry »

Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Send

Tags: Alfredo Dinis, Chesterton, emergentist perspective, First Principles, god-of-t h e-g a p s, H a l d a n e, H a n s K u n g, h e u r i s t i c, h u m a n s o u l, implicate order, John Hick, K a r l B a r t h, Marc Cortez, m a t e r i a l i s m, m e t a p h y s i c s, m o r a l r e a l i s m, N a n c e y M u r p h y, negotiated concepts, Nietzsche, n i h i l i s m, philosophy of m i n d, radical deconstructionism, reductio ad absurdum, r e l a t i v i s m, root metaphor, scientism, semiotic, semiotic realism, semiotic science, solipsism, s p e c u l a t i v e m e t a p h y s i c s, theoretic, theoretical physics, u n c e r t a i n r e a l i t y, W i t t g e n s t e i n

K994RATW26YU Administrator on December 1, 2009 in Uncategorized | No Comments » K994RATW26YU oh come on

Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Send

K994RATW26YU Administrator on December 1, 2009 in Uncategorized | No Comments » K994RATW26YU

Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Send

The Manhattan Declaration – yes & no JB on December 1, 2009 in the evaluative - Culture, the interpretive - Religion, the normative - Philosophy | 2 Comments » The dignity of the human person, the sanctity of human life, legal justice & the common good, and the primacy of our responsibility to protect the weak & vulnerable are the core values being addressed in the Manhattan Declaration. The document makes an appeal – not only to religious foundations, but – to the nature of the human person, the light of human reason, the historical institutions of human society and vast human experience. The declaration, in my view, presents an honest portrayal of how the Christian conscience has influenced civilization with a tone and tenor that is both irenic and self-critical (not triumphalistic). This appeal is philosophically rigorous and psychologically holistic in that it honors the integral nature of our empirical, rational, practical, prudential, relational and religious approaches to all human value-realizations. The language is authentically dialogical. This document represents a legitimate entrance of religious voices into the public square. And these voices, because of the manner in which they have spoken (at least, in this instance) deserve respect, deference and earnest engagement. I don’t think anyone could seriously disagree that our world is badly ailing from the evil that flows from the disregard of human dignity and human life.

public discourse.

I do think that people of large intelligence and profound goodwill can honestly disagree on a number of things declared in that document. People might disagree about various specific moral realities, about what is indeed right or wrong, good or evil, and why. People might more broadly or narrowly conceive the concepts employed in the document. People might disagree about specific diagnoses of societal problems and/or about the prescriptions devised to cure those ills. People might disagree about specific sociological facts and practical solutions, including administrative (executive), legislative and judicial remedies. It is for these types of reasons that I would not wholly endorse the Manhattan Declaration. It is for all the reasons I listed further above, though, that I welcome its introduction into our

This discussion continues at this link: Read the rest of this entry »

Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Send

Tags: common good, dignity of the human person, Manhattan Declaration, sanctity of human life

It’s a small, small world – global dialogue JB on November 28, 2009 in Uncategorized, the interpretive - Religion | No Comments »

A few days ago, I launched a social networking site called Cathlimergent for Catholics and others who are participating in the Emerging Church Conversation. At midnight last night, I installed a widget to keep track of where our visitors are coming from. When people join Cathlimergent, it’s easy enough to know where they live but I also wanted to get some sense of who might be listening in on our conversation. Below are the flags of the countries and the names of the places from those first few hours. I thought I would freeze-frame these hours for posterity because my first impression was how so very small our world has become. My next impression was that I was literally watching the sun rise and set around the globe. (Place your cursor over each flag to see that country’s initials.)

If you are interested, you can click HERE and watch visitors come and go in real-time. One object lesson is that we need to behave in cyberspace. Another is that we should not too narrowly define participation in terms of active content contributors but should realize that the listening audience, however quiet or lurking, can be much larger than we might otherwise imagine and is an integral part of our global dialogue.

Here’s how the sun came up on Cathlimergent on one of the very first days of its presence in cyberspace: Madurai, Tamil Nadu (India) Tehran, Esfahan (Iran) Philippine, Benguet

Chongqing (China) Palembang (Indonesia) Antipolo, Rizal (Phillipines) Bombay, Maharashtra (India) Singapore Palembang (Indonesia) Calcutta, West Bengal (India) Johor Bahru, Johor (Malaysia) Hilo, Hawaii Middlewich, Cheshire (United Kingdom) Islamabad (Pakistan) Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Malaya, Donets’ka Oblast’ (Ukraine) Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan (Malaysia) Algeria Okinawa (Japan) Killara, Victoria (Australia) Warri, Rivers (Nigeria) San Juan, Batangas (Phillipines) Bombay, Maharashtra (India) Fernando De La Mora, Central (Paraguay) My Tho, Tien Giang (Viet Nam) West Babylon, New York Bacoor, Cavite (Phillipines) Bangkok, Krung Thep (Thailand) Beijing (China) Central District (Hong Kong S.A.R., China) Pune, Maharashtra (India) Ephrata, Pennsylvania San Antonio, Texas Versailles, Kentucky Oak Park, California Toronto, Ontario Warsaw, Warszawa (Poland)

Others in the Emerging Church Conversation Agmergent (Assemblies of God). Anglimergent (Anglicans) Anglicans Fresh Expressions (Anglicans & Methodists in UK) Baptimergent (Baptist) Convergent Friends (Quakers) Emerging Church (Emerging Church Europe & UK) Emerging Penetcostal EmergeUMC (Methodist) Emergent Village (ecumenical, USA) Luthermergent (Lutheran) Presbymergent (Presbyterian)

Resonate (Canada. ecumenical) The Common Root (Mennonite) Update: In addition to visitors from many of the countries listed-above, last night, many others from around the world visited Cathlimergent:

Rome, Lazio (Italy) Nairobi, Nairobi (Kenya) Bogot, Cundinamarca (Colombia) Kathmandu (Nepal) Radauti, Suceava (Romania) Cairo, Al Qahirah (Egypt) Prague, Hlavni Mesto Praha (Czech Republic) Seoul, Seoul-t’ukpyolsi (South Korea) Abidjan, Lagunes (Ivory Coast) Doha, Ad Dawhah (Qatar) Maracaibo, Zulia (Venezuela)

Send article as PDF to

Enter email address

Send

Tags: A g m e r g e n t, Anglicans Fresh Expressions, A n g l i m e r g e n t, B a p t i m e r g e n t, C a t h l i m e r g e n t, Convergent Friends, E m e r g e n t V i l l a g e, EmergeUMC, e m e r g i n g c h u r c h, global dialogue, L u t h e r m e r g e n t, P r e s b y m e r g e n t, S u b m e r g e n t

In Search of the Emerging Church? – look on the margins JB on November 26, 2009 in Practices & Experiences, Uncategorized, the interpretive Religion | No Comments » Tom Roberts is editor at large for the National Catholic Reporter. To get a better feel for parish life today, he has been on the road visiting Catholics along the way. Watch NCRonline.org for updates. He recently turned in his 19th installment. http://ncronline.org/blogs/in-search-of-the-emerging-church From reading Tom’s series, a reality that has been impressed upon me is how well so many are doing and being church. And the way they live and move and have their being emulates the aspirations our leaders have articulated in our emerging church conversations. Many of these people will never blog, never tweet and never use Facebook or friend as a verb, but they competently (even if unconsciously) integrate contemplative lives with social justice in an honest relationship to Jesus finding, sometimes founding, authentic community. And there you have it: Emergence with a capital “E”!

Of course, we recognize and affirm a diversity of ministry in our unity of mission. When I was in Louisiana’s nonpartisan think tank on poverty, I sought out the Fourth World Movement, which was working with the radically poor in New Orleans (a precious little French missionary family, at that; in other words, foreign missionaries in America!). I learned that what the desperately poor want, sometimes more than a crumb of bread or a sip of water, even, was a place at any table of dialogue where there destinies were being worked out. (And I sigh and think of the lines that were drawn on Middle Eastern maps by departing colonial powers.) Another thing that was impressed upon me was that they wanted to tell their stories and to have their stories passed along, such that they might matter as persons to somebody. My eyes were opened by one quote relayed to me by one of the 4th World missionaries. A desperately poor person crying: “I don’t want to be an icon of your fucking Christ!” That made me a post-patriarchal, post-colonial, post-paternalistic, post-hierarchical, postinstitutionalistic, post-whatever faster, smoother and more efficaciously than all of my immersion in abstract postmodern philosophy and theology. We objectify people when we make them a salve for our hurting consciences or a badge of honor for our heroic strivings. And we learn this from Merton, that we all have crises of creativity and continuity, the first corresponding to our need to feel like we make a difference to someone, the latter, all the forms of death we encounter, literally and metaphorically. And in this regard, I realized how poverty-stricken so many in America’s board rooms, war rooms, classrooms, living rooms and even bedrooms are, how utterly miserable are so many of the people we all rub elbows with daily. And I resolved to minister to what I came to call The 5th World, in other words, this litany of rooms, which all too often has so much less joy than we can find in either the 4th or 3rd world. And this is no naive romanticization of poverty. I know, now, in my heart of hearts, that the preferential option for the poor is the Gospel because it is Good News for all, for at some time or another, sooner or later, it is going to be consolation for every last one of us.

This is reproduced from my post at Cathlimergent Conversation: Catholics in the Emerging Church Conversation. Please, join us there!

Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Send

Tags: e m e r g i n g c h u r c h, Fourth World Movement, Merton, National Catholic Reporter, preferential option for the poor, Tom Roberts

« Older Entries

Newer Entries »

CHRISTIANNONDUALITY. C O M

BL O G

beyond thinking & proposing to imagining & participating Home About

Catholics in the Emerging Church Conversation

T o d a y’ s L i t u r g y

JB on November 24, 2009 in Practices & Experiences, Uncategorized, the interpretive Religion | No Comments » Translator

http://cathlimergent.ning.com/ Radically “rooting” orthodoxy in Jesus, orthopathy in contemplation, orthopraxy in social justice & orthocommunio in authentic community Follow Cathlimergence on Twitter http://twitter.com/Cathlimergent

By N2H

Amos Yong apophatic Axiological axiologicallyintegral

Bernard Lonergan Brian McLaren Charles Sanders Peirce contemplative cosmology emergence emerging church Enlightenment

epistemology faith False Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Send

Self fideism Hans Kung James K. A. Smith Jesus Creed John Duns Scotus kataphatic Kevin

Beck Kurt Godel Merton

metaphysics Mike Morrell Natural

Theology nihilism

nondual nonduality

orthodoxy radical emergence radical orthodoxy rationalism Tags: C a t h l i m e r g e n t, c o n t e m p l a t i o n, e m e r g i n g c h u r c h, e m e r g i n g c h u r c h c o n v e r s a t i o n, o r t h o c o m m u n i o, o r t h o d o x y, o r t h o p a t h y, o r t h o p r a x y, social justice

Richard Rohr Science

scientism semiotic theodicy Theological Anthropology

Vatican declares new Saint for New Orleans JB on November 23, 2009 in Uncategorized | No Comments »

True Self Walker Percy W P-C u m u l u s b y R o y T a n c k a n d Luke Morton requires F l a s h P l a y e r 9 or better.

In the Catholic Church (both the Latin Rite and Eastern Rites) the act of canonization is reserved to the Holy See and occurs at the conclusion of a long process requiring extensive proof that the person proposed for canonization lived in such an exemplary and holy way that he or she is worthy to be recognized as a Saint.

Cultivating the Roots, Nurturing the Shoots MARCH 2010

The Church’s official recognition of sanctity implies that the persons are now in heavenly glory, that they may be publicly invoked and mentioned officially in the liturgy of the Church, most especially in the Litany of the Saints (Ricky Jackson, Morton Anderson, Archie Manning, Dalton Hilliard, Hokie Gajan, Pat Swilling and so on). Beatification is a statement by the church that it is “worthy of belief” that the person is in heaven. To be canonized a saint, one (or more) miracle is necessary. The Pope can place these processes on a fast track as he’s apparently done in this New Orleans case. First declared the Venerable Drew after leading the Saints to their first NFC Title Game ever, the Blessed Drew was declared after he led the Saints to their first 9-0 record in franchise history. He was declared Saint Drew when the 10-0 season start was declared a miracle. Can there be any serious doubt that this man is now in heavenly glory? It is most certainly worthy of belief. Assuredly, the faithful will continue to petition this man for more miracles.

Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Thomas Merton Tim King transformation

Send

1 8 15 22 29

2 9 16 23 30 « FEB

3 10 17 24 31

4 11 18 25

5 12 19 26

6 13 20 27

7 14 21 28

Recent Posts The Emerging Church is BIGGER t h a n C h r i s t i a n i t y – how to spot it in other traditions Abortion & the Senate Healthcare Bill – a p r u d e n t i a l judgment 10 historical developments propelling Emerging Christianity ~ Richard Rohr Why Brian McLaren’s GrecoRoman Narrative is NOT a caricature THE BOOK: Christian N o n d u a l i t y – Postmodern Conservative Catholic Pentecostal

The Folk Mass Revolution JB on November 23, 2009 in Uncategorized | No Comments » You either hated it (see The Fire Is Out by Jeffrey Tucker) or you loved it (see Susan Bailey’s review), but the Folk Mass Revolution is an integral part of every Roman Catholic Baby Boomer’s formation and heritage. I’m not going to review the book, here, other than to agree with Susan Bailey:

McLaren’s Greco-R o m a n Narrative is NOT a caricature on A New Kind of Christianity? McLaren didn’t make this up. It’s worse than that! christiannonduality.com Blog » Blog Archive » W h y B r i a n McLaren’s Greco-R o m a n Narrative is NOT a caricature on E v e r y t h i n g T h a t’s Old is New A g a i n – this (McLaren’s “ N e w” Christianity) is truly an old time religion K i e r a n C o n r o y on A New Kind of Christianity? McLaren didn’t make this up. It’s worse than that! Philip Clayton on Thoughts re: t o d a y’s debate – Philip Clayton vs Dan Dennett

Type, Hit Enter to Search

I had expected a wonderful, nostalgic read but Keep the Fire Burning proved to be so much more. Ken Canedo lay the ground work for what was to become the folk mass by reviewing the history of reform (and how it affected music) in the Roman liturgy. Canedo takes this history and weaves it through the lives of people who were the movers and shakers in the reform movement, some of whom eventually became key players in the folk mass revolution. So, let it be resolved that this book is much more than a walk down memory lane. I devoured it in one, rather long, sitting. It took me extra time to read because, as the names of the different composers, artists and songs came up, I could not resist singing the songs to myself. I could not keep reading without constantly putting the book down and pausing to reflect on the places and the faces – not just of the singing artists, but – of the storyline of my young life in the Spirit. ♫♪ We are one in the Spirit. We are one in the Lord. ♪♬ (See what I mean!) Let me just share with you a copy of the book cover, which I optimized to fit this blog space. Below that, I will list a sampling of some of the artists and songs which are not only discussed in the book but made available via podcasts at Ken Canedo’s website. That’ll be enough to set the hook for friends, family and acquaintances who walked right to that Glory Land with me!

We Distinguish in Order to Unite Select Category

Blogroll Andrew Sullivan Beyond Blue Brian D. McLaren Commonweal Crunchy Con Cynthia Bourgeault Emergent Village Emerging Women First Thoughts Fors Clavigera Francis X. Clooney, S.J. Joseph S. O'Leary NCR Today – the Catholic Blog Per Caritatem Phyllis Tickle Post Christian Postmodern Conservative Radical Emergence Sojourners Tall Skinny Kiwi The Website of Unknowing Transmillenial Vox Nova Weekly Standard Blog Worship Blog Zoecarnate

Worthwhile Sites Amos Yong Boulder Integral Brother David Steindl-Rast Center for Action and Contemplation Christian Nonduality Contemplative Outreach David Group International Dialogue Institute Ecumene Franciscan Archive Innerexplorations Institute on Religion in an Age of Science Metanexus Monastic Interreligious Dialogue National Catholic Reporter Radical Orthodoxy Shalomplace Sojourners Thomas Merton Center Virtual Chapel Zygon Center for Religion and Science

Cloud of Unknowing

Amos Yong apophatic Axiological axiologicallyintegral

Bernard Lonergan Brian McLaren Charles Sanders Peirce contemplative

cosmology emergence emerging church

E n l i g h t e n m e n t epistemology

faith False Self fideism Hans Kung James K. A. Smith Jesus Creed John Duns Scotus kataphatic

Kevin Beck Kurt Godel Merton “The Witness Song” composed by Robert Blue, performed by the Dameans on their 1969 FEL recording Tell the World “Here We Are,” “Of My Hands,” “Hear, O Lord,” “And I Will Follow,” “Clap Your Hands,” “Hear, O Lord,” “Come Away,” and “Shout from the Highest Mountain,” by Ray Repp from the 1966 FEL recording, Mass for Young Americans “The Spirit Is a-Movin’” by Carey Landry from the 1973 NALR recording, Hi, God

metaphysics Mike Morrell Natural Theology nihilism nondual

nonduality orthodoxy radical emergence radical orthodoxy rationalism Richard Rohr Science scientism semiotic theodicy Theological Anthropology

“The New Creation” by Gary Ault from the 1970 FEL recording, Songs of the New Creation by the Dameans “Sons of God” by James Theim, OSB from the 1966 FEL recording, Mass for Young Americans “Allelu” by Ray Repp from the 1968 FEL recording, Sing Praise! “They’ll Know We Are Christians by Our Love” by Peter Scholtes from the 1966 FEL recording, Missa Bossa Nova “All of My Life,” “You Are My People,” “Fear Not,” “Jerusalem,” and “Love One Another” by Sister Germaine Habjan from the 1966 FEL recording, Songs of Salvation

Thomas Merton Tim King transformation True Self Walker Percy

Join Other Visitors in Prayer Light A Candle & Pray

Join Us in the Liturgy of the Hours

“Take My Hands,” “Sing, People of God, Sing,” “The Living God,” “We Are One,” and “The Blessed Sacrament” by Sebastian Temple from the 1967 Franciscan Communications recording, Sing! People of God, Sing! “Make Me a Channel of Your Peace (Prayer of St. Francis)” by Sebastian Temple from the 1967 Franciscan Communications recording, Happy the Man “Let All the Earth” by Gary Ault from the 1969 FEL recording, Tell the World by the Dameans

Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Send

Get the C a t h l i m e r g e n t o n Twitter widget and many other great free widgets a t Widgetbox! Not seeing a widget? (More info)

Tweets

Ode to Mothers Who’ve Lost Children JB on November 22, 2009 in Uncategorized | 1 Comment » Long ago, in pain, I wrote an Ode to Mothers Who Had Lost Their Boys. It expresses truths that satisfy no questions in our heads but that respond, instead, to broken hearts. We realize through time that our hearts have broken, not in two, but open. And we recognize that we never get over such enormous pain and immense loss, only through it. Together. Mary: Our road began with the Word of God,

Where a witness, Elizabeth’s son, In a town in the hills of Judah, Spoke of Jesus, the Chosen One. Elizabeth: Little boys we carried in our wombs Knew one another, even there ! And were destined, both, for early tombs, Any mother’s worst nightmare. Mary: My son was killed by Pilate, With indignity and disgrace. Elizabeth: My John was brutally murdered, Beheaded at Herod’s place. Narrator: I asked of Mary: “What of Pilate ?”

Johnboy Was Here

Feedjit Live Blog Stats Feedjit Live Blog Stats

“What of Herod ?” of Elizabeth. “Of the people who rejected them Even in Nazareth ?”

Follow this blog

They both were silent, for a while Then each, in their own turn, Spoke openly and lovingly Of the lessons they had learned. Mary: Like my Joseph, through King David’s line, Did my baby, Jesus, come A Savior given unto us Each and every one. Elizabeth: Yes, adulterers and murderers Like Herod (King David, too) Were the reason that Our Lord was born Mary: And also me and you. Elizabeth: No it’s not for us to understand. Visit Cathlimergent Conversations

It’s not for us to see:

Visit Anglimergent

What of David ? Pilate ? Herod ?

Recent Posts

Love is present in any desire … in all feelings of attraction, in all caring and connectedness. It embraces us in precious moments of immediate presence. It is also present when we experience loneliness, loss, grief and rejection. We may say such feelings come from the absence of love, but in fact they are signs of our loving; they express how much we care. We grieve according to how much of ourselves we have already given; we yearn according to how much we would give, if only we could (3).

rather than neurotically.

So, our choices play out in terms of whether our responses will be existential, which is to say life-giving and relationship-enhancing, or neurotic, which is to say life-detracting and relationship-destroying. And these are the choices whether we experience guilt, anger, lust, greed, envy, jealousy, pride or any other passion, whether somewhat bridled or not. We sit in the front row of a crowded theater and, on the big screen, a train is lurching toward us, picking up speed, getting ever larger and ever louder. Our sympathetic nervous system kicks in, adrenaline is released, our liver glycogen converts to glucose, our muscles tense and our heart starts pumping furiously as we enter fight or flight mode. To run out of the theater would be neurotic. On the other hand, should we be strolling down the railroad tracks, leisurely tossing stones into the adjacent stream, and a train rushes toward us, to jump off of the tracks into the stream would be existential. So, with Gerald May, let us value our feelings as they give us information about both our external environment and internal milieu. And let us enjoy the ways we squirm, cringe, and avoid life and relationships, existentially

Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Send

Tags: existential, feelings, G e r a l d M a y, n e u r o t i c, Reflecting on Awareness, Richard Rohr, S t r a t e g y & t h e soft work of noticing

Why Brian McLaren’s GrecoRoman Narrative is NOT a caricature THE BOOK: Christian N o n d u a l i t y – Postmodern Conservative Catholic Pentecostal

Type, Hit Enter to Search

we are liturgical animals, Homo liturgicus

We Distinguish in Order to Unite

JB on November 17, 2009 in Practices & Experiences, the interpretive - Religion | 2 Comments »

Recent Posts

Krauthammer equates Fox with factions, interests & parties JB on October 23, 2009 in Uncategorized | 1 Comment » Charles Krauthammer notes today that “The White House has declared war on Fox News. White House communications director Anita Dunn said that Fox is opinion journalism masquerading as news.” He then goes on, in his usual eloquence, to frame his objection vis a vis Madisonian norms: “Madison argued that the safety of a great republic, its defense against tyranny, requires the contest between factions or interests. His insight was to understand the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties. They would help guarantee liberty by checking and balancing and restraining each other — and an otherwise imperious government. Factions should compete, but also recognize the legitimacy of other factions and, indeed, their necessity for a vigorous self-regulating democracy. Seeking to deliberately undermine, delegitimize and destroy is not Madisonian. It is Nixonian.” Krauthammer, himself, thus characterizes Fox in terms of factions, interests and parties.

Yes, Charles, that’s the point. That’s the main objection. Where’s the rub?

Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Send

the Anglican provision – comprehensive list of links

JB on October 22, 2009 in Uncategorized | No Comments » Type, Hit Enter to Search

We Distinguish in Order to Unite Select Category

Recent Posts

Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Send

Recent Comments

Tags: Carl Rogers, h e a l i n g, Kevin Beck, K e v i n C u l l i g a n, l i s t e n i n g, L i t a n y o f H u m i l i t y, Nickel Creek, presence, St. Teresa of Avila

Praying Our True Self JB on October 16, 2009 in Practices & Experiences | No Comments » [The next paragraph is my embellishment of something I heard Fr. Rohr saying.] So, we pray in that manner that best silences the false self, quieting it and its faculties, however discursive or nondiscursive, and this manner may be for some the rosary, for others the Eucharist, for others walking meditation or this or that practice coupled with this or that discipline. And we thus pray in a manner that most fully engages the True Self, allowing it to commune with God in utter simplicity and most holistically and integratively — as quietly as a sewing machine but as powerfully as a cement truck. Being quiet and simple and powerful results from being holistic, single-minded and wholehearted – praying the True Self. Being noisy and complex and inefficacious results from being disintegrated, monkey-minded and divided in one’s affections – praying the false self. It is not so much what temperament or which faculties we bring to prayer or not but, rather, which s/Self. Discussion continues at length: >>> Read the rest of this entry »

Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Type, Hit Enter to Search

We Distinguish in Order to Unite Select Category

Send

Tags: a p o p h a t i c, C e n t e r i n g P r a y e r, c o n t e m p l a t i o n, e n e r g y u p h e a v a l s, E n l i g h t e n m e n t, False Self, Jacques M a r i t a i n, k a t a p h a t i c, K u n d a l i n i, n a t u r a l m y s t i c i s m, Richard Rohr, T h o m a s K e a t i n g, TM, True Self, Z e n

Theological Anthropologies – optimism & pessimism JB on October 16, 2009 in Practices & Experiences, the interpretive - Religion, the normative - Philosophy | No Comments » One thing of immediate interest to me is Pope Benedict’s augustinian rather than thomistic perspective, which has large implications for our theological anthropologies. To keep it simple, I would just say that Pope Benedict’s perspective on human nature is more pessimistic than JPII’s. One major issue such a perspective will address, for example, is what human nature is capable of without the benefit of Divine revelation. Another issue would be to ask just how depraved we are vs how good we are (on a continuum, of course), before grace builds on nature, which is to ask, perhaps, what type of foundation does human nature afford the Spirit as each soul begins its journey of transformation? Pope Benedict, in relying so much on Augustine, will be very aware of the very best that Luther had to offer by way of critique and is in a very authoritative position, theologically, to advance ecumenical dialogue with Protestantism. This would make for a great papal legacy and great strides have already been made, for example, regarding the joint accord between Catholics and Lutherans on the doctrine of justification. [Much credit is due Hans Kung, too, whose role has, regrettably, been largely unacknowledged.] This discussion continues at this link: Read the rest of this entry »

Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Send

Tags: A q u i n a s, A u g u s t i n e, A u g u s t i n i a n i s m, Bernard Lonergan, Donald Gelpi, False Self, H a n s K u n g, K a r l R a h n e r, L u t h e r, Pope Benedict, Pope John Paul II, Pope John XXIII, T h o m i s m, t r a n s f o r m a t i o n, True Self

Blogroll Andrew Sullivan Beyond Blue Brian D. McLaren Commonweal Crunchy Con Cynthia Bourgeault Emergent Village Emerging Women First Thoughts Fors Clavigera Francis X. Clooney, S.J. Joseph S. O'Leary NCR Today – the Catholic Blog Per Caritatem Phyllis Tickle Post Christian Postmodern Conservative Radical Emergence Sojourners Tall Skinny Kiwi The Website of Unknowing Transmillenial Vox Nova Weekly Standard Blog Worship Blog Zoecarnate

Cloud of Unknowing

Merton- New Seeds of Contemplation JB on October 16, 2009 in Practices & Experiences, the interpretive - Religion | No Comments » One of the richest reflections on this I have ever come across is in Merton’s __New Seeds of Contemplation__, especially in the preface and first three chapters, which reflect on what contemplation is and is not and what the true self and false self are.

Bernard Lonergan Brian McLaren Charles Sanders Peirce contemplative cosmology emergence emerging church

E n l i g h t e n m e n t epistemology

The most concise summary I could come up with would be that,

faith False Self fideism Hans Kung James K. A. Smith Jesus Creed John Duns Scotus kataphatic

1) for our true self, our joy is found in God’s glory; 2) our will is oriented to God’s love; 3) the work of our journey is to co-create with God our identity through and with and in God; 4) that we may become wholly in His image, holy in His image;

Kevin Beck Kurt Godel Merton

metaphysics Mike Morrell Natural Theology nihilism nondual

5) when we do have our memory, understanding and will integrated and holistically operative, we experience our true self but 6) this co-creation of our identity and this surrender of our memory, understanding and will to faith, hope and love are effected through theological virtue gifted by the Spirit by an elevation of nature through grace and transmutation of experience through grace and not by a perfection of the natural order by our natural efforts, which is to say 7) we are in need of salvation to overcome both death and sin and the most fundamental vocational call we answer is 8 ) to be saved and then

nonduality orthodoxy radical emergence radical orthodoxy rationalism

Richard Rohr Science scientism semiotic theodicy Theological Anthropology

Thomas Merton Tim King transformation True Self Walker Percy

Join Other Visitors in Prayer

9) transformed. In other words, we don’t enter the monastery or undertake a life of prayer to make us better human beings — rather, we urgently and in crisis and seriously and radically place the utter dependency and abject poverty of our selves (which are nevertheless good) at God’s disposal in order to be dramatically

rescued.

Teresa of Avila did say that we must desire and occupy ourselves in prayer not so much so as to receive consolations but so as to gain the strength to serve. Still, a careful reading and parsing will note that she didn’t negate or eliminate our desire for consolations but only added to them. I like the simple distinction between eros or what’s in it for me? and agape or what’s in it for God & others? Agape, however, does not extinguish or negate eros, but, rather, transvalues it and recontextualizes it. Thus we do not let go of what’s in it for me? even as we strive to transcend it with agapic love. This discussion continues at this link: Read the rest of this entry »

Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Amos Yong apophatic Axiological axiologicallyintegral

Send

Light A Candle & Pray

Join Us in the Liturgy of the Hours

Get the C a t h l i m e r g e n t o n Twitter widget and many other great free widgets a t Widgetbox! Not seeing a widget? (More info)

Tweets johnssylvest: Abortion & the Senate Healthcare Bill – a prudential judgment http://bit.ly/aS2DwT johnssylvest: 10 developments propelling Emerging Christianity ~ Richard Rohr http://bit.ly/a4AMtg johnssylvest: RT @pdclayton7: "Theology After Google" opens Wed. - 23 of the best speakers on emerging religion in Google Age; live stream at http://o ... johnssylvest: RT @jonestony: New Blog Post: Society for Pentecostal Studies Paper: What Pentecostals Have to Learn from Emergents http://ow.ly/16KREU johnssylvest: THE BOOK: An Emerging Church Conversation with a Postmodern Conservative Catholic Pentecostal http://bit.ly/91D570 #fb John Sobert Sylvest

Tags: c o n t e m p l a t i o n, Merton, St. Bernard, Teresa of Avila

Merton – the False Self (properly understood) JB on October 16, 2009 in Practices & Experiences, the interpretive - Religion | No Comments » Below is a sidebar conversation I was having with someone else re: the Rohr-Keating retreat, where the subject of the true-false self terminology came up. I thought I’d tack it on here: It turns me off in this sense. It is bad terminology. Unfortunate use of words. But we work with them because of their heritage in our tradition.

Johnboy Was Here Feedjit Live Blog Stats

Why unfortunate? Because of what you said: False self is not bad.

Feedjit Live Blog Stats

I prefer to use: early on our journey and later on our journey thus and such happens. [This is not to deny that many unduly put off the journey to such things as transformation and even adulthood.] The early stages of formation and transformation are good. So are the later. And nothing that takes place on our early journey is abandoned.

Follow this blog

The false self represents our socialization, moving from little animals to humans. It represents our humanization. And our humanization and divinization are inextricably intertwined, not really distinguishable really. The more fully human we become, the more we reflect the Divine Image, the imago Dei. So, we don’t abandon the false self. Not at all. Rather, we take full possession of it in order to surrender it to crucifixion. [And one cannot surrender what one does not form and possess.] We give it up in order to be radically saved (from sin and death); it is no mere pious gesture. Thus the seed falls to the ground and dies … Thus every other metaphor for the Paschal Mystery … This is my False Self. I give it up for you. This discussion continues at this link: Read the rest of this entry »

Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Send

Visit Cathlimergent Conversations Visit Anglimergent

Meta Tags: False Self, Merton, t r a n s f o r m a t i o n, True Self

Merton – move into crisis to lose crisis JB on October 16, 2009 in Practices & Experiences, the interpretive - Religion | No Comments » Another Mertonesque thought: We are moving toward an existential realization of how critical to our spiritual survival prayer really is. This realization is attained when we feel our need for prayer as acutely as we would feel the need for a breath when underwater. That is my crude rendering from memory. I think this has something to say to us all whether we are called to discursive mediation, lectio, meditatio, oratio, contemplatio, operatio or what have ya. Whatever our prayer gift as led by the Spirit, it is to be engaged with the sense of critical and acute and urgent need that affirms our radical dependence and perennial state of existential crisis. Now, don’t get Merton wrong. This is all dialectical. One moves into crisis to lose crisis. One loses self to gain self. First, there is a mountain. Then, there is no mountain. Then, there is. One recognzies one’s radical dependency to move to place of radical trust. One experiences one’s emptiness and abject poverty to realize one’s utter fullness. One moves into paradox and pain and contradiction to realize that, whatdaya know, all is well. This discussion continues at length at this link: Read the rest of this entry »

Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Send

Tags: C.S. Lewis, False Self, Hasidic Mystics, Leonard Cohen, Merton, St. Bernard, Sufi Mystics, t r a n s f o r m a t i o n, True Self, V i k t o r F r a n k l

Merton – on the risk of stagnation, desolation, aridity JB on October 16, 2009 in Practices & Experiences, the interpretive - Religion | No Comments » Love, eminently reasonable, needs no reason, inasmuch as it is sufficient unto itself. Happiness, finally, cannot be pursued but must ensue. So, too, with good feelings. They aren’t needed but will often ensue, which is to say, follow, love. Merton noted that often, when we are in pain and conflict and contradiction, we incorrectly associate same with old wounds, with old injuries that truly have been resolved and healed already. During such times, Merton encourages us to consider the very real possibility that we are, rather, being invited to open ourselves to a new level of being through such pain and conflict and contradiction. In other words, if we are not properly attentive, then we run the risk of stagnation, desolation and aridity, sometimes for months or years, dwelling on the wrong integrative and transformative issues, missing the invitation to move to another level, a level that could be attained in a day even. This discussion continues at this link: Read the rest of this entry »

Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Send

Tags: a r i d i t y, desolation, Merton

Merton – It was Him! He done it! JB on October 16, 2009 in Practices & Experiences, the interpretive - Religion | No Comments » Another distinction from Merton. Merton discusses two of the types of confessio, of confession, but I don’t recall the latin terms for both. One was laude or praise. The other was re: the more familiar “It was me. I done it.” that we know from the Rite of Reconciliation and from police shakedowns, or parental busts re: hands in cookie jars. This distinction makes for rich reflection and meditation but I’ll try to control my imagination and focus on the transformative process. The confession of praise is the converse: “It was God. He done it.” The psalms are about 50:50 penitential supplication taking the form of “I done it” and of praise taking the form of adoration of “He done it.” The discussion continues at this link: Read the rest of this entry »

Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Send

Tags: confessio, J a m e s T a y l o r, Louis Evely, Merton, St. Bernard

Merton – insoluble problems? JB on October 16, 2009 in Practices & Experiences, the interpretive - Religion | No Comments » Merton has touched upon a dynamic, when he speaks of existential crisis, which is very much related to the Cross for Christians although it happens with all people, even in science. The dynamic, more specifically, involves our confrontation with a problem. We initially perceive the problem as soluble and we work mightily to solve it. It matters not whether it is a philosophical conundrum or some scientific hypothesis or some existential crisis/spiritual emergency. We exhaust all of our resources and then arrive at the point where we pretty much conclude that this particular issue is insoluble. At this point, we resolve to leave it alone, give it a rest, to forget about it altogether. So, we do. Then, when you least expect it, whether in a dream or while playing or working or chopping wood and carrying water, the solution comes to us in a flash, totally gratuitously and unmerited as pure grace, so to speak. Now, this dynamic is very natural and involves the workings of the human mind at a subconscious level, intuitions bubbling up to the surface, to be sure, not unaided by the Holy Spirit.

Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Send

Tags: Merton

Natural Mysticism & Enlightenment JB on October 16, 2009 in Practices & Experiences, the interpretive - Religion | No Comments » To the extent that natural mysticism and enlightenment seem to gift humans with what I think are authentic insights and intuitions about cosmotheandric unity and human solidarity and Divine immanence, then I truly believe they foster human authenticity in the fullest lonerganian sense. They contribute, in my view, to Lonergan’s secular conversions: intellectually, affectively, morally and socially. So it is with anything that truly humanizes a human being: good diet, good hygiene, good discipline, good awareness, good asceticism, good habits, etc Even the construction of the false self, the social persona, is part of the humanization process of this animal, Homo sapiens. So, this drives at the question of whether or not humanization and divinization are the same thing, perhaps. And I think we can answer in the affirmative.

However, complete humanization, into the Imago Dei, seems to require the Lonerganian religious conversion, too, and seems to require Helminiak’s theotic focus or realm of concern. Humanization and divinization go hand in hand but the process can be frustrated before one undergoes religious conversion and before one’s realm of concern opens up beyond the positivistic, philosophic and theistic into the theotic. So, I think, yes, there is something dynamically ordered about Zen and TM and natural mysticism, that moves one toward humanization and authenticity and which can improve on human nature in such a way that grace can build on a better foundation. That is what the Holy Spirit does n’est pas? Grace builds on nature. So, anything that helps us more fully realize our humanity and authentic human nature can help dispose us to gifts of the Spirit, among which is infused contemplation. [Especially since enlightenment seems to gift one with docility, openness, quietness, stillness, solitude, solidarity, compassion, good asceticisms and habits that transmute into true virtue, all related to the life of love and prayer that help properly dispose others to infused contemplation etc?] The Spirit, however, as with anyone who progresses in the prayer life on through advanced stages of meditation to the simplest forms of active prayer, remains sovereignly in control, in my view, of contemplative grace. Further, it does seem that one must have habitually nurtured kataphatic devotion and loving intentionality in a fully relational approach, in addition to any apophatic experience of nonduality or void, if one is to then expand their focus of concern to include the theotic, if one is to have their secular conversions transvalued by a distinctly religious conversion, which is clearly explicit and kataphatic, devotional and intentional and relational. In other words, for example, ditching one’s mythic-membership consciousness (credally) is NOT the way to go, for that is a negation of a stage and not rather a transvaluation.

Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Send

Tags: Bernard Lonergan, d i v i n i z a t i o n, E n l i g h t e n m e n t, h u m a n i z a t i o n, n a t u r a l m y s t i c i s m, theosis

« Older Entries

Newer Entries »

CHRISTIANNONDUALITY. C O M

BL O G

beyond thinking & proposing to imagining & participating Home About

Thomas Merton – contemplative prayer

T o d a y’ s L i t u r g y

JB on October 16, 2009 in Practices & Experiences, the interpretive - Religion | No Comments » “there must be a renewal of communion between the traditional, contemplative disciplines and those of science, between the poet and the physicist, the priest and the depth psychologist, the monk and the politician.” Merton

Translator

While Merton affirms that our symbols can bring us into closer contact with reality, he cautions against identifying them with reality. In a sense, he was saying, with Ralph Waldo Emerson : “Heartily know, When half-gods go, The gods arrive.”. By N2H

“What is this (contemplative prayer) in relation to action? Simply this. He (and she) who attempts to act and do things for others or for the world without this deepening of his own self-understanding, freedom, integrity, and capacity to love, will not have anything to give others. He will communicate to them nothing but the contagion of his own obsessions, his aggressiveness, his egocentered ambitions, his delusions about ends and means, his doctrinaire prejudices and ideas.” Thomas Merton,” The Climate of Monastic Prayer”

Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Send

Amos Yong apophatic Axiological axiologicallyintegral

Bernard Lonergan Brian McLaren Charles Sanders Peirce contemplative cosmology emergence emerging church Enlightenment

epistemology faith False

Self fideism Hans Kung James K. A. Smith Jesus Creed John Duns Scotus kataphatic Kevin

Beck Kurt Godel Merton T a g s : c o n t e m p l a t i v e p r a y e r, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Thomas Merton

metaphysics Mike Morrell Natural

Theology nihilism

nondual nonduality

Catholic Bishops’ Advice on Afghanistan JB on October 16, 2009 in the normative - Philosophy | No Comments » United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Committee on International Justice and Peace 3211 FOURTH STREET NE • WASHINGTON DC 20017-1194 • 202-541-3160 WEBSITE: WWW.USCCB.ORG/JPHD • FAX 202-541-3339 October 6, 2009 General James L. Jones, USMC (Ret.) National Security Advisor National Security Council Washington, DC Dear General Jones:

orthodoxy radical emergence radical orthodoxy rationalism

Richard Rohr Science

scientism semiotic theodicy Theological Anthropology

Thomas Merton Tim King transformation True Self Walker Percy W P-C u m u l u s b y R o y T a n c k a n d Luke Morton requires F l a s h P l a y e r 9 or better.

Cultivating the Roots, Nurturing the Shoots MARCH 2010 M

1 8

2 9

3 10

4 11

5 12

6 13

7 14

As the Administration reviews U.S. strategy in Afghanistan, I write on behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and its Committee on International Justice and Peace. While we are pastors and teachers and not military experts, we can share Catholic teaching and experience which may help inform various policy choices. We recognize that the situation in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan is at a critical juncture. Should these states fail, particularly with Pakistan possessing nuclear weapons, there are grave implications for regional and international security. Electoral problems and corruption have led many, including Afghans, to question the legitimacy of the Afghan government. In the face of terrorist threats, we know that our nation must respond to indiscriminate attacks against innocent civilians in ways that combine a resolve to do what is necessary, the restraint to ensure that we act justly, and the vision to focus on broader issues of poverty and injustice that are unscrupulously exploited by terrorists in gaining recruits. In a pastoral message, “Living with Faith and Hope after September 11,” we bishops offered criteria for moral discernment and a call to solidarity in response to the terrorist attacks on our nation and the subsequent military action in Afghanistan. In that statement we warned, “Probability of success is particularly difficult to measure in dealing with an amorphous, global terrorist network. Therefore, special attention must be given to developing criteria for when it is appropriate to end military action in Afghanistan.” We noted some principles to help guide U.S. actions: • Restrain use of military force and ensure that civilians are not targeted: When military force is used, it should be directed against terrorist or insurgent combatants, not at the Afghan people, and its use should be monitored. Military force must be discriminate and proportional, especially if our nation is to be perceived as acting justly and is to win popular support for the struggle against terrorism. • Address the root causes of terrorism rather than relying solely on military means to solve conflict: Military force alone cannot deal with the terrorist threat. Non-military measures must be pursued to defend the common good, protect the innocent and advance peace. These non-military actions include addressing poverty and injustice, exercising diplomacy, and engaging in dialogue with Muslims. • Encourage international collaboration to provide humanitarian assistance and rebuild Afghanistan: The United States, working with the UN and other interested parties, must deal with the long-standing humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan, especially Afghan refugees and displaced persons, and help Afghans rebuild their political, economic and cultural life. We observe that some military leaders now share the view that the success of U.S. operations in Afghanistan cannot come from military measures alone. In light of the current situation, the moral guidance of our earlier pastoral message still seems applicable. We urge the Administration to consider the following actions: • Review the use of military force–when force is necessary to protect the innocent and resist terrorism–to insure that it is proportionate and discriminate; • Develop criteria for when it is appropriate to end military action in Afghanistan; • Focus more on diplomacy, long-term development (particularly agricultural programs), and humanitarian assistance; • Strengthen local governance and participation of local groups in planning their own development; and • Encourage international support to create effective national and local governments and to foster economic development. We understand that for humanitarian assistance and development projects to be carried out in Afghanistan, security is important. But too much development assistance appears to be directed to short-term security objectives or channeled through the military. These funds, often used for building projects with little community involvement, are less-effective in building stable communities and meeting the legitimate needs of Afghan citizens. Whenever possible, U.S. policy and funding should more clearly delineate and differentiate foreign assistance provided through military channels versus civilian channels. Otherwise, integrating these strategies, capabilities and activities on the ground may undermine recovery and sustainable development in Afghanistan. Military involvement in development should be phased out as local situations stabilize and civilian agencies resume activity. Catholic Relief Services (CRS) has been working with local communities in Afghanistan on projects in agriculture, water, income generation, education and health since 1998. CRS’ ability to develop local partnerships, involving people in examining their needs and determining priorities, has meant that those communities have a greater commitment to their own development, as well as protecting CRS programs and staff. CRS’ approach exemplifies how long-term efforts can lead to sustainable development and contribute to improved security. We bishops acknowledge that our nation has moral responsibilities to combat terrorism and to help rebuild Afghanistan. Unfortunately, there are no easy answers on how best to accomplish these objectives, but we offer these reflections based upon our teaching and the experience of CRS as the Administration formulates future strategy for Afghanistan. Sincerely, Most Rev. Howard J. Hubbard Bishop of Albany Chairman, Committee on International Justice and Peace

Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Send

Tags: A f g h a n i s t a n, J u s t W a r

15 22 29

16 1 7 23 24 30 3 1 « FEB

18 25

19 26

20 27

21 28

Recent Posts The Emerging Church is BIGGER t h a n C h r i s t i a n i t y – how to spot it in other traditions Abortion & the Senate Healthcare Bill – a p r u d e n t i a l judgment 10 historical developments propelling Emerging Christianity ~ Richard Rohr Why Brian McLaren’s GrecoRoman Narrative is NOT a caricature THE BOOK: Christian N o n d u a l i t y – Postmodern Conservative Catholic Pentecostal

Type, Hit Enter to Search

We Distinguish in Order to Unite Select Category

Blogroll Andrew Sullivan Beyond Blue Brian D. McLaren Commonweal Crunchy Con Cynthia Bourgeault Emergent Village Emerging Women First Thoughts Fors Clavigera Francis X. Clooney, S.J. Joseph S. O'Leary NCR Today – the Catholic Blog Per Caritatem Phyllis Tickle Post Christian Postmodern Conservative Radical Emergence Sojourners Tall Skinny Kiwi The Website of Unknowing Transmillenial Vox Nova Weekly Standard Blog Worship Blog Zoecarnate

Worthwhile Sites

Ki, Qi, Chi, Prana & Kundalini (& Reiki) JB on October 16, 2009 in Practices & Experiences | 1 Comment » Rather than treat these so-called energies, specifically, for there is much written elsewhere, let me raise another issue from a wider perspective. Much of the thrust of the epistemological approach advocated throughout this website has been directed at the need to prescind from robustly metaphysical accounts of reality to more vaguely phenomenological perspectives, precisely to avoid saying more than we know, to refrain from telling untellable stories — or, quite simply, to avoid certain dogmatisms and gnosticisms (as well as a host of other insidious -isms or epistemic vices).

Generically, then, to assert any type of energy paradigm apart from science would involve gnosticism or superstition. In my view, it is not helpful to interpret our life experiences in such paradigms while asserting metaphysical reality to such phenomena. The wider perspective asks whether or not various Eastern techniques — practices, rituals and exercises — might not be abstracted from their classical metaphysical (or even, sometimes, robustly theological) accounts and interpreted from a more vague phenomenological perspective, especially when they are associated with certain therapeutic efficacies realized in genuine life experiences, some of these efficacies yet to be fully described scientifically regarding their precise mechanisms of action, in which case it is best left to such entities as the National Institute of Health (http://nccam.nih.gov/) to sort out. In my view, when we reappropriate such “technologies” to situate them in a Christian perspective, while they will no longer be classically metaphysical and, just perhaps, not even authentically Eastern, there should be no a priori dismissal of their efficacies, especially when legitimate research remains underway due to the global ubiquity of this or that technology; such a dismissal would, itself, be gnostic! In any case, practitioners should be more clear, in their employment of related terminology, like chakras and ki and kundalini, that these words are being employed as general concepts corresponding to real life experiences (various constellations of experiences and symptoms in association with specific practices that recur in noticable patterns that merit investigation) of millions of people that are to best be understood as vague phenomena, which are still being researched by science, and not rather as specific terms, which are heavily invested in gnostic metaphysics. Such a distinction is easy enough to make and quite valid. References to energy paradigms should not be taken literally but claims regarding these patterns of experience deserve to be taken seriously. Gosh knows, Christianity’s had its own problems with gnostic metaphysics, for example, interpreting life, gender and sexual realities in rationalistic categories little resembling, and thus not well corresponding to, the lived experiences of the faithful. Some of its teachers would do well to take their own counsel and guidelines (http://www.usccb.org/dpp/Evaluation_Guidelines_finaltext_2009-03.pdf). All of our deontologies should be as modest as our ontologies are tentative, both East and West. And, if one’s ontology is not tentative, then, one is way out in front of science, themselves.

To be more clear in the practical implications of my view: a redacted excerpt from recent (April 2009) correspondence with a friend who’s a Reiki practitioner: The way I like to approach this is to say that we can appropriate reiki, like so many other wonderful spiritual technologies of the East, as a practice, as an exercise, as a ritual. This is true of other meditative practices, yogic exercises and so on, all of which are being actively researched by the NIH-CAM precisely because of the efficacies reported by MILLIONS. Science does not have to fully understand what is going on with, for example, acupuncture, in order for it to be efficacious. Gosh knows, this is true for most psychoactive pharmaceuticals where we can only speculate about the precise mechanisms of action. So, my position is to continue to prayerfully minister and practice all of these time-honored Eastern technologies and to situate them within one’s Christian worldview while refraining from characterizing them in precise physical and/or metaphysical terms. We do not need to know HOW something works in order to discover THAT it works. It is enough to say that science does not fully understand; we do not need to offer any physical or metaphysical hypotheses along with our treatments; only our loving intentionality. When I speak of kundalini or reiki (both of which I have experienced), I consider them realities yet to be explained. I have experienced phenomena associated with certain “practices.” I don’t feel a need to label these metaphysically even as I cannot account for them scientifically. So, I actually agree with the bishops that it would be gnostic or superstitious to make definitive metaphysical assertions about the putative reality of chakras, life forces or subtle energies. I adamantly disagree and am saddened that they do not avail themselves of such distinctions as I’ve proposed, whereby we can successfully abstract spiritual technologies — useful rituals, devotionals, practices and exercises — from their classical metaphysical accounts and enjoy the many efficacies that flow therefrom, as attested by you and so many other people of large intelligence and profound goodwill and actual experience, which they ignored. Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Send

Tags: c h a k r a s, C h i, e n e r g y m e d i c i n e, gnosticism, K i, K u n d a l i n i, m e t a p h y s i c s, National Institute of H e a l t h, NIH-C A M, P r a n a, Q i, r e i k i

Maiden, Mother, Crone & Queen: archetypes & transformation JB on October 16, 2009 in Axiological, Cosmological, Practices & Experiences, the descriptive - Science, the evaluative - Culture, the interpretive - Religion, the normative - Philosophy | No Comments »

Institute on Religion in an Age of Science Metanexus Monastic Interreligious Dialogue National Catholic Reporter Radical Orthodoxy Shalomplace Sojourners Thomas Merton Center Virtual Chapel Zygon Center for Religion and Science

Cloud of Unknowing

Amos Yong apophatic Axiological axiologicallyintegral

Bernard Lonergan Brian McLaren Charles Sanders Peirce contemplative

cosmology emergence emerging church

E n l i g h t e n m e n t epistemology

faith False Self fideism Hans Kung James K. A. Smith Jesus Creed John Duns Scotus kataphatic

Kevin Beck Kurt Godel Merton

metaphysics Mike Morrell Natural Theology nihilism nondual

nonduality orthodoxy radical emergence radical orthodoxy rationalism Richard Rohr Science scientism semiotic theodicy Theological Anthropology

Thomas Merton Tim King transformation True Self Walker Percy

Join Other Visitors in Prayer Light A Candle & Pray

Join Us in the Liturgy of the Hours

Get the C a t h l i m e r g e n t o n Twitter widget and many other great free widgets a t Widgetbox! Not seeing a widget? (More info)

Tweets johnssylvest: Abortion & the Senate Healthcare Bill – a prudential judgment http://bit.ly/aS2DwT johnssylvest: 10 developments propelling Emerging Christianity ~ Richard Rohr http://bit.ly/a4AMtg johnssylvest: RT @pdclayton7: "Theology After Google" opens Wed. - 23 of the best speakers on emerging religion in Google Age; live stream at http://o ... johnssylvest: RT @jonestony: New Blog Post: Society for Pentecostal Studies Paper: What Pentecostals Have to Learn from Emergents http://ow.ly/16KREU johnssylvest: THE BOOK: An Emerging Church Conversation with a Postmodern Conservative Catholic Pentecostal http://bit.ly/91D570 #fb John Sobert Sylvest

Johnboy Was Here Feedjit Live Blog Stats Feedjit Live Blog Stats

Follow this blog

There are rather clear archetypal themes playing out in our cosmologies and axiologies, likely related to brain development and individuation processes. A cosmology engages mostly our left-brain (thinking function of the left frontal cortex & sensing function of the left posterior convexity) as the normative and descriptive aspects of value-realization alternately establish and defend boundaries; we encounter the King-Queen and Warrior-Maiden with their light and dark (shadow) attributes as expressed in the journeys of the spirit and the body, primarily through a language of ascent. An axiology engages mostly our right-brain (intuiting function of the right frontal cortex & feeling function of the right posterior convexity) as the interpretive and evaluative aspects of value-realization alternately negotiate (e.g. reconciliation of opposites, harnessing the power of paradox) and transcend boundaries; we encounter the Crone-Magician and Mother-Lover with their light and dark attributes as expressed in the journeys of the soul and the other (Thou), primarily through a language of descent.

Visit Cathlimergent Conversations Visit Anglimergent

Meta Log in Entries R S S Comments R S S WordPress.org

Our propositional cosmologies and participatory axiologies seem to best foster transformation when, beyond our passive reception of them as stories about others, we actively engage the archetypal energies of their mythic dimensions for ourselves, with a contemplation ordered toward action, and further, when, in addition to our rather selfish inclinations and puerile expectations, they also include: 1) a priestly voice that sings of the intrinsic beauty to be celebrated in seemingly repugnant realities 2) a prophetic voice that is robustly self-critical when speaking the truth 3) a kingly voice that articulates a bias for the bottom, expressing both a privileging of the marginalized and a principle of subsidiarity when preserving goodness 4) a motherly voice that, seeing and calling all as her children, draws every person into her circle of compassion and mercy with no trace of exclusion, only a vision of unity. The Judaeo-Christian Mythos thus articulates a Way of the Cross, where the Magician, Warrior, King & Lover are further initiated as Priest, Prophet, King & Mother. The virtues and vices, health and dysfunctions, light and shadow, of each archetype play out in terms of boundary negotiation, defense, establishment and transcendence, which have both authentic and counterfeit expressions. Such are the dynamics explored in spiritual direction, enneagram work, personality & adjustment psychology, individuation processes and the manifold stage theories for intellectual, affective, moral, socio-political and faith development of humans along the purgative, illuminative and unitive ways. Such are the themes, then, that run through the dynamics of addiction psychology and codependency, the false self and true self, sexual exploitation versus intimacy, socialization versus transformation, ego defense mechanisms and the persona, inordinate attachments and disordered appetites, idolatry and kenosis, as they all involve healthy and unhealthy, loving and sinful, boundary realities.

Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Send

Tags: a r c h e t y p e s, a x i o l o g y, cosmology, t r a n s f o r m a t i o n

From Mild Woman to Wild Woman (for the church, of course) JB on October 16, 2009 in Axiological, Practices & Experiences, the evaluative - Culture, the interpretive - Religion | 2 Comments »

I want to challenge, now, the notion that THE trajectory of the spiritual journey is the language of descent. This is certainly how one would view it thru the lens of a patriarchal bias, which is suggesting that, early on our journeys, MEN are quite naturally to be about the business of Kings and Warriors, busy w/boundary establishment & defense, while later on the journey, with a move from animus to anima, they are initiated as Wizards and Lovers. Men begin life as Sky & Spirit and are later brought down to Earth & Soul. Men start off in their heads and move, if they’re lucky, into their hearts. Women, for their part, begin as Earth & Soul, birthing and nurturing, quite naturally negotiating and transcending boundaries as Alchemists and Mothers, speaking the language of descent, experiencing in their bones the bottom, marginalization, the power of paradox and the mysterious strength of powerlessness. What for a man is an eventual destiny on his transformative journey, for a woman is her natural born inheritance as Gaia, who plucks the parsley, drinks the dew and hugs the oak, wondering if she could ever be the oak. Our natural tendency is to see women as if they have already arrived since their native dwelling place is the destiny of men. This is beautiful and poetic but it also seems to me to be a little wrong-headed. If Initiation is about 1) separation 2) liminal space and 3) reintegration, then women have a journey of transformation to embark on, also. It is a journey from the earth, the dew and the oak’s roots to the oak’s upward reaching branches, the rain clouds and the sky. It is a journey from the heart to the head, from descending soul to ascending spirit, from boundary negotiation & transcendence, sometimes perversely manifested as boundary-less-ness, to boundary establishment and defense. We’ve got enough Matrons and Crones but need more Warriors & Queens! (Actually, one may not be called to any of these themes, in particular, but one would want to, generally speaking, “get in touch” with these inner dynamisms, which reside in all of us.)

For example, one practical upshot of all of this is that, if you wonder why our culture is overrun with so many male alcoholics, then, it is because so many of our women are natural born codependents. Humility is not about meekness; it’s about knowing who you really are! Jesus was not all anima and no animus! Jesus threw the moneychangers out the temple and He spent most of His time questioning “authorities” and challenging the established order by establishing new boundaries for the Kingdom! It is true that His boundary defense was nonviolent but His approach was wholly subversive, submitting to no will but His Father’s and taking no cue but His Mother’s. There are nonviolent, but wholly efficacious, ways, to subvert, re-establish and defend the Kingdom of God, on Earth as it is in Heaven, especially if we are as wise as serpents (yes, women theologians) when gentle as doves. I wonder if we need to re-conceive the journey of transformation for our women? The archetypes and symbols and sacraments belong to everyone and they will usher in the realities that they bring to heart AND MIND, soul AND SPIRIT, lover AND WARRIOR. I have one daughter and my message to her is PLEASE establish and defend some boundaries. Not just your happiness but your transformation into a fully individuated person and TRUE SELF depend on it. Clearly, both the languages of ascent & descent have their place. Boundary establishment, defense, negotiation and transcendence are an integral dynamism, wherein each aspect presupposes each other aspect in an ongoing cycle of renewal and transformation for each of us as persons and for all of us as church in ecclesia semper reformada est. Hence, where we begin should determine where we end up on the spiritual journey and this applies not only to gender issues but also to personality and temperament as well (Enneagram, MyersBriggs and so on). There are general patterns but each journey is incredibly unique. Ed Murray, SM said the 8th sacrament was ignorance. While it is true that most of us are not ever going to lead a life that is optimally enlightened, fully individuated, completely transformed or utterly holy, and while it is also true that this is because we will somehow fail to cooperate with grace, we must distinguish between those failures to cooperate that result from refusal (sin) and those that come from ignorance (mistakes). Most such failures come from ignorance and from not having drunk deeply from the cup of transformative suffering or from not having enjoyed the opportunity to have been formed in the way of contemplative prayer. Most such ignorance comes from the quite obvious fact that we are simply finite. So, if others do suffer more of our unenlightened, codependent, addicted, pain-transmitting, false selves and less of our True Selves, it seems very likely it may be because we have become as holy as God desires and, if so, there is certainly no sense in beating ourselves and others up over this. I’m totally with Teresa of Avila on this: If God has so few really close friends, well, just look at the way He treats them! As the Desiderata says, beyond a wholesome discipline, be gentle with yourself. Folks who are hard on others, you can bet, are equally harsh with themselves and this ain’t nothing but a false self run amok with pride. Easy does it … ______________________________________________ Afterward: As one might imagine, many of these musings come from the concrete situations of my own daily life, such as Veronica and I discuss on our daily walk. Today, she asked me what “women’s work” would look like as compared to the men’s work & initiation rites made familiar to us by Richard Rohr. I told her that I wasn’t really sure about the answers to the questions I was raising but was still at the stage of figuring out if my questions were even right. As all know, we teach best what we need to learn the most. I responded to Veronica, though, that if Rohr’s workshop was called (and I dunno, just guessing) “Wild Man to Wise Man,” then I would call women’s work “Mild Woman to Wild Woman.” Well, she reflexively recoiled from that but then we broke open the meaning of the word “wild” as more broadly conceived with all of its positive connotations. So, we went on to identify certain tasks: 1) finding one’s voice and using it 2) actively demanding & “taking” one’s place at the table of dialogue in any arena where one’s destiny is being worked out 3) empowerment thru exercising power directly & not just indirectly 4) cultivating an interest in ideas and not just in persons & events 5) making choices & accepting consequences. So, the theme was an outward directing of energy rather than an inner repression & suppression, but in a constructive & reconstructive manner not destructive. Before reconstructive work can begin we must do our painful d e-constructive work, for we cannot solve a problem using the same consciousness that created the problem (Rohr quoting Einstein). We discussed distractions in prayer (when meditative, not contemplative) and I told Veronica that I use a stream. Across the stream is a grotto with a cross and I keep refixing my heart on that image letting each distraction float downstream. Some distractions are cares placed by the Spirit in our hearts but even those are candles I light and let float down the stream w/no concern of whether they are blown out by a breeze and w/every confidence that, if they are meant to burn, the forest fire of the Spirit will reignite it in due time at the proper place. More than anything else, though, whenever we get too attached to outcomes, we can be sure that we are AT WORK on our own agenda and not, rather, AT PLAY in the fields of the Lord. To the extent we feel resistance to lowering our expectations, I counsel folks to hold fast their higher expectations re: their deepest aspirations but to be willing to DEFER seeing them fulfilled, for, what no eye has seen nor ear heard, such are the things prepared for us. In the mean time, life is an admixture of joy and suffering as we live in a Cosmic Boot Camp where we are learning how to love (Scott Peck).

Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Send

Tags: a r c h e t y p e s, women's spirituality

Montmarte, Colorado Springs & the Kingdom JB on October 15, 2009 in Axiological, Practices & Experiences, the evaluative - Culture, the interpretive - Religion | No Comments » Some redacted conversations (my contributions only):

I f w e w a n t p e o p l e t o l a u g h , w e d o n’ t o r d e r t h e m t o l a u g h , w e t e l l t h e m a j o k e . L a u g h i n g’ s m o r e so a participatory reality & much less so p r o p o s i t i o n a l . I t’ s t h e s a m e w / t e a c h i n g r e l i g i o n , w h e r e m o r e i s c a u g h t t h a n t a u g h t . S o l i d a r i t y… is not a reality we need to pursue or establish; i t’ s o n e w e n e e d t o r e c o g n i z e . W h e n w e a w a k e n to our solidarity, compassion, like laughter, will ensue. What awakened you? Even when we draw such distinctions as between the propositional & participatory, the descriptive/normative & the interpretive/evaluative, the cosmological & axiological, the cognitive & affective AND even if we rightly recognize that one aspect enjoys a certain PRIMACY, being more foundational or fundamental, we do NOT want to introduce a false dichotomy, which suggests that any one aspect is AUTONOMOUS from the others b/c, instead, they are integrally-related. There has been some tendency 1) in evangelical & Arminian traditions to overemphasize the evidential (evidence that demands a verdict) 2) in reformed & Calvinist traditions – the presuppositional (belief as philosophically basic) 3) in fideist, Lutheran & neoevangelical traditions – the existential (faith as experience) and 4) in Catholic, both Roman & Anglican, the rational (logical argument). In all of these traditions, a more holistic approach is EMERGING. All that said, once we recognize the primacy of the social imaginary (hometown know-how) over doctrinal propositions (map-reading), as an anthropological datum, it then behooves us to come to grips w/the fact that the para-liturgical realities & liminoid experiences of mall & marketplace & stadiums, where the wrong values are often caught, will not be re-formed thru propositional-instructional teaching or catechesis, alone, but must also (even primarily) be gifted thru participatory liturgy & liminal experiences. That’s why I intentionally employed the qualifiers “more so” and “less so” in order to convey the “necessary but not sufficient” dynamic; we do not want to claim that any given aspect is “enough.” This is, in large measure, what a nondual approach is all about. There ARE some either/or realities, just not as many as some would imagine. What you describe sounds like what my tradition calls mystagogia, whereby symbols effect what they signify, bring into reality precisely what they bring to body, soul & spirit via a pedagogy of right desire. The liturgical celebration engages our social imaginary thru which we understand our world as we sing and pray and dance and engage our rituals & practices. From this understanding, via noncognitive dispositions (values & desires) acquired thru participation, there FOLLOWS an attempt at theoretical articulation of cognitive beliefs in propositional doctrine. Doctrine should not be superimposed (added as the dominant feature) such that liturgy expresses it; it is quite the other way around! In the same way that hymns, psalms, doxologies, letters & worship practices (breaking of the bread) preceded the NT canon, as well as articulated doctrines & a Xtn worldview, ecclesiologically (via a vis the church), worship precedes & births & forms an individual’s beliefs & worldview as practices precede ideas. Transformation is a full body-blow and DOES include theological abstractions or scientia, eventually, but, first and foremost, we are Homo sapiens, so sapienta, or wisdom or practical knowledge, is how we encounter life’s deepest mysteries and engage our most ultimate concerns. Orthopathically, thru Worship, and orthopraxically, thru Walk, we became an orthocommunio, a We, and expressed it all orthodoxically, thru Word. And so one could suggest that the Kingdom looks more like Montmarte than Colorado Springs! from Jamie Smith’s Desiring the Kingdom

Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Send

Tags: A n g l i c a n, A r m i n i a n, C a l v i n i s t, C a t h o l i c, Desiring the Kingdom, e v a n g e l i c a l, James K. A. Smith, L u t h e r a n, N e o e v a n g e l i c a l, Reformed

Get “Naked Now” JB on October 15, 2009 in Practices & Experiences, Uncategorized, the interpretive - Religion | No Comments »

Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Send

Tags: c o n t e m p l a t i v e, m y s t i c s, n o n d u a l i t y, Richard Rohr, The Naked Now

Desiring the Kingdom JB on October 15, 2009 in the evaluative - Culture, the interpretive - Religion | 3 Comments » If human value-pursuits have both cosmological and axiological aspects, and a cosmology includes both descriptive (scientific, positivist) and normative (philosophic) approaches, then what’s involved in our axiological pursuits, which are interpretive and evaluative? If a cosmology articulates knowledge, an axiological vision of the whole conveys understanding via an interpretation, which articulates what Charles Taylor calls a social imaginary, which he describes as much like hometown know-how, this contrasted with scientific and philosophic knowledge, which are more like map-reading. The social imaginary engages us through stories, narratives, myths and icons. Arguably, the great traditions and many native religions, in one way or another, articulate a pneumatological social imaginary, all invoking some image of spirit. Evaluatively, these pneumatological social imaginaries address profound human aspirations, hopes, desires; the value pursued is love.

Often, our axiological visions of the whole, AVOWs, lose touch with their spirit-filled roots and lose sight of their spirit-animated vision and we then pursue inordinate desires (Ignatius) with disordered appetites (John of the Cross). Often, these AVOWs operate subconsciously, but operate they will – for every human value-pursuit derives from the integral relating of our cosmologies and axiologies as the normative mediates between the descriptive and the interpretive to effect the evaluative, for better or for worse. This is the basic epistemological architectonic which I’ve employed as a heuristic when evaluating human value-pursuits. It has served as a foil and has provided a critique, integrating all of the best insights I have been able to absorb from my favorite pastor-theologians, Richard Rohr and Amos Yong, and contemplative sojourners, Thomas Merton and Thomas Keating. Much of what Christian Nonduality has been about is exploring, cross-culturally and interreligiously, the role of contemplation, a nondual stance, 3rd Eye seeing and such on the transformative journey. More needs to be said about basic religious formation and how it fits into this architectonic, theoretically. Even more needs to be said about the practicalities of religious formation. I’m very pleased to report that all of this has already been said and it has been said so very well by Jamie Smith.

Desiring the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview, and Cultural Formation (Cultural Liturgies) (Paperback) by James K. A. Smith is the most stimulating and enriching book I’ve read this year (and Rohr’s latest is pre-ordered). It resonates beautifully with my own axiological vision of the whole. It affirms the primacy of our affective, desiring, loving self without asserting its autonomy from our cognitive, propositional, thinking (and even believing) self. It recognizes that an axiological vision of the whole operates, even if subconsciously and implicitly, in the quasi-liturgies of mall and marketplace and urges a conscious-competence on us all in our rituals, practices and liturgies. Others say this much better: From Amazon: Desiring

the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview, and Cultural Formation (Cultural Liturgies) (Paperback) Malls, stadiums, and universities are actually liturgical structures that influence and shape our thoughts and affections. Humans–as Augustine noted–are “desiring agents,” full of longings and passions; in brief, we are what we love. James K. A. Smith focuses on the themes of liturgy and desire in Desiring the Kingdom, the first book in what will be a threevolume set on the theology of culture. He redirects our yearnings to focus on the greatest good: God. Ultimately, Smith seeks to re-vision education through the process and practice of worship. Students of philosophy, theology, worldview, and culture will welcome Desiring the Kingdom, as will those involved in ministry and other interested readers. From the Back Cover A Philosophical Theology of Culture Philosopher James K. A. Smith reshapes the very project of Christian education in Desiring the Kingdom. The first of three volumes that will ultimately provide a comprehensive theology of culture, Desiring the Kingdom focuses education around the themes of liturgy, formation, and desire. Smith’s ultimate purpose is to re-vision Christian education as a formative process that redirects our desire toward God’s kingdom and its vision of flourishing. In the same way, he re-visions Christian worship as a pedagogical practice that trains our love. “James Smith shows in clear, simple, and passionate prose what worship has to do with formation and what both have to do with education. He argues that the God-directed, embodied love that worship gives us is central to all three areas and that those concerned as Christians with teaching and learning need to pay attention, first and last, to the ordering of love. This is an important book and one whose audience should be much broader than the merely scholarly.”–Paul J. Griffiths, Duke Divinity School

“In lucid and lively prose, Jamie Smith reaches back past Calvin to Augustine, crafting a new and insightful Reformed vision for higher education that focuses on the fundamental desires of the human heart rather than on worldviews. Smith deftly describes the ‘liturgies’ of contemporary life that are played out in churches–but also in shopping malls, sports arenas, and the ad industry–and then re-imagines the Christian university as a place where students learn to properly love the world and not just think about it.”–Douglas Jacobsen and Rhonda Hustedt Jacobsen, Messiah College; authors of Scholarship and Christian Faith: Enlarging the Conversation “This is a wise, provocative, and inspiring book. It prophetically blurs the boundaries between theory and practice, between theology and other disciplines, between descriptive analysis and constructive imagination. Anyone involved in Christian education should read this book to glimpse a holistic vision of learning and formation. Anyone involved in the worship life of Christian communities should read this book to discover again all that is at stake in the choices we make about our practices.”–John D. Witvliet, Calvin Institute of Christian Worship; Calvin College and Calvin Theological Seminary

Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Send

Tags: C h a r l e s T a y l o r, C u l t u r a l L i t u r g i e s, Desiring the Kingdom, James K. A. Smith, s o c i a l i m a g i n a r y

Emergence Happens When … JB on October 15, 2009 in the interpretive - Religion | No Comments »

An archive of Tweets ♫♪♬♪♫♪♬♪♫ from twitter Emergence Happens: when people are robustly self-critical, privilege the marginalized, can see beauty in ugly realities & are inclusive. Emergence Happens: when prophets are robustly self-critical, othodoxically, vis a vis their articulation of truth. Emergence Happens: when priests celebrate the beauty in ugly realities, orthopathically, vis a vis crux probat omnia. Emergence Happens: when kings privilege the marginalized, orthopraxically, vis a vis the preservation of goodness. Emergence Happens: when communities are inclusive in enjoying fellowship vis a vis orthocommunio. Emergent conversation is not elusive; beyond mere dialogue, it’s meta-discourse, thus inherently vague/indeterminate, not specific. The essence of Emergent Meta-Discourse is the healthy negotiation & transcendence of dysfunctionally established boundaries & defenses. A preoccupation w/boundary establishment & defense reveals a sick identity structure for religious institutions focused on who’s in/out. There can be healthy establishment & defense of boundaries (radical orthodoxy) in religious institutions that nurture self-criticality. Boundary establishment, defense, negotiation & transcendence integrally presuppose each other w/in healthy institutions. Dogma decays into dogmatism, ritual to ritualism, code to legalism and community to institutionalism w/ dysfunctional boundaries. When boundary dynamism is dysfunctional, conditions do not favor emergent realities. Emergence introduces unpredictable novelty; it’s epistemically & ontologically open. The emergentist paradigm is only a heuristic device, placeholder for ideas, even in biosemiotics. Borrowing fr Peirce’s semiotic: normative mediates between descriptive & interpretive to effect evaluative. Orthopathos mediates between orthodoxy & orthopraxy to effect orthocommunio. Boundary negotiation mediates between establishment & defense to effect transcendence. When boundaries are negotiated, are they authentic? suitably normed? do they foster robust transformation? Boundaries negotiated w/o various ortho-norms are ontologically open, indeed; false transcendence & quasi-liturgical emerge.

http://twitter.com/johnssylvest Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Send

Tags: e m e r g e n c e, k i n g, o r t h o c o m m u n i o, o r t h o d o x y, o r t h o p a t h y, o r t h o p r a x y, priest, prophet, t w i t t e r

Radical Emergence – Nonduality & the Emerging Church JB on October 15, 2009 in Uncategorized | No Comments » Richard Rohr speaks of the four pillars of the Emerging Church 1) honest Jesus scholarship 2) peace & social justice 3) contemplation & nonduality and 4) noninstitutional vehicles. I would like to unpack this a little because I think it speaks directly to his approach to apologetics, which is merely “doing it better,” this over against any overt proselytizing or critiquing of others (putting them down, maybe, to preserve our own sick identity structures). This fits well with the approach to evangelism articulated by the founder of Richard’s order, the little man from Assisi, whom I’ll roughly paraphrase: Take every opportunity to evangelize and, only if absolutely necessary, use words! There is clearly a self-subversive reform underway in the Emerging Church. The first pillar of honest Jesus scholarship, in its efforts to articulate the truth we have encountered, addresses an orthodoxy that eschews dogmatism . The second pillar of peace & social justice, in its efforts to preserve the goodness we have encountered, addresses an orthopraxy that eschews legalism . The third pillar of contemplation & nonduality, in its efforts to celebrate the beauty we have encountered, addresses an orthopathos that eschews ritualism. The fourth pillar of noninstitutional vehicles, in its efforts to enjoy the fellowship (unity) we have encountered, addresses an orthocommunio that eschews institutionalism. So, in some sense, the great traditions have always been about the articulation of truth in creed, preservation of goodness in code, celebration of beauty in cult (or ritual) and enjoyment of fellowship in community. An authentically integralist approach, then, will recognize Wilber’s quadrants such that the objective enjoys its moment of primacy in our pursuit of truth, the interobjective in our pursuit of goodness, the subjective in our pursuit of beauty and the intersubjective in our pursuit of community. In what I have called 1) the descriptive focus of human concern, we pursue truth in asking What is it? 2) the normative focus, we pursue goodness in asking How do I acquire/avoid it? 3) the evaluative focus, we pursue beauty in asking What’s it to me? and 4) interpretive focus, we pursue unity in asking How does all this tie-together (re-ligate)? Each focus is a distinctly different value-pursuit and entails distinctly autonomous methodologies, which is only to recognize that science, philosophy, culture and religion are, indeed, autonomous disciplines, methodologically. What relates them integrally is that they are anything but autonomous, axiologically, which is only to recognize that none of these value-pursuits, alone, can effect a value-realization without some involvement of the other foci of human concern, each which presupposes the others, each which nests within the others, holonically. We can say that they are intellectually-related but not logically-related; this is a vague heuristic and not some purely formal system. Where we are headed, ecclesiologically, in my view then, is toward a model of church that, respectively, vis a vis Rohr’s pillars, is 1) pneumatological, which is to say that it will primarily engage in interreligious dialogue from the perspective of the Spirit, this over against any ecclesiocentric approach and perhaps even bracketing our various Christological approaches 2) servant, which is to actively grapple with the questions of social justice & peace 3) herald, which is to recognize the orthopathic efficacies of the contemplative, nondual stance, inviting others to transformation via a shared social imaginary as cultivated by authentically transformative liturgical approaches, this participatory approach emphasized over (while complementing) the sterile and stale propositional apologetics of yesteryear and 4) mystical body, a visible manifestation of an invisible reality, to be sure, but dropping our old and insidious overemphases on the manifold and varied institutional structures. (cf. Dulles’ models of church) Wim Drees defines theology as a cosmology plus an axiology. Drees notes that, and serious emergentists might pay special attention, the discontinuity in emergent reality threatens the unity of the sciences. Because laws, themselves, emerge, we are on thin theoretical ice when speculating metaphysically re: the nature of primal reality, causal joints for divine prerogatives, and so on. While cosmological and axiological approaches are integrally-related, they are methodologically autonomous. Cosmology answers the questions 1) Is that a fact? (descriptively) and 2) How do I best acquire/avoid that? (normatively). Daniel Helminiak, a Lonergan protege, would describe these as positivist and philosophic activities and rightly affirms, in my view, the philosophic as spiritual quest. Even if one concedes, for argument’s sake, our ability to travel from the descriptive to the prescriptive, given to normative, is to ought (and Mortimer Adler well-demonstrates that we can get from an is to an ought) still, due to our universal human condition, wherein we are all, for the most part, similarly situated, even if our reasoning differs for certain precepts & would be theoretically relativistic, still, from a practical perspective our precepts are going to be remarkably consistent. The practical upshot of all of this is that cosmology, thus narrowly conceived, is truly Everybody’s Story, which is to say we really shouldn’t go around wily-nily just making this stuff up because it isn’t really negotiable but is given. Axiology answers the questions 3) What’s it to me? (evaluatively) and 4) How’s all this tietogether? (interpretively). Here we are dealing with human value-realizations, their definitions and prioritization, and with religion. The reason we even have such a category as interpretation results from our radical human finitude. It is not that we don’t affirm such a metaphysical realism as recognizes the validity and soundness of a putative best interpretative “vision of the whole,” but that, at this stage of humankind’s journey, it is exceedingly problematical to fallibly discern and adjudicate between competing interpretations, especially as they fit into elaborate tautologies, all which are variously taut in their grasp of reality.

In some sense, our cosmology comprises the propositional aspect of our metanarratives (aspiring to successful and robust descriptions with indications of correspondence) and our axiology comprises the narrative aspect (aspiring to vague but successful references with invitations to particpate). The postmodern critique does not instill incredulity toward our metanarratives per se; rather, it takes note of how every narrative aspect of our metanarratives is rooted in myth (yes, including scientism no less than fideism). Analogous to Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, we cannot prove our system’s axioms within the system (evidentially, rationally, presuppositionally or propositionally), itself, but this does not mean that we cannot taste and see (existentially, as recommended by Ignatius, the Psalmist & enlightened speculative cosmologists …) the truth of those axioms, which we would necessarily express – not formally, but – through narrative, story, myth. This framework establishes a certain amount of epistemic parity between worldviews and religions, which then get authenticated by how well they institutionalize conversions: intellectual, affective, moral, social and religious and adjudicated with an equiplausibility principle, which looks for life-giving and relationship-enhancing criteria when choosing between otherwise ambiguous courses of action. We can also remain on the lookout for Gospel norms like a language of descent or “downward mobility” and a prophetic element (self-criticism). So, we do draw distinctions between a theory of truth and a test of truth and we do recognize that some aspects of reality are best grasped through correspondence while other aspects grasp us through participation. One lesson we take away is that our reliance on myth reveals that reality overflows our ability to process it, that creation, Creator and people present unfathomable depth dimensions that no encounter can capture or exhaust. If in our cosmologies, with their empirical, logical and practical foci, it is very much our intent to get the right answers, when it comes to our axiologies, with their relational foci, then, our quest is to get the right questions (Whom does the grail serve?). Our fundamental trust in uncertain reality requires no apologetic, then, and fashioning one is as futile as explaining why we love our Beloved in empirical, logical and practical terms (as if only extrinsically rewarding). Embodiments of truth, beauty, goodness and unity are their own rewards (intrinsically); they grasp us and possess us as we participate in these values with our existential orientations to these transcendental imperatives. As we distinguish between wants and needs, real and acquired desires, lesser and higher goods, our axiologies orient and dispose us to the higher goods, which we can enjoy without measure, and properly dispose us to the created goods that we really need in moderation and not in a disordered (John of the Cross) or inordinate (Ignatius) way. Our cosmology, which is scientific and philosophic, descriptive and normative, also includes our essentially spiritual quest, which is shaped by the positivist and normative sciences and addresses the orthopraxes of our ethical and moral strivings as well as those ascetical practices and disciplines that enhance awareness, including certain meditative practices, many which come from the East and are not inextricably bound to any religion or worldview (hence some are indeed spiritual without being religious, explicitly anyway). In our cosmology, we better come to grips with our empirical, logical and practical foci of concern and foster intellectual, moral and social conversions. Our axiology, which is interpretive and evaluative, goes beyond but not without our cosmology and is shaped by our religious myths and liturgical celebrations, which address the orthopathos of our prayer and worship, public and private, forming and reinforcing our aspirations and hopes, answering the question “What’s it to me?” in a manner that is properly ordered, truly fitting and proper, which is to say, Eucharistically. There is no worldview or metanarrative without either an implicit or explicit axiology that is integrally related to one’s cosmology (so we’d best tend to an explicit axiology in a consciously-competent manner). In fact, in addition to their methodological autonomy, our axiologies enjoy a primacy in relation to our cosmologies, although otherwise axiologically-integrated. It is our orthopathos that mediates between our orthodoxy and orthopraxis to effect an authentic orthocommunio. If our unitive strivings come up short, whether geopolitically or in our primary communities and families, we might look at our prayer lives for, if we invoke, it is only because we have been convoked. In our axiology, we better come to grips with our relational foci of concern, where our value-realizations are trust, assent, fidelity, loyalty, faith, hope, love, eros, philia, agape and so on and we better foster affective and religious conversions. We do our best to discern where Lonergan’s conversions have been institutionalized, looking to see which interpretive approach best fosters ongoing intellectual, affective, moral and social growth and development, leading to human authenticity. But we’re clearly in more negotiable territory here with discourse dominated more by dogmatic (non-negotiated) and heuristic (still-in-negotiation) concepts, this contrasted to cosmological discourse, which has more theoretic (negotiated in community) concepts and semiotic concepts (non-negotiable b/c meaning, itself, is invested in them). In defining what my own Radical Emergence approach would be about, then, I see it as an axiological vision of the whole. In such a metanarrative, cosmology is left to the positivist, empirical scientific methodologies, and to the philosophic, normative sciences. Religion, an interpretive endeavor, is constrained by the positivist & normative sciences, and employs a different & autonomous methodology (myth and liturgy), even though integrallyrelated to the other methodologies in every value-realization. To be clear, by “integrallyrelated,” I am suggesting that a cosmology presupposes an axiology and vice versa, that our descriptive, normative, interpretive and evaluative foci of human concern presuppose each other. As an axiological endeavor, the Emerging Church would foster the intentional evolution of the interpretive and evaluative aspects of human value-realizations, which would enhance (and transvalue), also, our cosmological modeling power without interfering with its autonomous methodologies (faith illuminating understanding). Over against both scientism and fideism, the Emerging Church would not conflate or compromise the autonomous methodologies of science, philosophy and religion, of descriptive, normative and interpretive endeavors, but would integrate them axiologically. What would intentional evolution address? Nothing less than creed, cult, code and community (institutionalized), which are deconstructible, as semiotic realities ordered toward truth, beauty, goodness and unity, which are not deconstructible. How would it address them? Through the amplification of epistemic risks as ordered toward the augmentation of human value-realizations. Less abstractly and more concretely, how does one amplify epistemic risks? Understanding yields to faith, memory to hope, will to love and alienation to community. More programatically, what route do I advocate? A Radical Emergence, rooted in the orthopathos and orthodoxy of tradition, as articulated and valued by some in the Radical Orthodoxy movement, and open to the orthopraxes and orthocommunio of the future, as articulated and valued by some in the Emerging Church conversation.

Specifically, one efficacious route to ecclesial and personal transformation is the surrender to the contemplative stance, the 3rd Eye seeing, of nonduality, which is what http://christiannonduality.com/ is all about. Update on 06 Sept 2009 -See Tom Roberts “In Search of the Emerging Church” the contemplative tradition grounds emerging Christianity Emerging Church Pillars: I orthodoxy = honest Jesus scholarship I I orthopraxy = peace & social justice I I I orthopathy = contemplative tradition, nonduality IV orthocommunio = noninstitutional vehicles (complementary & happily on the side) There are rather clear archetypal themes playing out in our cosmologies and axiologies, likely related to brain development and individuation processes. A cosmology engages mostly our left-brain (thinking function of the left frontal cortex & sensing function of the left posterior convexity) as the normative and descriptive aspects of value-realization alternately establish and defend boundaries; we encounter the King-Queen and Warrior-Maiden with their light and dark (shadow) attributes as expressed in the journeys of the spirit and the body, primarily through a language of ascent. An axiology engages mostly our right-brain (intuiting function of the right frontal cortex & feeling function of the right posterior convexity) as the interpretive and evaluative aspects of value-realization alternately negotiate (e.g. reconciliation of opposites, harnessing the power of paradox) and transcend boundaries; we encounter the Crone-Magician and Mother-Lover with their light and dark attributes as expressed in the journeys of the soul and the other (Thou), primarily through a language of descent. Our propositional cosmologies and participatory axiologies seem to best foster transformation when, beyond our passive reception of them as stories about others, we actively engage the archetypal energies of their mythic dimensions with a contemplation ordered toward action, and also, when in addition to our rather natural expectations, they include 1) a priestly voice that sings of the intrinsic beauty to be celebrated in seemingly repugnant realities 2) a prophetic voice that is robustly self-critical when speaking the truth 3) a kingly voice that articulates a bias for the bottom, expressing both a privileging of the marginalized and a principle of subsidiarity when preserving goodness 4) a motherly voice that, seeing and calling all as her children, draws every person into her circle of compassion and mercy with no trace of exclusion, only a vision of unity.

Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Send

Tags: a r c h e t y p e s, A v e r y D u l l e s, axiological vision of the whole, a x i o l o g y, Bernard Lonergan, c o n t e m p l a t i o n, cosmology, Daniel Helminiak, e m e r g e n c e, e m e r g i n g c h u r c h, Ignatius of Loyola, Jesus scholarship, John of the Cross, Ken Wilber, Kurt Godel, Mortimer Adler, n o n d u a l i t y, r a d i c a l e m e r g e n c e, radical orthodoxy, Richard Rohr, social justice, Willem Drees

« Older Entries

Newer Entries »

CHRISTIANNONDUALITY. C O M

BL O G

beyond thinking & proposing to imagining & participating Home About

East Meets West interreligiously – but how?

T o d a y’ s L i t u r g y

JB on October 15, 2009 in Practices & Experiences, the evaluative - Culture, the interpretive Religion | No Comments » “Awakening to beauty, truth, and goodness is to waken to the unfoldment of Divine Life within us.”

Translator

Thomas Keating “In philosophy classes we were told that there were three things that especially opened us to the Transcendent: the good, the true, and the beautiful. Come join us as we again put together what was never really apart!” Richard Rohr “The philosophers are wrong, he [Scotus] argues; ordered love, not knowledge, defines and perfects human rationality. Human dignity has it foundation in rational freedom. In contrast to the philosophical, intellectualist model of human nature and destiny, the Franciscan offers and strengthens the Christian alternative, centered not merely on knowledge but on rational love. Throughout his brief career, Scotus works to put together a more overtly Christian perspective on the world, the person, and salvation that might stand up to this philosophical intellectual/speculative model and, by using the best of its resources, transcend it. The Franciscan tradition consistently defends a position wherein the fullest perfection of the human person as rational involves loving in the way God loves, rather than knowing in the way God knows. His position in this overall project can be best understood within Franciscan spirituality, which emphasizes the will and its attraction to beauty, love, and simplicity.” Ingham and Mechthild’s The Philosophical Vision of John Duns Scotus We do well to learn from India’s very long history of reflection on God and gods, Goddess and goddesses, if we are to speak intelligently of the God in whom we believe and to whom we pray. Faith ought to be single-minded, but theology has a duty to be broad and ever more open to new learning. Francis X. Clooney, S.J. America Blog, Teaching God at Harvard, Spring 2009 Fr. Richard Rohr OFM describes much of Buddhism as gifting one with “practices” and not “conclusions.” In this consideration, I’d like to open up the gift of this succinct insight and offer one interpretation of what this might mean for Christianity. The Advaita Vedanta and Bhakti schools of Hinduism, and the Mahayana school of Buddhism, are now the major (larger) schools of these great living traditions and all have prominent devotional elements. While the dualist and modified nondualist Vedantic schools are primarily associated with Bhakti thought, even the Advaitic school can be associated with devotional elements through its founder, Shankara. Even in Zen Buddhism (Mahayanan), both Chinese (Chan) and Korean (Soen) schools integrate devotional elements. What about the “reform” movement of the Japanese (Soto) school, which, by many accounts, does not so readily accommodate devotional elements? Some say this movement was rooted in the late 19th-early 20th Century Japanese nationalist tendencies, which both sought to differentiate itself from other schools in Asia and to support the country’s militaristic approach. Others say the reform was a response to Zen’s commercialization in Japan. Whatever the case may be, for manifold and varied historical reasons, the Japanese school lineages predominate in North America. To the extent that Japanese Zen lacks a governing body and a per se orthodoxy, unlike other Asian schools, it naturally lends itself to what would otherwise be considered heterodox adaptations, such as the emergent Christian Zen lineage. My purpose in providing this background is to dispel any facile misconception that Eastern spiritual practices writ large, even when otherwise associated with various nondualities, necessarily lack a robust relationality or are otherwise incompatible with devotional elements. This is also to suggest that Americans, who have been primarily exposed to the Soto school, may especially fall prey to caricaturizing what are in fact the largest and most predominant living traditions of the East based on what for them has otherwise been a very narrow exposure to a “reform” element that turns out to otherwise be somewhat aberrant. I say this to affirm that, in my view, relationality is essential in all aspects of the life of the radically social animal known as Homo sapiens. I would argue that it is considered essential by most people in most all sects and denominations of the great traditions. It therefore seems likely that there is no, so to speak, “essential” Enlightenment experience for most people, neither East nor West, which is to suggest that most people, who undertake the ascetic disciplines and nondiscursive and/or apophatic meditative practices that can lead to experiences of absolute unitary being, cosmic awareness or even various energy arousals and awakenings, are already both formatively prepared and kataphatically situated in a devotional environs that is, more or less, conducive to an orderly unfolding of the psychic energies often associated with spiritual emergence such that they will not otherwise fall prey to what can be some very unsettling spiritual emergencies. This has profound implications for our inter-religious dialogue, especially as it pertains to our mutually enriching exchanges of spiritual technologies (ascetic and meditative practices), which might be a lot more adaptable (abstracted from doctrinal elements) between Eastern and Western traditions than one might first suspect, especially if only familiar with Japanese Zen as is the case with most Americans .

By N2H

Amos Yong apophatic Axiological axiologicallyintegral

Bernard Lonergan Brian McLaren Charles Sanders Peirce contemplative cosmology emergence emerging church Enlightenment

epistemology faith False

Self fideism Hans Kung James K. A. Smith Jesus Creed John Duns Scotus kataphatic Kevin

Beck Kurt Godel Merton

metaphysics Mike Morrell Natural

Theology nihilism

nondual nonduality

orthodoxy radical emergence radical orthodoxy rationalism

Richard Rohr Science

scientism semiotic theodicy Theological Anthropology

Thomas Merton Tim King transformation True Self Walker Percy W P-C u m u l u s b y R o y T a n c k a n d Luke Morton requires F l a s h P l a y e r 9 or better.

Cultivating the Roots, Nurturing the Shoots MARCH 2010 M

1 8 15 22 29

2 9 16 23 30 « FEB

3 10 17 24 31

4 11 18 25

5 12 19 26

6 13 20 27

7 14 21 28

Recent Posts The Emerging Church is BIGGER t h a n C h r i s t i a n i t y – how to spot it in other traditions Abortion & the Senate Healthcare Bill – a p r u d e n t i a l judgment 10 historical developments propelling Emerging Christianity ~ Richard Rohr Why Brian McLaren’s GrecoRoman Narrative is NOT a caricature THE BOOK: Christian N o n d u a l i t y – Postmodern Conservative Catholic Pentecostal

Normatively speaking, this is to suggest that our emergent Christian Zen lineages need not feel compelled to turn away from devotional practices and may indeed want to more actively engage the many other schools of Hinduism and Buddhism precisely in search of their devotional modalities. Another problem in the West is the fact that there is an emergent popAdvaitan and/or neo-Advaitan lineage that facilely engages Shankara’s illuminative teachings while ignoring the founder’s devotional practices. This can only exacerbate the misconceptions, hence misapplications, that arise from the already narrow and misguided view of the Eastern traditions. Thankfully, many Western and Christian Zen lineages do offer caveats regarding any such over-conceptualizations of Zen. At the same time, as Robert Sharf points out: “… there is a world of difference between issuing such warnings in a monastic environment where ritual and doctrinal study are de rigueur, and issuing such warnings to laypersons with little or no competence in such areas. In short, the Sanbokyodan has taken the antinomian and iconoclastic rhetoric of Zen literally, doing away with much of the disciplined ceremonial, liturgical, and intellectual culture of the monastery in favor of the single-minded emphasis on zazen and a simplified form of koan study.” Sanbokyodan: Zen and the Way of the New Religions p. 427-428 Whatever the divergent ontological views of our many traditions, for the most part, in the East, there is a subtle distinction that is drawn between ultimate or absolute reality and phenomenal or practical reality, such that it is lost on many Westerners that various words/cognates, in fact, retain their conventional or pragmatic usefulness in a movement that, first, suspends our naive affirmations, then, subjects them to philosophical scrutiny and, finally, returns them back to their conventional understanding with deeper insights and with maybe a hygienic hermeneutic of suspicion. This insight and hermeneutic does not cast suspicion with the skeptics on all matters unseen but instead invites us to go beyond (not without) our senses and reason to penetrate reality more depthfully. In Christianity, Richard of St. Victor thus informs the Franciscan tradition thru Bonaventure about the occulus carnis (eye of the senses), the occulus rationis (eye of reason), and the occulus fidei (eye of faith). This “eye of faith” is what Rohr refers to as the “third eye” and, consistent with Merton, it integrally takes us beyond our senses and reason but not without them. This conceptually maps fairly well, but not completely, over such as Jewish and Tibetan concepts of Third Eye seeing. Rohr often refers to knowledge through connaturality, which, per Maritain is knowledge through union or inclination, connaturality or congeniality, where the intellect is at play not alone, but together with affective inclinations and the dispositions of the will, and is guided and directed by them. It is not rational knowledge, knowledge through the conceptual, logical and discursive exercise of Reason. But it is really and genuinely knowledge, though obscure and perhaps incapable of giving account of itself, or of being translated into words. Rohr writes: “Contemplation is also saying how you see is what you will see, and we must clean our own lens of seeing. I call it knowing by “connaturality” (Aquinas), or knowing by affinity or kinship, it is the participative knowing by which the Indwelling Spirit in us knows God, Love, Truth, and Eternity. LIKE KNOWS LIKE, and that is very important to know. There definitely is a communion between the seer and the seen, the knower and the known Hatred cannot nor will not know God, fear cannot nor will not recognize love. Because this deep contemplative wisdom has not been taught in recent Catholic centuries, and hardly at all among Protestants, it is a great big lack and absence in our God given ability to know spiritual things spiritually, as Paul would say (1 Cor.2:13).” Clearly, then, Rohr advocates nonduality and not nondualism. The latter is a metaphysical proposition; the former is an epistemic method. In philosophy, we have recognized that methods can be successfully extricated from systems. In our East-West dialogue, we have recognized that some practices can be successfully extricated from their doctrinal contexts. Nonduality is a practice, a method, that can be successfully extricated from nondualism (as system or doctrine). In fact, it has a philosophical meaning vis a vis the false dichotomy fallacy that is quite independent of any Eastern traditions. That’s the meaning employed by Rohr. Here’s a quote on the same theme from Pseudo-Dionysius: “Do thou, in the intent practice of mystic contemplation, leave behind the senses and the operations of the intellect, and all things that the senses or the intellect can perceive, and all things which are not and things which are, and strain upwards in unknowing as far as may be towards the union with Him who is above all being and knowledge. For by unceasing and absolute withdrawal from thyself and all things in purity, abandoning all and set free from all, thou wilt be borne up to the ray of the Divine Darkness that surpasses all being.” Christianity is recovering its mystical core via a neoplatonic-influenced dionysian logic. The classical emphasis has been on the dialectic between the apophatic and kataphatic, the former referring literally to what God is not, the latter an affirmation of what God is like, analogically. This has reduced all God-talk to metaphor and leaves a question begging as to how there can be any causal efficacy between Creator and creatures with such a causal disjunction as is necessarily implied by such a weak analogy. The classical logic looks like this: 1) God is | x | is true analogically and kataphatically. 2) God is | not x | is true literally and apophatically. Dionysian logic breaks out of this dualistic dyad, going beyond it but not without it:

Type, Hit Enter to Search

We Distinguish in Order to Unite Select Category

Blogroll Andrew Sullivan Beyond Blue Brian D. McLaren Commonweal Crunchy Con Cynthia Bourgeault Emergent Village Emerging Women First Thoughts Fors Clavigera Francis X. Clooney, S.J. Joseph S. O'Leary NCR Today – the Catholic Blog Per Caritatem Phyllis Tickle Post Christian Postmodern Conservative Radical Emergence Sojourners Tall Skinny Kiwi The Website of Unknowing Transmillenial Vox Nova Weekly Standard Blog Worship Blog Zoecarnate

3) God is neither | x | nor | not x | is true unitively. This triadic perspective resolves the tension between the classical neoplatonic henosis, which refers to the dance between intersubjectivity and identity with ultimate reality, and dinonysian theosis, which refers to the growth in intimacy with ultimate reality, by affirming both an intraobjective identity between creature and Creator, in a panentheistic divine matrix of interrelated causes and effects, as well as an intersubjective intimacy between creature and Creator, the creature thus being quasi-autonomous. (auto = self) The practical upshot, then, which might be quite the essence (pun intended), of such a nondual perspective is that all may be well and that all are radically interrelated and this is true whether one is indeed an absolute monist, qualified monist, panentheist or classical theist. The theoretical rub would be ontological but all traditions, in fidelity to right speech, had better remain in search of a metaphysic at this stage on humankind’s journey? For Rohr, I’d say the nondual refers mostly to an epistemic process, such as in Zen’s dethroning of the conceptualizing ego in order to otherwise relate to some seeming contradictions, instead, as paradoxes, which might perdure as mystery, resolve dialectically, or even dissolve from a stepping out of an inadequate framework of logic or any other dispositions (or lack thereof) known to this paradox or another. This maps well with the broad conceptions of nonduality such as at Nonduality Salon and Wikipedia. Predominantly, though, Rohr affirms nondual thinking in an over against fashion as related to either-or thinking, i.e. false dichotomies, and as related to a failure to self-critique one’s own systems and logical frameworks, as a failure, too, to affirm the rays of truth in other perspectives and traditions. It is a failure to move beyond the Law thru the Prophets to the Wisdom tradition, not to do away with them but to properly fulfill them. We can draw a distinction between Rohr’s philosophical treatment or method of nonduality or nondual consciousness and the practice of contemplative prayer forms. The former is at the service of the latter, to be sure, but it is also at the service of all other value-realizations, as one should expect from a whole brain approach. Here we come full circle back to our consideration of the devotional elements that can be fruitfully employed in conjunction with any nondual approach, whether conceived from an epistemic and/or ontological stance. Rohr thus goes beyond any Mertonesque Zen-like formulations when he says that contemplation is a long, loving look at what really is. He writes: “Contemplation means returning to this deep source. Each one of us tries to find the spiritual exercise that helps us come to this source. If reading the Bible helps you, then read the Bible. If the Eucharist helps, then celebrate the Eucharist. If praying the rosary helps, pray the rosary. If sitting in silence helps, just sit there and keep silence. But we must find a way to get to the place where everything is. We have to take this long, loving look at reality, where we don’t judge and we simply receive. Of course, emptiness in and of itself isn’t enough. The point of emptiness is to get ourselves out of the way so that Christ can fill us up. As soon as we’re empty, there’s a place for Christ, because only then are we in any sense ready to recognize and accept Christ as the totally other, who is not me.” (Simplicity revised from 1991, Crossroad Publishing 2003) In a nutshell, the general thrust of this whole brain approach is that, in order to have a relationship with your spouse in marriage, as was intended in creation, one has to approach one’s spouse with more than words, logic, science, math, analytical skills and pragmatic considerations. One has to go beyond (NOT WITHOUT) these ways of knowing (Aquinaslike approach) to a knowledge that comes from love (Bonaventure’s approach). One must enter a relational realm, in addition to the logical, empirical and practical realm. One must move beyond the language of math, philosophy, business & commerce, engineering and so on to learn the language of relationship, the grammar of assent, loyalty, fidelity, trust, faith, hope, love. We tend to eventually “get this” in marriage, or it dissolves (and half of all marriages do). There is reason to suspect, then, that “getting this” in our relationship with God is similarly problematical for most people. In the story of Malunkyaputta, who queried the Buddha on the fundamental nature of reality by asking whether the cosmos was eternal or not, infinite or not, whether the body and soul are the same, whether the Buddha lived on after death, and so on, the Buddha responded that Malunkyaputta was like the man who, when shot with an arrow, would not let another pull it out without first telling him who shot the arrow, how the arrow was made and so on. Thus the Buddha turns our attention to the elimination of suffering, a practical concern, and away from the speculative metaphysical concerns. This story of Malunkyaputta might thus help us to reframe some of our concerns, both regarding Buddhism, in particular, and metaphysics, in general. For example, perhaps we have wondered whether, here or there, the Buddha was ever 1) “doing” metaphysics or 2) anti-metaphysical or 3) metaphysically-neutral. In fact, we might have wondered if the soteriological aspects of any of the great traditions were necessarily intertwined with any specific ontological commitments. In some sense, now, we certainly want to say that all of the great traditions are committed to both metaphysical and moral realisms. However, at the same time, we might like to think that, out of fidelity to the truth, none of our traditions would ever have us telling untellable stories, saying more than we know or proving too much. One interpretation of Malunkyaputta’s story, then, might suggest that it is not that the Buddha eschewed metaphysics or was even ontologically neutral; rather, it may be that the Buddha just positively eschewed category errors. This would imply that the Buddha would neither countenance the categorical verve of yesteryear’s scholastics nor the ontological vigor of our modern fundamentalists (neither the Enlightenment fundamentalists of the scientistic cabal nor the radical religious fundamentalists, whether of Islam, Christianity, Zen or any other tradition). Thus we might come to recognize that our deontologies should be as modest as our ontologies are tentative, that we should be as epistemically determinate as we can but as indeterminate as we must, that we should be as ontologically specific as we can but as vague as we must and that our semantics should reflect the dynamical nature of both reality and our apprehension of same, which advances inexorably but fallibly. The Buddha seemed to at least inchoately anticipate this fallibilism and, in some ways, to explicitly preach and practice it.

Cloud of Unknowing

Amos Yong apophatic Axiological axiologicallyintegral

Bernard Lonergan Brian McLaren Charles Sanders Peirce contemplative cosmology emergence emerging church

E n l i g h t e n m e n t epistemology

faith False Self fideism Hans Kung James K. A. Smith Jesus Creed John Duns Scotus kataphatic

Kevin Beck Kurt Godel Merton

metaphysics Mike Morrell Natural Theology nihilism nondual

nonduality orthodoxy radical emergence radical orthodoxy rationalism Richard Rohr Science scientism semiotic theodicy Theological Anthropology

Thomas Merton Tim King transformation True Self Walker Percy

Join Other Visitors in Prayer Light A Candle & Pray

Join Us in the Liturgy of the Hours

Get the C a t h l i m e r g e n t o n Twitter widget and many other great free widgets a t Widgetbox! Not seeing a widget? (More info)

Tweets johnssylvest: Abortion & the Senate Healthcare Bill – a prudential judgment http://bit.ly/aS2DwT johnssylvest: 10 developments propelling Emerging Christianity ~ Richard Rohr http://bit.ly/a4AMtg johnssylvest: RT @pdclayton7: "Theology After Google" opens Wed. - 23 of the best speakers on emerging religion in Google Age; live stream at http://o ... johnssylvest: RT @jonestony: New Blog Post: Society for Pentecostal Studies Paper: What Pentecostals Have to Learn from Emergents http://ow.ly/16KREU johnssylvest: THE BOOK: An Emerging Church Conversation with a Postmodern Conservative Catholic Pentecostal http://bit.ly/91D570 #fb John Sobert Sylvest

To the Buddha’s point, then, regarding the no-self — humankind, as a community of earnest inquiry, has no better grasp now than we did then of the ultimate nature of the cosmos or the soul. The Mahayanan Buddhists, and many in other traditions and schools, apparently have no problem dealing with the self in conventional, hence practical terms, whether in the temporal or celestial sphere, and have a lively devotional practice, affirming a robust interrelationality vis a vis their pantheon of goddesses and gods, whom they worship, and all sentient beings, whom they offer karuna. They would thus seem to have no more trouble, practically speaking, in relating to “self” or “other” as a phenomenal experience than Westerners would have. Where they would have trouble is when, theoretically speaking, it comes to defining self using ontological categories, whether substantialist or process, essentialist or nominalist, in ways that would pretend to exhaustively comprehend primal reality. This, one might observe, is the type of trouble more Westerners should have. I am otherwise inclined, then, having some exposures to certain phenomenal experiences myself, not to interpret the no-self experience, ontologically, and instead associate the experience with what Jim Arraj calls the loss of the affective ego. As Arraj writes and I agree: “It would probably by wrong, as well, to imagine that Zen Buddhism, or even the advaitan Vedanta is making any kind of ontological nondualist claims. Rather, they are trying to take into account a nondual experience, and sometimes their post-experience reflections can leave the impression that they are creating a nondual ontology. But they are not interested in philosophy in the Western sense, but rather, leading people to the experience, itself. The real question, which we will pursue later, is whether enlightenment is nondual in itself, or is presented in a nondual way because of the very means by which the enlightenment experience is attained. There should be no rush to judgment on the part of Christians as if they need to express Christianity in some nondual ontological fashion. This is not precisely what Zen Buddhists, and advaitan Hindus are doing.” Christianity in the Crucible of East-West Dialogue

Johnboy Was Here Feedjit Live Blog Stats Feedjit Live Blog Stats

Follow this blog

It would be considered comical, if it were not otherwise so distressing, the way Advaitan accounts of absolute reality are manipulated in cyberforums and some popular literature, drawing the most absurd conclusions as they are misapplied to the practical considerations of our phenomenal experience, when conventional usage would otherwise indeed be the prescribed approach even for orthodox nonduality. Arguably, even Shankara’s philosophy need not be interpreted as an absolute monism, especially once taking into consideration its account of causation in phenomenal reality, which at least resembles Aristotle’s vis a vis its teleological dimension, even if otherwise approaching Plato’s idealist conceptions. The Advaitan ontology addresses causes and effects in sufficiently vague references and its epistemology is most notably triadic, wherein the pramana (sources of knowledge, Sanskrit) each form one part of a triputi (trio), which include the subject and object mediated by the cause or means of knowledge. There are thus inchoate traces of the ontological vagueness, epistemic indeterminacy and semantical versatility that have made their way through the West vis a vis such as the Dionysian logic of the Neoplatonists, Meister Eckhart’s apophatic predications, Scotus’ formal distinction, Peirce’s triadic semeiotic and some postmodern criticisms. One might properly wonder if Hindu’s Rita successfully refers to, even if it does not robustly describe, such regularities as Peircean Thirdness, deontological accounts of right and wrong, liturgical celebrations of ritual or other analogs, maybe even modalities, of the eternal Logos and Spirit at the mystical core of all of our traditions? Thus we might think of Hindu’s Dharma and Rita, Taoism’s Tao, Buddhism’s Dhamma, Judaism’s Torah and Christianity’s Pneuma & Logos. Toshihiko Izutsu poetically describes certain regularities that, in my view, demonstrate a tacit dimensionality that, like the Spirit, is ineluctably unobstrusive but utterly efficacious: “Listen! Do you not hear the trailing sound of the wind as it comes blowing from afar? The trees in the mountain forests begin to rustle, stir, and sway, and then all the hollows and holes of huge trees measuring a hundred arms’ lengths around begin to give forth different sounds. There are holes like noses, like mouths, like ears; some are (square) like crosspieces upon pillars; some are (round) as cups, some are like mortars. Some are like deep ponds; some are like shallow basins… However, once the raging gale has passed on, all these hollows and holes are empty and soundless. You see only the boughs swaying silently, and the tender twigs gentle moving.” Sufism and Taoism, p. 368-369 Father Rohr spent five weeks, during Lent 2008, in a hermitage, in solitude. He spent this time reflecting and writing a new book, The Third Eye. On Easter Monday, he made a presentation of an outline of these thoughts. Fr. Rohr defines his conception of the Third Eye as derived from two 11th Century monks, Hugh and Richard of the Monastery of St. Victor in Paris. The flowering of this thinking in his Franciscan tradition, he tells us, took place in the 12th and 13th centuries. Although the metaphor is similar to the same concept of Hindu and Buddhist traditions, it is apparently independent of those in that there was no contact between those and this Christian conceptualization, which is talking about the eyes of 1) sense, 2) reason and 3) faith. Basically, Fr. Rohr is amplifying his teaching on contemplative living, which, in my view, continues to be heavily informed by his love of Thomas Merton. He makes frequent references to Merton, False Self and True Self and compares and contrasts them in many different ways, using many different adjectives and metaphors. Fr. Rohr likes the word “realization” and sees it as being richer than the word “experience” for he describes the robust encounter of God as a “total body blow,” where not only head and heart are engaged but the body, too. Unfortunately, he says, we “localize knowing” and too often try to access God only in the top 3 inches of the body and only on the left side at that. This dualistic, binary or dyadic thinking, which we employ in math, science and engineering, or when we are driving a car, is of course good and necessary. It is the mind that “divides the field” into classes and categories and then applies labels through compare and contrast exercises. It is the egoic mind that is looking for control and order, but, unfortunately, also superiority. It can lead to both intellectual and spiritual laziness, however, to an egoic operating system (Cynthia Bourgeault), which views all through a lens of “How does it affect me?” The contemplative mind goes beyond the tasks of the dualistic mind to deal with concepts like love, mercy, compassion and forgiveness. It doesn’t need to “divide the field” for such tasks. The contemplative mind is practicing heaven in that it sees the Divine image as being “equally distributed” and present in all others. We see that presence, honor it and know it. The contemplative mind starts each moment with “yes.” It is vulnerable before the moment, opening “heart space.” It is present to people and does not put them in a box. So, in our primary level encounter with others, we do not prejudge. At the secondary and tertiary level, a “no” may be absolutely necessary. Once you know you can say “yes,” then it is important to be able to say “no,” when appropriate. Rohr makes clear, in his words, that we “include previous categories” and “retain what we learn in early stages.” Our goal, in his words, is to master both dualistic and nondualistic thinking. This matches my interpretation of the different perspectives engaged in the East, both the absolute and phenomenal.

Visit Cathlimergent Conversations Visit Anglimergent

Meta Log in Entries R S S Comments R S S WordPress.org

We must go beyond (not without) that part of our tradition that was informed mostly by Greek logic in order to be more open to paradox and mystery. Rohr described some of the early apophatic and nondual elements of the Christian tradition, especially in the first three centuries with the Desert Mothers and Fathers, especially in the Orthodox and eastern Christian churches, and describing John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila as the last supernovae. The apophatic and unknowing tradition has not been constant. For 400 years after these Carmelites there has been no real tradition. He credits Merton with almost single-handedly retrieving authentic contemplative teaching that has not been taught for almost 500 years. This type of mysticism, he, like Merton says, is available to all but it takes a type of humility to “let go of our control tower.” We and others are living tabernacles, even given the contrary evidence. That God dwells in us is the foundation of human dignity. Fr. Rohr discusses the Gift of Tongues in this contemplative vein and notes that when it died out, prayer-based beads emerged. He went on to discuss prayer beads in other traditions. Fr. Rohr notes that the East and West differ in that more emphasis is placed on discipline, practice and asceticism in the East, while, in the West, we emphasize surrender and trust. Both East and West have elements of all of these approaches, of course. Our Christian path is more one of letting go and yielding of self. He believes that most of us, a very high percentage, have enjoyed unitive moments, but that there was no one there to say “that’s it.” He thinks that it would be useful to retrieve our contemplative tradition because we apparently need some degree of discipline or practice to keep seeing and trusting our unitive moments, our union, our communion. The Spirit will thus teach us all things and re-mind you that you are in union with God, that you are select; you are chosen; you are beloved. We need to learn how to live in communion, now, for that is what we’ll enjoy in heaven. Fr. Rohr then describes practices that open up this contemplative mind: silence, stillness, solitude, patience about needing to know everything, poetry, art, body movement, music, humility and redemptive listening. He describes how we need to stand back and compassionately and calmly observe reality, without initial regard for how it affects us, but to see persons and events nakedly, seeing our drama almost as if it wasn’t us. If we cannot thus detach, then we are over-identified. Whenever we’re defensive, it is usually our false self. What characterizes an addict is typically all or nothing thinking. We do not hate the False Self. We must simply see it. It is not our “bad” self, just not our “true” self. We need to better learn to hold together opposites and contradictions. A modern retrieval of our ancient practices of contemplative seeing can foster this type of non-judging awareness. Rohr says that a master of nondual thinking needs to also be a master of dualistic thinking. The Catholic tradition has great wisdom in retaining icon and art and symbols and music. The primary teachers of this approach to God and others and all of reality are great love and great suffering. Our primary paths have been suffering and prayer. When head and heart and body are all connected, that is prayer. This, says Fr. Rohr, is not esoteric teaching. Everybody has the Holy Spirit! What appears to be the new theme emerging from Fr. Rohr’s latest thought is that of supplementing and complementing our traditional approach to belief-based religion with more practice-based religion. In particular, he sees great wisdom in retrieving those practices which have been lost or deemphasized that we can better cultivate a contemplative outlook. In prayer, we are like “tuning forks” that come in to God’s presence and seek to abide inside of a resonance with God. We need to set aside whatever blocks our reception, especially a lack of love or lack of forgiveness. And we need to embrace the gifts of the East, which, as Rohr properly recognizes, are “practices” and not “conclusions.” I see the Buddha smiling. May namaste, then, become more than a greeting but a way of life, as we look always and everywhere and in everyone for the pneumatological realities we profess herein. May our inter-religious stance be more irenic as we acknowledge the Spirit in one another with true reverence, in authentic solidarity and utmost compassion. A most fundamental aspect of the unqualified affirmation of human dignity would seem to be our nurturance of the attitude that all other humans come bearing an irreplaceable gift for us, that we are to maintain a stance of receptivity toward them, open to receive what it is they offer us through, with and in the Spirit. Whether the Magi were occidental or oriental, Jesus was receptive. When John offered baptism, Jesus was receptive. When Mary anointed his feet, Jesus was receptive. When invited to dine with tax collectors and prostitutes, Jesus was receptive. A critical gaze not first turned on oneself and one’s ways of looking at reality will have very little efficacy when it is otherwise habitually and arrogantly turned first on others. All of this is to observe that, beyond whatever it is that we offer to the world as our unique gift, rather than always approaching our sisters and brothers as fix-it-upper projects in need of our counsel and ministry, sometimes the Spirit may be inviting us to listen, observe and learn from them in a posture of authentic humility and from a stance of genuine affirmation of their infinite value and unique giftedness. While our encounters of the Spirit may be manifold and varied from one phenomenal experience to the next, especially when situated in one major tradition versus another, we may be saying more than we know if we attempt to describe such experiences with more ontological specificity than can be reasonably claimed metaphysically or theologically, suggesting, for example, that such experiences necessarily differ in either origin or degree even if they otherwise differ, as might be expected, in other cognitive, affective, moral, social or religious aspects. More than semantics is at stake, here. We are not merely saying the same thing using different words when we draw such distinctions as between nature and grace, natural and supernatural, acquired and infused, existential and theological, immanent and transcendent; such explicit denotations also have strong connotative implications that might betray attitudes of epistemic hubris, pneumatological exclusivity or religious hegemony, which are clearly unwarranted once we understand that our faith outlooks are effectively evaluative. I say this because, in my view, our belief systems are otherwise, at best, normatively justified existentially after essentially attaining, minimally, an epistemic parity with other hermeneutics vis a vis our best evidential, rational and presuppositional approaches. While there are rubrics for discernment of where the Spirit is active and where humans are cooperative, they do not lend themselves to facile and cursory a priori assessments, neither by an academic theology with its rationalistic categorizing nor by a popular fideistic piety with its supernaturalistic religiosity, predispositions that tend to divide and not unite, to arrogate and not serve, with their vain comparisons and spiritual pretensions.

“It is a serious thing, to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship, or else a horror and a corruption such as you now meet, if at all, only in a nightmare. All day long we are, in some degree, helping each other to one or other of these destinations. It is in the light of these overwhelming possibilities, it is with the awe and the circumspection proper to them, that we should conduct all our dealings with one another, all friendships, all loves, all play, all politics. There are no ‘ordinary’ people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilizations — these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub and exploit — immortal horrors or everlasting splendours. This does not mean that we are to be perpetually solemn. We must play. But our merriment must be of that kind (and it is, in fact, the merriest kind) which exists between people who have, from the outset, taken each other seriously – no flippancy, no superiority, no presumption. And our charity must be a real and costly love, with deep feeling for the sins in spite of which we love the sinner — no mere tolerance or indulgence which parodies love as flippancy parodies merriment.” C.S. Lewis __The Weight of Glory__

Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Send

Tags: A d v a i t a V e d a n t a, A d v a i t i c, B h a k t i, B u d d h a, C.S. Lewis, Christian Zen, Christianity in the Crucible of East-West Dialogue, c o n n a t u r a l i t y, c o n t e m p l a t i v e, C y n t h i a B o u r g e a u l t, Dionysian logic, Duns Scotus, E n l i g h t e n m e n t, False Self, Francis X. Clooney, Gift of Tongues, Holy Spirit, Jacques Maritain, J i m A r r a j, John of the Cross, k a r u n a, M a h a y a n a, M a l u n k y a p u t t a, M a r y B e t h I n g h a m, Meister Eckhart, Neoplatonists, Pseudo-Dionysius, Richard of St. Victor, Richard Rohr, Robert Sharf, Sanbokyodan: Zen and the Way of the New Religions, S h a n k a r a, Soto school, Teresa of Avila, T h i r d E y e, T h o m a s K e a t i n g, Thomas Merton, Toshihiko Izutsu, True Self, V e d a n t i c, Zen Buddhism

An elucidation of Buddhism by Dumoulin with an assist from Peirce, Polanyi and Lonergan JB on October 15, 2009 in Axiological, Cosmological, Methods & Approaches, Practices & Experiences, Provisional Closures & Systems, Uncategorized, the descriptive - Science, the evaluative - Culture, the interpretive - Religion, the normative - Philosophy | No Comments » In my reading of Heinrich Dumoulin’s Understanding Buddhism (Weatherhill, NY & Tokoyo, 1994) as translated and adapted from the German by Joseph S. O’Leary, I discovered possible resonances between my own Peircean-Nevillean inspired axiological epistemology, which opens to a Neo-Platonic, participatory ontology, and certain understandings of Buddhism as explicated by Dumoulin. First, on the question of metaphysics, Dumoulin’s observations seem to concur with those of my friend Jim Arraj, who writes: “It would probably by wrong, as well, to imagine that Zen Buddhism, or even the advaitan Vedanta is making any kind of ontological nondualist claims. Rather, they are trying to take into account a nondual experience, and sometimes their post-experience reflections can leave the impression that they are creating a nondual ontology. But they are not interested in philosophy in the Western sense, but rather, leading people to the experience, itself. The real question, which we will pursue later, is whether enlightenment is nondual in itself, or is presented in a nondual way because of the very means by which the enlightenment experience is attained. There should be no rush to judgment on the part of Christians as if they need to express Christianity in some nondual ontological fashion. This is not precisely what Zen Buddhists, and advaitan Hindus are doing.” Christianity in the Crucible of East-West Dialogue Dumoulin writes (emphasis my own): “Turning to the question of God, I shall dwell on the enigmatic silence with which the Buddha responded to metaphysical questions, and show that this can be seen as one of the several ways in which Buddhism gives witness to divine transcendence.” (pg 2) He continues in the same vein:”Worldviews described as pessimistic are of three kinds: ontological, existential and theological. Pessimistic philosophies of the first kind — nihilism or Manicheanism — declare the being as such is empty of value and meaning, that the foundations of the universe are askew. The Buddhist diagnosis does not entail anything of this sort, for it either refrains from raising questions of metaphysical ontology, or it does so only in a soteriological context, and then answers them in a way that cannot be called pessimistic.” I have conceived of epistemology in terms of four autonomous methodologies that are otherwise integrally related axiologically: descriptive, normative, interpretive and evaluative. Preliminarily, it seems that these roughly correlate to Wim Drees’ definition of theology as a cosmology plus an axiology, where my descriptive and normative categories correspond to Drees’ cosmological category and my interpretive and evaluative roughly correspond to his axiological. These categories also roughly correlate with the traditional categories of theological apologetics: evidential, rational, presuppositional (all cosmological) and existential (axiological). We need to dutifully employ such categories as these when parsing texts in interreligious dialogue in order to avoid facilely reductive interpretations of different traditions. In our realist approaches to reality, we can draw a further distinction, that between a methodological and pragmatic realism and a theoretical and metaphysical realism.

Even our metaphysical realisms can be further distinguished as weak, moderate and strong, or as robustly descriptive versus vaguely referential. These realisms are primarily distinguished from a nominalism, which reduces all meaningful discourse to issues of nomenclature. Polanyi critiques nominalism by advancing his notion of a tacit dimension, which I like to describe as an ineluctably unobtrusive but utterly efficacious type of causation, such a causation as complements the efficient causation of the natural sciences with the minimalistically conceived formal and final causations of modern semiotic science. Lonergan critiques nominalism, which he calls conceptualism, by drawing a distinction between our naming exercises, which correspond to his imperative to be intelligent, and our judging exercises, which follow his imperative to be reasonable. Peirce critiques nominalism with his category of thirdness, which recognizes the reality of law-like generalities (probabilities and necessities) beyond the mere categories of firstness (possibilities as predicates) and secondness (actualities as subjects). These are the types of distinctions that I sense are very much coming into play as we parse the text and disambiguate the concepts of Buddhism in order to properly engage them in comparative theology and contemplative dialogue. If Buddhism is not doing ontology, then what exactly is it claiming, soteriologically, when invoking such ideas as nirvana and the no-self? Dumoulin addresses both realities: He writes of nirvana: “Such reductive interpretations [of nirvana] cannot explain the language in which nirvana is evoked in radiant images of bliss, peace, security and freedom. The literal meaning of the word nirvana is extinction, but this can give a misleading impression. When the Buddha was asked about the state of the Perfected One after death, he pointed out that even in this life his state is “deep, immeasurable, unfathomable as is the great ocean. When the fire is quenched, one does not ask in which direction it has gone, east, west, north or south. This is not because the fire no longer exists, but because, as an Indian audience would have gathered, the fire has returned to a non-manifested state as latent heat. Likewise, the nirvanic state is beyond our grasp, but it is not nothingness.” (pg 29) He continues regarding selfhood: “Modern Theravada Buddhism adopts no single clear stance towards the question of non-self and selfhood, and the complicated development of the Abhidharma philosophies impedes an unambiguous formulation. One both finds the denial of any kind of self, and the acceptance of a self. The position attributed to the Buddha himself rejects both nihilism (uccheda-ditthi) and substantialism (sassata-ditthi). The radical deniers of any kind of self can with difficulty avoid being found in a nihilistic position in the end, while the acceptance of a self leads easily to a substantialist metaphysics of being. The Buddha avoids both by his silence.” (pg 37) There is certainly a minimalist ontology of vague references, a phenomenology, which the Buddha employs in these soteriological and pragmatic contexts. This does not, in my view, entail a denial of the self, existentially, only a deliberate prescinding from a robust description of the essential nature of the self, metaphysically. Not even a root metaphor like being can exhaust the reality of a human being, much less God. Cosmologically, or descriptively and normatively, the Buddha desists from saying more than one can know, from proving too much, from telling an untellable story. Axiologically, or interpretively and evaluatively, there is an inchoate opening to transcendence and a conditioning and prioritization of one’s values as ordered toward both personal transformation and a profound compassion, which ensues from one’s radical awakening to a deep solidarity with reality writ large. To wit, per Dumoulin: “The true self, as my act of existence, is trans-categorical, not graspable in concepts, ineffable. To actualize the true self, one must undergo a dying of one’s ego. Such an experience of self is an experience of transcendence, an opening to absolute reality, though the transcendence is represented in an impersonal, cosmological language rather than a personal theological one.” (pg 43) “This down-to-earth faith is far removed from the abstract pessimism which Westerners often associate with Buddhism. Thus the basic human experience, whereby one breaks through the bounds of the ego to open oneself to an all-embracing, protecting, and helping Power, works itself out in Buddhism in a distinctive style. Knowledge and nescience, transcendent faith and this-worldly confirmation, blend here in a rich varioety of forms.” (pg. 63) “This defining ideal of Buddhism [compassion] is embodied in the Buddha, the bodhisattvas, and the Buddhist saints. The philosophical systems developed in Mahayna Buddhism were unable to provide a satisfactory philosophical illumination of this topic. Christian love, which has also found a convincing embodiment in countless lives, cannot be explained in philosophical terms either, though its foundations in divine transcendence are clear.” (pg 86) Is Buddhism, then, transcending nominalist tendencies or reinforcing them? In my view, Buddhism, transcends nominalism pragmatically. First, there is a mountain, in its Peircean secondness, in actuality, in Lonergan’s imperative to be attentive. Then, there is no mountain, as Lonergan’s imperative to be intelligent critiques our conceptual formulations and choice of predicates as referenced in Peircean firstness or possibilities. Then, there is, once again, a mountain, pragmatically and phenomenologically, as we enjoy our second naivete’ following Lonergan’s imperative to be reasonable in our judgments of fact, as we affirm the Peircean thirdness in what Lonergan has called emergent probabilities. This reasonableness moves forward with the recognition that we do not have to have the essential nature of reality fleshed out in robustly metaphysical terms in order to navigate through reality realizing its manifold and multiform values, but can enjoy our value-realization pursuits with provisional closures and a contrite fallibilism. Buddhism honors Polanyi’s tacit dimensionality in its affirmation of an ineffable transcendent reality. Perhaps no word better captures the Buddhist conception of our human relationship to transcendent reality than participatory? While there can be no robust description of either the self or of transcendent reality in an unambiguous ontological language or system, both per Buddhism and my own take on metaphysics, neither can there be any doubt that the self is caught up in a universal relationality, extending beyond the empirical ego to the dimensions of the cosmos (pg 38). Dumoulin writes: “Interpreted thus [Great Self as no-self], the sense of being one with the cosmos is an acceptance of one’s relative place in the total web of things.” (pg 39) This participatory realization, however, does not grow out of a Buddhist cosmology, descriptively and normatively. It is, rather, an interpretive stance toward an experience, which conditions one’s outlook on reality, evaluatively. Existentially and axiologically, then, one opens oneself to one’s place in the web of existence and approaches reality with a radical acceptance, a deep okayness, a willingness to participate on reality’s terms in order to further realize one’s solidarity with the One and to express the profound compassion that necessarily ensues from this experience.

Dumoulin discusses an East-West convergence of apophatic mysticism. It raises my own suspicions about a possible convergence of these participatory ontologies, both conceived vaguely:”Speaking of Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa and John Chrysostum: These great theologians provided a solid basis for the thought of Psuedo-Dionysius, who also drew heavily on the thought of the Neo-Platonist philosopher Proclus. Are the similarities between Eastern and Western mysticism due exclusively to a convergence on the level of spiritual experience, or was Christian negative theology prompted by an encounter with Asia? There has been much discussion of possible Indian influences on the Middle Platonic and NeoPlatonic ideas which these theologians had absorbed, particularly in connection with Plotinus’s mysticism of the One. Emile Brehier spoke of the orientalism of Plotinus and of deep affinities between certain aspects of Plotinian doctrine and the Upanishads. It is hard to dismiss the belief that the stream of negative theology, preserved and expanded in Christian mystical thought down to the present time, has one of its sources in that distant encounter with a form of Indian spirituality closely related to Buddhism. Though the channels of interactions remain obscure, these early interactions between Eastern and Western spirituality are a haunting theme in the history of religions and loom in the background of the present encounter between Buddhism and Christianity.” (pp. 5-6) Dumoulin closes: The Christian sees ultimate reality revealed in the personal love of God as shown in Christ, the Buddhist in the silence of the Buddha. Yet, they agree on two things: that the ultimate mystery is ineffable, and that it should be manifest to human beings. The inscription on a Chinese stone figure of the Buddha, dated 746, reads: The highest truth is without image. If there were no image at all, however, there would be no way for truth to be manifested. The highest principle is without words. But if there were not words at all, how could principle possibly be revealed? __________________________________ our symbols reveal what they conceal & conceal what they reveal

Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Send

Tags: A b h i d h a r m a, a d v a i t a n H i n d u s, Bernard Lonergan, Charles Sanders Peirce, C h r i s t i a n i t y i n t h e Crucible of East-West Dialogue, contemplative dialogue, epistemology, H e i n r i c h D u m o u l i n, J i m A r r a j, Joseph S. O'Leary, M a h a y n a B u d d h i s m, m e t a p h y s i c s, Michael Polanyi, Neo-Platonic, n i h i l i s m, n i r v a n a, n o m i n a l i s m, n o n d u a l, participatory ontology, soteriological, s u b s t a n t i a l i s m, T h e r a v a d a B u d d h i s m, Understanding Buddhism, Zen Buddhism

One: Essential Writings in Nonduality – a review JB on October 15, 2009 in Practices & Experiences | No Comments » It has been a little more than a decade since my life was graced with two new friends, Thomas and Cynthia Lynch, who were introduced to me through the courtesy of Leonard Swidler, co-founder of the Journal of Ecumenical Studies. The Lynches came bearing a book that has been instrumental in forming my ecumenical outlook, The Word of the Light (Hara Publishing: 1998). This book gifts us all with a scientific, scholarly treatment that uses the Gospel of Thomas as a hermeneutical lens (a clean lens that is unblemished by religious or secular politics) through which to interpret the Light found in the fundamental writings of all of the great traditions, the wisdom that is indubitably common to Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity and Islam. Mohandus Ghandi’s grandson, Arun, wrote: “Dr. Thomas D. and Cynthia E. Lynch have endeavored to show humankind the oneness of all religions of the world. I know this scholarship will not be wasted. It will takes us a step nearer the realization that faith, like the sun, enlightens and enriches everyone equally.” Now, certainly, The Word of the Light was not the only scholarly vehicle around for engaging such ecumenical impulses. The reason it still stands out is that it was structured in such a way that holistically engaged its reader — empirically, logically, practically and interrelationally, which is to suggest that it not only engaged the head but also the heart, that it not only invited one’s assent but also initiated the willing into the unitive experience, meditatively. Thus the book was friendly, accessible, practical and an awakening experience — an awakening to our solidarity that compassion might naturally ensue. Books like The Word of the Light do not come along very often, but, a decade later, humankind has been gifted again by Jerry Katz of the Nonduality Salon (an Internet community), also in the form of an eminently accessible and practical book, One: Essential Writings on Nonduality (Sentient Publications: 2007). It, too, orients one to an awakening to our radical solidarity and an experience of profound compassion. The book, as a paragon of the way anyone might approach nonduality, which is to say without either a rigid metaphysical or religious dogmatism but with an eminently eclectic perspective regarding both its cultural manifestations and practical applications, leaves one with the initial impression that it is just a tasty morsel suggestive of what could be a bountiful banquet if only Katz and similar-minded authors would keep writing and writing and writing. He makes clear that it is a brief, even if comprehensive survey. If one pays careful attention, though, the more lingering impression Katz would leave us with is how bountiful the harvest of compassion could truly be if each of us would only set out on the path of desire for nondual realization.

From lurking at Nonduality Salon and reading One, I have gathered the clear impression that nonduality is being approached with great circumspection, which is to say, with both appropriate epistemic imprecision and ontological vagueness, as necessarily inheres in the matter at hand. That’s the first clue that one will not be engaging a facile treatment, superficial apologetic or hidden agenda, much less any type of hermeneutical axe to grind. Rather, the book seems to invite the reader’s engagement on the same terms as any good poem, which is to say, as a gift to be opened by the reader, herself. This review should be easy enough in that I have inked up so many of its pages, paragraph by paragraph. However, to overread my own interpretation into these writings would, in some sense, equate to a taking of the gift that it can be for you. What I would like to do, instead, is to provide a hermeneutical framework for the Christians, who might engage this book, and maybe for Westerners, in general, also. There is a real tendency for Western minds, in general, Christian minds, in particular, to engage the thought of the East from an ontological or metaphysical perspective. Now, I’m not going to deny that there might even be some heavy metaphysical lifting going on in much of Eastern thought, for that denial, in and of itself, would entail falling into the trap that I am trying to help you avoid. So, just imagine, if you will, when you read the wisdom gathered on the pages of One, that it is not so much trying to gift you with another way of interpreting or processing reality as it is trying to invite you to another way of seeing or experiencing reality. Put another way, it is not so much an exercise in discursive analysis as it is a cultivation of a more authentic awareness. It does not promote cognitive insight as much as it promotes conceptual clarity with a concommitant affective cleansing, which will result from ensuing detachments (broadly conceived). To the extent you do encounter a passage that is metaphysically jarring, let me suggest that you just gently substitute images of interrelatedness and intimacy whenever you encounter something that otherwise implies an unnuanced identity (see FOOTNOTE). Let me also point out that there is WAY more nuance to be enjoyed than many might otherwise be able to see from any cursory reading that is immersed in an habitual dualistic mindset. Let me suggest, now, in more philosophically rigorous language, receive what seem to be metaphysical assertions as epistemic stances or what seem to be ontological descriptions as more so a relating of phenomenal experiences. After all, there is no room to presume that folks — who, self-described, would kill the Buddha — are returning from ineffable experiences only to clearly effable about reality, or that they are telling us tales about, what they claim to hold in-principle as, untellable stories. Something else is going on, which is an invitation into an experience and not an initiation into a philosophical system. In One, you will encounter real people with profound existential longings (comparing favorably to your own) and authentic phenomenal experiences that point to a deep interconnectedness of all Reality. This interrelatedness is ineluctably unobstrusive, which is why so few see it, but utterly efficacious, which is why all experience it, even unawares. Because we are dealing with phenomenal experiences and existential realizations and not, rather, philosophical arguments, category errors and confusion will abound for any critic who chooses to engage these writings through dualistic Cartesian lenses rather than, instead, engaging the wisdom that is there to be had, even in, maybe especially in, paradox and uncertainty. As Fr. Richard Rohr, OFM observes regarding so much of Buddhism, we are being gifted with practices and not conclusions. I would add that we are being gifted with stories of experiences of unitary reality and not ontologies. One recurring theme, for example, is the triadic movement from 1) phenomenal appearances (illusions) through 2) interpretive critique (broadly conceived, such as lingustically, psychologically, etc) and back to 3) a new awareness (often an awareness of self and other that is so conventional and common sensical as to, ironically, be unconventional and uncommon, given so many of us succumb to the fogging of our lenses, save for occasional contemplative glimpses). My favorite surprise was the story of Ohiyesa, a Native American known by the Anglicized name of Charles Alexander Eastman. Every tradition was enthralling and every personality engaging as Katz also surveyed nondual “confessions” from Advaita Vedanta, Sufism, Judaism, Taoism, Christianity and Buddhism, as well as perspectives from psychotherapy, education, art and cinema. There are comprehensive notes and citations. In reflecting on the writings of Bernadette Roberts as were presented in the book, which might be of special interest to those in my particular orbit, my only caveat is that one might best employ the same type of interpretive lenses for her account as I recommended for the other traditions. After significant reflection, my most generous interpretation would be that her experiences might correspond, generally, to what theologians have distinguished as primary and secondary objects of our beatific visions and further distinguished as essential (both subjective and objective) and accidental beatitudes, all which I would receive as epistemic stances and phenomenal experiences and not in terms of ontological conclusions. Absent a metaphysical glossary, these writings do not invite philosophical parsing, so one might otherwise more safely presume that they are a very generous gift in the form of a very depthful personal sharing that is some of the most poignantly beautiful (the pain was so very palpable and the Eucharistic oblation so very sincere) and poetic story-telling of one of the most profound nondual experiences (of tremendous existential import) ever to be related (quite courageously) within our modern Christian tradition. Do yourself a favor and unwrap the gifts that are uniquely yours in One: Essential Writings on Nonduality.

Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Send

Tags: A d v a i t a V e d a n t a, Bernadette Roberts, B u d d h a, Charles Alexander Eastman, C h r i s t i a n i t y, C y n t h i a L y n c h, Gospel of Thomas, J e r r y K a t z, Journal of Ecumenical Studies, J u d a i s m, Leonard Swidler, m e t a p h y s i c a l, Mohandus Ghandi, n o n d u a l i t y, Nonduality Salon, O h i y e s a, One: Essential Writings on N o n d u a l i t y, Richard Rohr, S u f i s m, T a o i s m, The Word of the Light, T h o m a s L y n c h

Realism – metaphysical, moral & political

JB on October 14, 2009 in Uncategorized, the normative - Philosophy | No Comments » In Economics at the Jesus Creed: Michael Kruse 6 today’s discussion asks What is wealth? Kruse clarifies: I’m asking that since economic value of goods and labor is determined by utility, yet as Christians we know there is more than economic value in life, what should be our response. These issues are framed up and explained very well. In my own tradition, we affirm a metaphysical realism (we can descriptively adduce enough of what has been given, what is, to realize life’s most important values) and a moral realism (we can normatively reason from an is to an ought, from the descriptive to the prescriptive, from what’s given to what’s normative, from fact to value). More and more, however, we have moved from the apodictic certainties of an a prioristic rationalism to the more provisional closures of a contrite fallibilism. While we recognize such distinctions as between deontological, teleological, aretaic, contractarian, utilitarian, pragmatic and consequentialistic approaches to moral realities, such as between real and apparent goods, lesser and higher goods, extrinsic and intrinsic rewards, we also affirm a political realism, which recognizes our radical human finitude as we practice the art of the possible, politics. From a metaphysical perspective, ontology, in many ways, remains highly speculative. It follows then that, morally, our deontology, in many cases, will remain somewhat tentative. This is to acknowledge that our journey from is to ought, given to normative, will often be more than a tad problematical. One response has thus been pastoral sensitivity. In matters of war and peace, this pastoral sensitivity can simultaneously affirm both pacifism and just war principles as acceptable responses to Gospel imperatives. The just war tradition represents an accommodation to the universal human condition. On smaller scales, such as in our families and religious communities, from each according to their ability and to each according to their need has worked well. On larger scales, this communal approach breaks down. What we sanction in our social encyclicals is carefully crafted to accommodate our radical human finitude while advocating Gospel imperatives. Such accommodations are strategic and represent a negotiation of seemingly intractable political realities and not, rather, a negotiation of religious realities. When we do take recourse in the pragmatic, we do so strategically, not philosophically. Sometimes, we take strategic recourse in the pragmatic, theoretically, because it is truthindicative and thus increases our confidence in a proposition probabilistically. Sometimes, we take strategic recourse in the pragmatic, practically, not because we are negotiating our principles but because we are negotiating difficult social, economic, political and cultural realities. Below, I am archiving my contribution to the above-referenced BeliefNet thread: This is an excellent discussion, well-framed and explained. I would like to introduce a distinction that seems to be in play here. Pragmatic approaches can superficially resemble each other, strategically, even when coming from widely different perspectives, philosophically. As Christians, our interpretive stance toward reality presupposes both metaphysical and moral realisms. Oversimplified, we do believe that one can journey from an is to an ought, a fact to a value, the given to the normative, the descriptive to the prescriptive. While our descriptions of reality are problematical because we are radically finite, while we in no way fully comprehend reality, we do know enough through our partial apprehension of reality to derive from it significant values in terms of truth, beauty, goodness and unity. Still, because of our radical finitude, we must be concerned also with the art of the possible, the political, and this calls for a political realism, which takes into account what can be some rather harsh and seemingly intractable social, economic, political and cultural realities. In my RC tradition, our social encyclicals pay heed to metaphysical, moral and political realisms. When we do take a “pragmatic turn,” we do so strategically and not philosophically. For the Christian, while the pragmatic can serve as a “test” of truth, never is it considered a “theory” of truth; while it can serve as a “strategy,” never does it serve as a “principle.” Theoretically, if the pragmatic is truth-indicative, then, strategically, it can increase our confidence in a proposition probabilistically even if it is not otherwise truthconducive. Practically, if we encounter difficult socioeconomic and political realities, then, strategically, we can defensibly take recourse in pragmatic solutions as we try to successfully negotiate these realities, partially advancing our Gospel cause, without in any way negotiating our principles. What I am suggesting is that there can be a superficial resemblance between our Christian responses and otherwise secular approaches as we accommodate ourselves to difficult social, economic, political and cultural realities while, at the same time, trying to permeate and improve the temporal order with our eternal perspective. As many grapple with our somewhat universal human condition and turn to the pragmatic, philosophically, Christians will often seek recourse in the pragmatic, also, but only strategically. Our response can thus be distinguished as one of pastoral sensitivity and not a worldly capitulation. Thus it is, for example, that in matters of war and peace, this pastoral sensitivity can simultaneously affirm both pacifism and just war principles as acceptable responses to Gospel imperatives. Thus it is that, in our families and religious communities, we can affirm an approach that says “from each according to their ability and to each according to their need” even as we recognize that, on larger scales, this communal approach rapidly breaks down. This break down requires a pastoral sensitivity via a strategic accommodation, which should not be confused with a philosophical negotiation. While there may very well be certain “pragmatic” prescriptions that seem to inhere in Michael’s descriptions of certain social and economic realities, from the interpretive stance of our Christian worldview, such pragmatic responses need not be considered philosophical capitulations but, instead, can be viewed as strategic accommodations. Such accommodations are born of our radical human finitude and articulated by a pastoral sensitivity, as situated in metaphysical (critical), moral and political realisms. These realisms operate best under ideal circumstances and, all things being equal, provide our proper bias positions and default responses (like subsidiarity & pacifism). Our circumstances are seldom ideal and, unfortunately, all things are decidedly not equal.

What we all do in response may look exactly the same; why we do it may drastically differ. How, then, do we differentiate our Gospel-brand in the marketplace of ideas? For one thing, we should articulate our principles and state why we advocate one approach versus another. For another, at our earliest opportunity, circumstances permitting and resources affording, we should move assertively to change strategies in an effort to conform more and more to our Gospel-ideals as salt for the earth and light for the world.

Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Send

Tags: economic justice, fallibilism, Jesus Creed, m e t a p h y s i c a l r e a l i s m, Michael Kruse, m o r a l r e a l i s m, pastoral sensitivity, political realism, Scot McKnight, social justice

Afghanistan Alternatives JB on October 13, 2009 in Uncategorized, the normative - Philosophy | 1 Comment » Continuing this conversation: Afghanistan – just war criteria require redefinition of success There’s little room for strong-willed, over-confident notions regarding how to proceed in Afghanistan. Whatever course of action the Obama Administration ultimately takes, we can take some solace in the reality that our deliberative process seems to be at least a tad more robust than it was back when the neocon approach predominated? Fareed Zakaria asks What Failure in Afghanistan? Zakaria writes: “It’s important to remember that the crucial, lasting element of the surge in Iraq was not the influx of troops but getting Sunni tribes to switch sides, by offering them security, money and a place at the table.” David Cortright discusses Alternatives to war in Afghanistan. Cortright explains: Rather than waging war against the Pashtuns and stoking the fires of extremism, the United States and its allies should pursue policies of cooption and reconciliation. Harrison urges American leaders to seek “peace arrangements with Taliban and Taliban-related Islamist factions.” South Asia experts Barnett Rubin and Ahmed Rashid proposed in Foreign Affairs last year a “grand bargain” strategy of luring reconcilable Taliban elements into political accommodation and power-sharing arrangements as a means of peeling away support from al-Qaeda -related groups. They called for “a political solution with as much of the Afghan and Pakistani insurgencies as possible, offering political inclusion … and an end to hostile action by international troops in return for cooperation against al-Qaeda.”

Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Send

Tags: A f g h a n i s t a n, D a v i d C o r t r i g h t, Fareed Zakaria, neocon, O b a m a

Science, Philosophy, Culture & Religion JB on October 10, 2009 in Axiological, Cosmological, Methods & Approaches, Practices & Experiences, Provisional Closures & Systems, Uncategorized, the descriptive - Science, the evaluative - Culture, the interpretive - Religion, the normative - Philosophy | No Comments »

Tim King’s inaugural essay, The Truth (?) of Sacred Narratives, articulates the The David Group International’s vision for sacred transformation. Essentially, Tim’s calling us all to dialogue about dialogue with his primary focus on epistemology. This is no wimpy, radically deconstructive postmodernism like that of the false prophets, who have suggested we should tear everything down, raging against the machine but offering no earthly idea regarding how to rebuild it. Neither is it one of those visions that would do us no earthly good because it is so heavenly-minded. Implicit in Tim’s call to meta-dialogue is an affirmation that we can move from an is to an ought, from the given to the normative, from the descriptive to the prescriptive, from facts to values, notwithstanding Hume’s objections, and that we can distinguish between apparent and real goods, lesser and higher goods, notwithstanding any supposed naturalistic fallacy. In other words, if a good metadialogue can lead to a good meta-ethic, then a good global dialogue can lead to a good global ethic. I want to unpack these ideas and place them in a categorical framework that, in my view, might best advance this dialogue and hopefully foster this ethic. Before I do this, however, I simply must address an exciting dynamic that is unfolding before our very eyes. Phyllis Tickle has well described The Great Emergence, a monumental phenomenon in our world, a massive transition in our churches, taking the form of an emerging ethos, which is nothing less than a sacred transformation. This transformation is clearly religious but also playing out at individual, organizational, societal, cultural and global levels. Now, admittedly, I bring a hermeneutic of suspicion to any accounts that seem to so facilely describe historical and sociologic realities in such broad terms while also leading to such sweeping conclusions. It is my inclination to suppose there is a natural tendency in all visionaries, who so clearly see what ought to be, to describe reality in terms of how they would prescribe reality, to take what they feel should be normative and show how it is presently germinating in what’s already been given, to turn one’s historical accountancy into one’s futurist advocacy. While I am not competent to evaluate the empirical accuracy of the details of Tickle’s account, I would invite even her harshest critics to look beyond the text and to listen actively for an authentic voice of prophetic protest. Whatever else may be going on, her’s is also a clarion call to repentance and conversion through both personal and ecclesial self-examen and selfcriticism. Tickle recognizes the contributions of different movements: 1) conservative, 2) liturgical, 3) social justice and 4) renewal. Richard Rohr has described the four pillars of the emerging church conversation as 1) honest Jesus scholarship, 2) contemplation & nonduality, 3) peace & social justice and 4) noninstitutional vehicles. Both of these descriptions, each in its own way, are nothing less than an affirmation of creed, cult, code and community, the timeless transcendental imperatives of humanity’s irresistable existential orientations to truth, beauty, goodness and unity. Humankind has always sought to articulate the truth it has encountered in creed, celebrate the beauty it has realized in liturgy & ritual, preserve the goodness it has engaged as code & law, and foster the fellowship it has enjoyed in community, this notwithstanding that our dogma has so often deteriorated into dogmatism, our ritual decayed into ritualism, our law ossified into legalism and our community degenerated into institutionalism. What emerges beyond Tickle’s text, in my view, is the reformada, semper reformanda (reformed, always reforming) dynamic that we all can recognize and affirm. Even when we cannot precisely determine the when and how of the reformative aspects of our transformative dynamics, no one can credibly deny that these are perduring aspects of any robustly transformative ecclesial realities. Rohr has rightly, in my view, reinforced Tickle’s recognition of the powerful convergence aspect of this emergence dynamic. For the first time ever, earlier this year, Roman Catholics came together with Protestants, Evangelicals & Anglican Catholics in the emerging conversation as Brian McLaren, Phyllis Tickle and Shane Claiborne joined Rohr at the Center for Action & Contemplation for a conference exploring this emergence and convergence. Once again, this convergence aspect presents itself as I survey the riches being mined by Tim, Kevin Beck, Jay Gary, Frank Spencer and others in The David Group International. No one has raised my awareness and warmed my heart more than Richard Rohr and Thomas Merton when it comes to understanding our transformative journeys. Observing the convergence between their hermeneutics and others like McLaren and Tickle has been eye-opening and inspiring. It is nothing short of astounding, a few short months later, to now see Tim King inaugurate The David Group articulating the very principles and aspiring to the same lofty goals of two other of my personal heroes and coreligionists, Leonard Swidler and Hans Kung, whose work toward a Global Dialogue and Global Ethic I have followed with active interest through The Dialogue Institute and Center for Global Ethics . I do not need a brick wall to fall on me to know that this convergence game remains truly afoot! Thanks to Mike Morrell, I became aware of an exciting conversation in the ecclesial blogosphere, recently, which was sparked by Richard Sudworth’s reflection The Betrayal of Betrayal. The discussion really got rolling after Kester Brewin and Peter Rollins teased out the nuances of a provocative but evocative piracy metaphor, where they explored, in Sudworth’s words, “piracy” as motif of Christian innovation and faithfulness. Of course, all metaphors eventually collapse and I received much of the conversation in that vein as diverse viewpoints weighed in suggesting, for the most part, just how resilient the metaphor was or just how fast they saw it collapsing, all very instructive in either case. At the same time that I commend this exchange to any who are seriously interested in the emerging conversation, it is precisely because I recognize it as depthful and nuanced that I hesitate to further characterize the issues that were at stake, here, in this short space. I mentioned it here, however, because I do want to say that it rekindled one of my own recurring themes, which directly bears on the topic at hand. How should one deal with tensions between competing ideas and values? When should such tensions resolve dialectically? When might they otherwise dissolve from a simple perspectival shift? When should they be maintained in a creative tension? Or, perhaps even, some combination of these approaches based on emergent novelties? The answers to these questions are very much related to how we deal with paradox and mystery, very much involved in formation, deformation, reformation and transformation, clearly related to Tim’s focus on good epistemology. They bear directly on our considerations of what is core versus peripheral, essential versus accidental, central versus marginal, enduring versus ephemeral. In some sense, then, I think it is key to place our methods before our systems, our processes before our products, our practices before our conclusions as we are philosophical without necessarily having a philosophy, are cosmological without having a finished cosmology, are epistemological without having a definitive ontology and so on. This is also to recognize that, regarding life’s most ultimate concerns and most primal realities, getting the questions right is more important than having the right answers. Clearly, then, truth, beauty, goodness and unity are the intrinsically rewarding values, the “pursuits of same” being their own rewards, the “journeys toward” being their own destinations, the “quests for which” are, themselves, the sought-after grails. The human spiritual quest, then, is essentially philosophic and normative and our transformative journey is oriented toward an authenticity that grows as we develop in our relationship to the truth, intellectually, to beauty, affectively, to goodness, morally, and to unity, socially. Thomas Merton describes our human journey in successive stages of humanization, socialization and transformation, wherein our very first years we, beginning as little animals, are humanized, soon after to be socialized in order to be able to successfully function in society and to obtain the extrinsic rewards that derive from such functionality. Such humanization and socialization processes correspond to the early stages of our intellectual, affective, moral and social development, all which are very much fostered also by our

religious upbringing, to be sure. Less often, Merton often lamented, do our religious institutions seem to foster authentic transformation, instead, turning out, as they most often do, the same performance-based, merit system-oriented personhoods as their secular counterparts, i.e. educational, vocational, occupational, legislative, judicial and militaryindustrial structures. When the “products” of religious creeds, cults, codes and communities far more resemble those of our schools, entertainment venues, legislatures & judicial systems and workaday worlds, while we can surely and suitably congratulate ourselves for the indispensable socialization we have thus fostered, we must also introspectively and self-critically ask ourselves whether or not we are also, and more importantly, making our more distinct contribution to a growth in human authenticity, which is supposed to be that of transformation, which lifts our hearts and minds to life’s higher goods and more intrinsic rewards, where we better and better realize that we are valued for who we are as God’s creatures and not for what we do as a member of society. It is not that our socialization is in any way dispensable; rather, as Merton points out, it’s just that it is totally crazy, a wooden nickel, to imagine that our relationship to God and ongoing transformation are just more of this same socialization dynamic. This is why it is so critical that we understand what Rohr emphasizes as our contemplative mind or nondual thinking. Our empirical, rational and practical, problem-solving, dualistic mindset is of course a gift from God and indispensable to our functioning in society but we must go beyond it, through faith, in our God-encounter (as we must in all of our personal relationships), cultivating the contemplative stance, employing our nondual engagement of reality. Let me break open some categories and unpack their meaning. Wim Drees, the new editor of Zygon, which is published by the Institute of Religion in an Age of Science, draws a distinction between the cosmological and the axiological and suggests that a theology equals a cosmology plus an axiology. I affirm this distinction and further define these categories where the cosmological is comprised of science and philosophy, or our descriptive and normative sciences, respectively, asking of reality the questions: What is that? and How can one best acquire or avoid that? A human, then, has already embarked on a spiritual quest, cosmologically, by virtue of being an inherently philosophic animal, prior to having a religious interpretation, axiologically. The axiological is comprised of culture and religion, which are typically inextricably bound, further defined as our evaluative and interpretive stances, respectively, asking of reality the questions: What’s that to me? and How does all of that tie back together or re-ligate? Science, philosophy and culture, then, however primitively or crudely, have always been interacting implicitly and unconsciously on each person’s and each culture’s journey, individually and collectively, feeding humankind’s spiritual quest for meaning in its inextricable relationship to truth, goodness and beauty. And this quest inevitably becomes religious, for each person and each culture, as the interactions become explicit and conscious, properly ordering these relationships in the creeds, codes and cults of our religious communities. The implicit and unconscious journey is no less sacred or holy but it is certainly more whole when articulated, celebrated, preserved and enjoyed explicitly and consciously. Such an interpretive stance, which is essentially religious, even while explicit and conscious, will not always be formal vis a vis an organized or institutional religion and, in some cases, may not even be theistic. Archetypally, our kings and queens establish boundaries, our warriors and maidens defend boundaries, our wizards and crones (alchemists) negotiate boundaries and our lovers and mothers transcend boundaries. These boundaries exist for truth in creed, beauty in cult, goodness in code and unity in community. For each of these existential orientations as transcendental imperatives, there are roots to be cultivated (boundaries established and defended), shoots to be nurtured (boundaries negotiated) and fruits to be enjoyed (boundaries transcended). There are tensions to be resolved dialectically, dissovled perspectivally and maintained creatively. It is no small task requiring no facile analysis trying to sort out one reality from the next as we discern in community radically, which are our roots, emergently, which are our shoots. I do know this. We know what fruits we must look for and we know that an institution that does not foster human authenticity via intellectual, affective, moral, social and religious growth and development needs reformation even if reformed. All institutions that are properly self-critical and attentive to their prophetic traditions will welcome ongoing reformation. Properly ordered, our creeds, codes and cults are means to an End, Whom most cultures consider, pneumatologically, as Spirit. All too often, once disordered, these means get confused for ends, the signs get taken for the realities. What generally happens is that a richly textured and depthful experience of our multidimensional reality which we understand, primarily, through our participatory imagination via concrete, imaginative and practical engagements and shared story-telling, will quite naturally get processed by our propositional cognition via abstract, conceptual and theoretical ratiocinations and shared map-making, thereby augmenting our ability to recognize certain common touchpoints for the journey and translating what might otherwise be ineffective ways of communicating into a lingua franca with more rigid but more universally accepted categories. Much, of course, gets lost in translation. Pretty much all gets lost, unfortunately, when we mistake our maps for the reality they represent. What the emergence and convergence conversation is about is avoiding that so incredibly sad but all too frequent reality where, curiously and tragically, you or I get satisfied with a folded and creased glossy, black & white 3×5 of our Lover in our wallet, having gotten totally out of touch with the former but glorious ecstasies of our Beloved’s bridal chamber. Now, quite honestly, if a well-intended iconoclast comes along and tears up your 3×5, in their own way, they are sadly missing the point, too, and do not understand the role that semiotic realities play in our radical human finitude, quite often as sacramental signs that can fully bring into this incarnational reality precisely what it is that they have brought into our hearts and minds. This is January 2010. I am archiving some of my musings here from my recent responses on other blogs: Humans do not need a god-concept to establish a cosmic origin, free will, human intelligence, reality’s intelligibility, morality or spirituality. And while it is quite natural for us to aspire to interpret reality through religious questioning, we don’t need definitive answers to such questions in order to consider life good, for the most part, notwithstanding that reality remains very much ambiguous for us and undeniably ambivalent toward us. A theodicy, as a cognitive proposition, results from category errors. As an evaluative posit, a theodicy strikes me as cruel. +++ No apocalypse. No hell either. At the most, it might be a necessary theological construct to convey the reality that God would not coerce a relationship on anyone. For all practical purposes, for various reasons, in my book, it’ll be empty. I’m openminded re: immortal soul, but, push come to shove, what serves us as a soul, in my view, ain’t likely immortal. Good conversation. +++

Resurrection? Yeah, I agree, essential. At-one-ment? Also essential. But not the old penal, substitutionary trope. Bad theodicy. Might there be a grand cosmic Justice System, robed in a garment of legal and moral realities? That’s not an unreasonable question. Not unimportant either. Sounds to me like a cosmological question that science and philosophy can get after. In addressing our ultimate concerns, religion, in general, and Christianity, in particular, go WAY beyond these questions (even if they don’t go entirely without them). It addresses realities like the nature of the Father and of the Kingdom. +++ I view science as a descriptive methodology, philosophy as a normative methodology, culture as an evaluative enterprise and religion & other meta-perspectives as interpretive enterprises. Each approach is autonomous in asking reality, respectively, 1) what is that? 2) how does one best acquire or avoid that? 3) what’s that to me/us? and 4) how does all of this tie (or re-ligate) together?Every human value-realization integrally relates these otherwise autonomous approaches. Science, then, is inherently normative. Philosophy, for its part, must employ the “is” provided by descriptive science in order to reason its way to a normative “ought.” Taken together, science and philosophy are cosmological enterprises. I distinguish them from culture and religion/ideology, which I consider axiological enterprises. The rubric works like this: the normative mediates between the descriptive and interpretive to effect the evaluative. These autonomous approaches are not logically-related (applying distinctly different methods & asking very different types of questions), but they are, one might say, intellectually-related, working together whenever we realize a human value. In my view, what is necessary to lead a good and moral life is transparent to human reason and we do not need some special divine revelation in order to distinguish good from evil, right from wrong. We especially don’t need religion providing answers to what are essentially scientific questions. Science and philosophy employ autonomous methodologies and “get after” one set of human concerns. The presumption is that religions and ideologies and metaphysicians are more than welcome in the public square to speak to moral realities but need to translate their propositions and reason together with others of goodwill. And I’m very cool with defining “get after” as speculation or question-asking. I am only circumscribing different horizons of concern, suggesting the nature of the questions they ask. I am not suggesting how conclusive anyone’s proofs or answers might be. But I do have rubrics for that, too. +++ In my view, Christianity remains in search of a metaphysic, just like the rest of the world. I prefer to prescind from metaphysical-like interpretations to a much more vague phenomenological perspective. Thus, I tend to look at Scripture and Tradition and come away with the vague notion of an event, which is just to say that “something happened.” And I call this happening and what ensued in its wake the Resurrection Event. Now, what that means literally for either Jesus or anyone else? Well, different takes on this are naturally variously compelling to different people and peoples. I think, again, we can back up and look at the overall thrust of Jesus’ life, and that of other traditions even, from a more vague perspective, and we can reasonably come away with the idea that the saints and mystics and authentic practitioners of these traditions are testifying to profound experiences of a reality that is ultimately unitive and love-filled, that awakens us to solidarity and inspires in us compassion, and that inspires a trust-relationship with and toward reality, itself. This, then, is a rather universal testimony to the idea THAT reality is, at bottom, friendly, even as we might be left to wonder exactly HOW this may be so, because the evidence, as you note, is ambiguous. Once we situate Christianity and its specific message in the context of the other great traditions, its specific hopes, that all may be well, do not appear wholly unreasonable. I think the novelist Walker Percy was very faithful in his articulation of the human predicament, as informed by his appreciation of the French existentialists and folks like Dostoevsky and Kierkegaard. Sartre and Camus et al and their perspectives on the human condition are not to be facilely engaged and then casually dismissed. Tillich was spot on in recognizing that faith was a polar reality with doubt an indispensable element, a state of being ultimately concerned and not, rather, propositionally certain.

In Philip Clayton & Tripp Fuller’s gift to us, a book called Transforming Christian Theology (Fortress Press, 2010), there is a chapter called A Theology of Self-Emptying for the Church, Chapter 13. <<< This link brings one to Bob Cornwall’s treatment of Phil’s wonderful meditation. I’m with the Jewish mystics, who thought God had to shrink to make room for creation. And also with John the Baptist in that He must increase and I must decrease. This is also what at-one-ment means to me, nothing penal or substitutionary. With Duns Scotus, I believe that the Incarnation was in the cards from the Grand Cosmic Get-Go and was not occasioned by any frail human felix culpa! +++ There is a certain irony in that my neologisms mark an attempt to make certain ideas more accessible (what’s that? what’s that to us? how does one avoid or acquire that? how might we tie all this together?). Normative methodology = how does one avoid or acquire that? using logic, aesthetics & ethics. This is no attempt at a meta-theory. It’s a simple heuristic device, the articulation of a few conceptual placeholders. It is grounded in Bernard Lonergan’s theological anthropology and Charles Sanders Peirce’s semiotic approach. It is Peirce who defines the normative sciences as logic, aesthetics and ethics. All I’ve done is to translate Peirce’s observation that the normative sciences mediate between phenomenology and metaphysics and then suggested that indeed they do and are, in fact, purpose-driven or value-oriented. It is Lonergan’s protege’ Daniel Helminiak who describes the progressively expanding horizons of human concern, the positivist (science) nested in the philosophic. It is Wim Drees, Zygon editor, who has suggested that theologians might better focus on the axiological and leave the cosmological to others and I heartily agree. It’s a shared vision captured by Amos Yong and myself, and we do accept the burden of proof & have 30 pages of it tied up in peer review, presently. It is precisely our point that our concepts with their implicit & explicit pragmatic cash values must be negotiated in progressively larger communities of human value-realizers (truth-seekers, beauty-creators, goodness-preservers, unity-lovers). You suggest that “if there is justice to be had, or solace to be sought, it’s not something out there to be discovered, by some kind of magic, but something we are left to create once we finally figure out that no one else is going to do it for us.” That’s neither unreasonable nor uncontroversial. For my part, I remain open to the notion that humans might both create as well as discover various aspects of reality that might ground our visions of justice and solace. A theological nonrealism can critique a naive theological realism and urge us to retreat from any facile notions that the reality of God would be comprehensible or that divine action would be determined by necessity. Of course, positive attributes like comprehensibility and necessity can only be applied to a god-concept analogically. Such a nonrealism would go too far, however, in a priori suggesting that the reality of God must be unintelligible or that divine action must be random if God is also like what we might consider to be good. That would amount to a caricature of how predicates are assigned to the God-concept. I know it might appear that folks like Pseudo-Dionysius, Aquinas and Charles Hartshorne are taking us on one too many trips around the theological barn in applying philosophical nuance and qualification of predicates to god-attributes, but it just might go with the enormity of the territory, don’t you imagine? One could coherently and consistently say that a putative God (or concept) would be incomprehensible but not that it’s unintelligible, even while suggesting that His goodness would be something LIKE human goodness. One could coherently and consistently say that divine action would be probabilistic but not that it would be random, even while suggesting that His goodness would be something LIKE human goodness. How could one apply an analogical predicate like random to God when it is not otherwise physically instantiated in reality? Now THAT would amount to trafficking in total abstractions! Now, it may be that one might find oneself totally scandalized by the notion of such a God as would seemingly treat human creatures like dogs, feeding them, patting them on the head, worming them, playing with them and occasionally sending them scampering off by kicking them in the gut, while these importunate creatures keep coming back, again and again and again, to their Master for care and affection, sometimes with their tails between their legs and sometimes with their tails wagging. One can dismiss such a God-concept on evaluative grounds and tear the Glad Psalms out of one’s hymnal, singing only the Mad Psalms and plaintively lamenting the Sad. But to dismiss a highly nuanced God-concept on epistemic grounds as unintelligible and to describe its putative divine action as necessarily random does not withstand philosophical rigor or theological scrutiny. I’m not here to acquit the Most High and I am not a professional apologist. But I thought it might be best to disambiguate the concept of this God we’re often invited to defend. And I’m here in the spirit of Emerson, who said that God will arrive as soon as the half-gods depart. In helping folks dismiss their straw-gods, perhaps they might better worship the God Almighty? And I’m not picking a nit in suggesting a distinction between incomprehensibility and unintelligiblity, or between random and probabilistic. Those are distinctions that do make a difference and they are cashed out in the manner in which we choose to live lives of vibrant faith, vital hope and earnest love of self, other, earth and God. +++ In my view, a philosophical goal to which we might reasonably aspire is to frame up our questions regarding our ultimate concerns in a manner that is congruent with reality (doesn’t contradict established scientific theory), logically consistent (employing concepts and arguments that reflect good critical thinking) and internally coherent (don’t have us working at cross-purposes with our own approaches to reality). If a ball comes flying over our fence into our yard and breaks a sliding glass door, it is not unreasonable to inquire of its origins. While we may never be able to ascertain its unknown cause, we may, from the nature of its effects, determine whether or not they are consistent with any other known causes, like kids playing ball, like lawn mowers hurling trajectories, like pitching machines in batting cages, like homemade potato guns and so on. And we may reasonably rule out any of the above possibilities by inference based on such properties as the nature of the damage inflicted on the door, the condition of the ball, the ball’s putative trajectory & velocity & acceleration as well as its mass & material composition. All such inferences will actually increase our descriptive accuracy of the cause even if only through negation, apophatically ruling out all known probable causes by saying it couldn’t be this or that or anything like them, either. And we may increase our descriptive accuracy of the origin of the projectile through kataphatic affirmation by analogically describing what the cause must have been like, asserting far more dissimilarities than similarities. This globe we live on is hurtling through a space-time, mass-energy plenum leaving us perplexed and often frightened out of our minds. Our inquiry into its origins leaves us speculating, not idly, regarding its putative cause. And it is the most natural thing in the world for humankind to inquire after same. And I think we at least want to get our questions right and to avoid category errors as we continue our quest. We would not be having this conversation if we did not presuppose that some approaches to the problem are better than others, some more helpful, others downright hurtful. Some approaches deserve to be placed in baby strollers without bonnets and brought to a nearby hilltop and let go in a Monty Python skit. Others have the makings of a fairly good grail quest.

Here’s the rub. How can one say that our approaches to this inscrutable reality leave the universe utterly unaffected? Such an assertion is, itself, a ghastly apparition playing out on a screen of fancy in a shadowy Cartesian theater where humans are alienated from reality, truly getting uppity and holding court on what is a priori knowable or unknowable, phenomenal or noumenal, real or fancied. If nothing else, we do manifestly change the universe, even if only locally, even if only in the manner we choose to relate to our planet and one another, determining whether or not we go out with an ecological whimper or a nuclear holocaust. I am precisely suggesting that philosophy rocks in just the manner in which you describe. But I dissent from any notion that it cannot hold court on what’s beyond. Some notions of what’s beyond are incongruent with science, inconsistent with logic, incoherent with our shared norms and unacceptable vis a vis the moral and practical courses of action they inspire, on which humans then embark. Good philosophy holds court on things beyond and, although it has not yet, at this point of humankind’s journey, rendered a proved verdict for any given worldview, it has competently and within its jurisdiction adjudicated both disproved and unproved (Scottish) verdicts. While there is no room for epistemic hubris, we need not surrender to an excessive epistemic humility or radical apophaticism. I understand and appreciate, then, that a nuanced agnosticism, nontheism or even nonmilitant atheism might have the same epistemic status as my own nuanced theism. Good philosophy helps us adjudicate an unproved verdict, which is not unimportant over against competing worldviews, including fundamentalistic theisms, scientistic atheisms and unmitigated practical nihilisms, which can be disproved. These competing worldviews all exert an incredible amount of normative impetus affecting the moral and practical approaches of the people who hold them, suggesting descriptions of what might ail them and insidious prescriptions for what might cure those ails. I don’t just make coughing noises regarding their bullshit. I enter the courtroom and argue my case, suggesting interdiction of these very real dangers. +++ RE: If you honestly think that philosophy can speak about the beyond, then you need to understand that you do not have the common ground with Ira (or myself) you suppose, because we are thoroughly Wittgensteinian, at least in that respect. +++ I affirm a fallibilist, metaphysical realism and a semiotic pragmatism. I’m with Wittgenstein’s student, Anscombe, when it comes to such arguments as have been advanced, for example, by CS Lewis, on occasion. But I do not buy into a Kierkegaardian fideism, which seems to me to be an over-correction to an Hegelian scientism. Neither do I buy into a Kantian transcendentalism, which should have confronted the Humean critique practically. I see much value in what Wm. James and and Pascal had to say, but correct them with Peirce. RE: Epistemic hubris or no, I find it astounding that you’re still able to assert (even without display) that philosophy “holds court on things beyond,” and more astounding still that you seem to expect philosophy to have something definitive to say on the matter in the future. +++ I’m with GK Chesterton in that it is too early on humankind’s journey to say that reality is unknowable. Our knowledge advance is slow but inexorable. I made clear that nothing is being proved. My findings were epistemological critiques of scientism, fideism and nihilism, also essentialism and nominalism. RE: You beat down a sad looking straw man when you come back against Ira’s statement that the universe goes on unaffected with a homily on global warming and nuclear holocaust. That is not what Ira meant, and I think you know that. Ira meant that whatever constitutes the universe, determines its laws (i.e., the fact that what we do with machinery can damage our world and potentially affect gravitational forces in our solar system) is unchanged by our conjectures as to ultimate causality or our speculations about the meaning of it all. +++ Thanks for the clarification. I guess I was working on the assumption that his rhetorical flourish was something other than a trivial grasp of the obvious. Our ongoing attempts to enhance our modeling power of reality do matter greatly. My point is that some models work better. RE: I am also astounded that you continue to carry the Thomistic party line about the naturalness of causal questions with regard to the universe as a whole. Philosophy and science both converge here to tell us that the question of the origin of space and time is a confused question, precisely because we cannot know what “rules” govern “nothing.” +++ Wrong. I am not taking existence as a predicate of being, here. I do not even buy into an a priori assertion that the universe is eternal vs a product of creatio ex nihilo. Who knows? It was Wittgenstein who said that it is not HOW things are but THAT things are which is the mystical. That sounds a lot like Heidegger’s query: Why is there not rather nothing? Sounds to me like the Thomists, Wittgenstein, Heidegger et al might be reifying this conception called “nothing” and I have no a priori reason to know whether or not it successfully refers. One might, instead, more profitably invoke Godel and our inability to prove a system’s axioms within the same formal system. Alas, that is not satisfying either because we humans do not advance our knowledge solely through formal symbol systems. Sometimes we can see the truth of our axioms even though we cannot prove them, which is to admit, for example, that one needn’t work halfway through the Principia with Whitehead and Russell in order to see the truth in the axioms used to prove 2 + 2 =4. A better question might be: Why is there not rather something else? At any rate, I think someone else is confused if they equate quantum vacuum fluctuations with nothing. RE: As for your penultimate comment, I find your protestations against alleged simplistic applications of “good” to God in the name of analogia entis quite unpersuasive. If God kills babies, that isn’t good to the nth degree. That defies any sense of good that anybody would ordinarily affirm. If the God of the Bible is good, then we have no way to know what “good” means, and it ceases to be a useful category for philosophical and ethical reflection. If, on the other hand, we do know what good means, then the actions of the biblical God do not transcend good; they contradict it. The same is true, mutatis mutandis, of any putative almighty, beneficent creator of this particular world. +++

What’s with all of these Thomistic references? You seem to have me in a cage that I do not choose to inhabit. I do not even buy into the dualistic distinctions between essentialism and nominalism, substance and process approaches, the noumenal and phenomenal and such. I prescind to a more phenomenologial stance with a semiotic realism. Our conceptions have value insofar as we can cash same out pragmatically (as a test of truth, not a theory of truth). Whatever our conception of good is vis a vis the predicates and attributes we want to apply, that conception and those predicates don’t lose intelligibility just because they get employed in a metaphor. Perhaps we might concede that some metaphors invoke analogies that are so very weak as to provide us very little information about the concept we are trying to describe? That is certainly true. However, when we are talking about a reality as BIG as God, a little bit of info goes a long way. RE: Mystifying otherwise plain terms through this principle of divine analogy is in my mind a process that conveniently benefits theism, and not a process that is rationally justifiable prior to or outside of those very definitions of the divine that require such mystification in order to be sustained. +++ Look, we know that, in our attempts to enhance our modeling power of reality, we will all inhabit somewhat elaborate tautologies. But just because a statement is tautological doesn’t mean it is not otherwise true. It only means that we have not added any new info to our systems. But some tautologies are more taut than others and some metaphors are more resilient than others, even if all eventually collapse due to circular references, causal disjunctions, question begging or infinite regressions. RE: And nobody applied random to God. Random was applied to the world, and it is a critique of the claim that there is a moral order to this universe. Random is the description of the world given by the author of Ecclesiastes. It is not an attribute ascribed to God, but an attribute ascribed to the world that has implications for any putative god concept. +++ The problem perdures. No such implications can play themselves out because a more fundamental problem remains, which is that random does not successfully refer to the world. RE: analogia My invocation of analogy does not imply an analogy of being. I do not have a problem with same, however, as long as it is considered a fallible metaphysic. I have a BIG problem when a highly speculative metaphysic is given an inordinate amount of normative impetus. Our de-ontologies should be considered as tentative as our ontologies are speculative. Put more simply, there are certain moral positions that end up being essentially religious because they have not been successfully translated in a way that would enable the diverse members of our pluralistic society to reason together. I do not subscribe to any given metaphysic even as I affirm the enterprise as a viable but fallibilist venture. One doesn’t need a root metaphor or ontology to speak analogically and use metaphors. We can begin in media res with signs and symbols and concepts that have already been negotiated by a given community of inquiry and then have meaningful discussions about such matters, for example, as unknown causes and such effects as might be proper to them alone. We do this all the time in forensic criminal science and in highly speculative theoretical physics. Our analogies get progressively weaker as we begin to employ more and more concepts that have not been negotiated in this or that community, such as those that might still be in negotiation or even those that have not been negotiated at all. Once we get past the Barthian hyperbole, even the analogia entis can get properly reappropriated: Who’s Afraid of the Analogia Entis? Analogia Entis Revisited As Seinfeld once said: I’m not a Thomist – not that there’s anything wrong with that. +++ RE: And our point is that one model’s “working better” than another doesn’t make it really real. Nobody here is claiming that all metaphysical claims are equally fantastic. Just that they’re all basically fantastic. The pomo critique, properly considered per my view, did not dispossess us of our theory of truth, which remains a nuanced correspondence. It properly changed our theories of knowledge from a naive realism to different types of critical realism (some nonfoundational, others a weakened foundationalism). There are a host of criteria we can apply to working hypotheses like external congruence, internal coherence, logical consistency, inferential fecundity, interdisciplinary consilience, hypothetical consonance, symmetry, parsimony, elegance, abductive facility, pragmatic utility and on and on. Each such criterion, applied alone, amounts to a formal fallacy like the one you implicitly charged me with re: what works. But it would amount to a caricature of human knowledge to suggest that only the stronger forms of inference, like deduction and induction, lead us to what we call knowledge, as if we only advance same in formal, truth- conducive argumentation. Rather, reasoning our way retro-ductively back from such predicates as usefulness, elegance, parsimony and so on, most human knowledge advances fallibly as we reason our way informally, employing truthindicative criteria. Not everything that is useful is true, indeed; that would be an insidious pragmatism. But we can say that what is useful, what works, has a higher probability of being true or real. And thus theologians have coined the aphorism that orthopraxis authenticates orthodoxy. And so we establish criteria for cashing out the value of our various theological conceptions in terms of their ability to foster (rather than stifle), for example, intellectual, affective, moral, social and religious development. I do not want to defend a position that suggests that metaphysical claims are not fantastic, which is likely why I don’t subscribe to any given ontology. But I do defend the project. We do not know, a priori, when it is that our knowledge advances will be thwarted by methodological constraints, epistemically, or will be otherwise halted by some in-principle occulting, ontologically. But we generally eschew the latter assumption because it inevitably leads us down an epistemic cul-de-sac and assume the former, because it fuels our search in hope. The chief problem with any anxiety to annihilate metaphysics, though, is that we do away with speculative theoretical science along with it.

All philosophical theology has ever done is to clarify the nature of our questions and to demonstrate that some of our putative answers are not unreasonable even if not provable. So, there is no denying the series of leaps we take, for example, over against solipsism and nihilism and the humean critique of our common sense notions of causality, and for some, also the leap called faith. But we need to examine the nature of these leaps and I find that those that go beyond descriptive science and normative philosophy but not without them will much better foster human development. And we can measure same, not without difficulty, empirically. In which civilizations did science eventually flourish and where was it stillborn? Which cultural cohorts are turning out radical fundamentalists, militarism, moral statism and creationism? Reality is no longer carved into discernible ontological joints or disciplines, but human knowledge still relies on different orders of abstraction and we need to govern this process, best we can. Getting radically apophatic and mysterian is self-defeating and not defensible, a priori. I will say this, that for all practical purposes, the deeper we get into the structures of matter and the closer we get to the earliest moments after the Big Bang, the more intractable are our problems. And I further acknowledge that, from what we observe in emergent processes, there is even novelty in the laws governing properties; ergo, there is a danger in extrapolating such laws as might, for all practical purposes, be as local, cosmologically, as the by-laws of our neighborhood Bridge Clubs. This might compel us to focus our analogia also on Christocentric realities and what Jesus reveals about God’s nature, in particular, and not just on the metaphors that He employed in His parables and discourses employing Mother Nature, in general. +++ I’m very sympathetic to radical orthodoxy and some of my ideas, originating w/Lonergan, very much resonate with Hauerwas, Milbank, even Lindbeck. BUT, aside from some very general observations, sociologic metrics that would help us figure out which ecclesiologies have been delivering the goods are difficult to come by and hard to interpret. All of the great traditions have turned out mixed results, each with its own set of problems. And if “we” (the anglo and roman catholics) truly believe in a radically incarnational reality with a profusely pneumatological presence, then we must recognize and affirm the efficacies of the Spirit in all peoples and places, wherever the fruits are manifest, including nontheistic sources. Sanity and sanctity appear to run horizontally across the denominations and traditions rather than within this one or that. I would thus mightily resist any new triumphalism, colonialism, paternalism, hierarchicalism, ecclesiocentrisms, elitism and so on. So, we don’t want to trade one fundamentalism for another. That’s my fear.In my tradition, much emphasis is laid on the fact that we do not want to fall prey to an insidious indifferentism (one approach versus another doesn’t matter), a facile syncretism (one can just wily nilly pick and choose and combine different elements eclectically) or a false irenicism (seeing a peace between traditions and denominations that is not really there). And so, gladly and willingly stipulating to an eschewal of any indifferentism, syncretism or irenicism, STILL, vis a vis the sociologic metrics of what should be the fruits of the spirit of this denomination or tradition versus that, I would ask: SHOW ME THE &*^%ING BEEF! And I’m afraid the problem is that it might be WAY too early on humankind’s journey to be able to successfully adjudicate such differences between traditions and denominations. So, in my view, we need to chill and dialogue. +++ Truth be known, some of the feedback I’ve gotten is that I’m being too hard on or even dismissive of metaphysics. And it is all really the same old teasing out of the differences between our analogical and dialectical imaginations. We know that analogy and metaphor are indispensable in our attempts to describe unknown causes even in science, where we do not really need a root metaphor in order to proceed profitably. And we know that we employ apophatic and kataphatic modes to increase descriptive accuracy in our ordinary speech, kataphasis proceeding via affirmation and apophasis by negation. So, we recognize and affirm these modalities, in general. A problem arises, however. And it is the one we were dancing around. Not all analogies are equally direct or strong or useful. In God-talk, we employ only the weakest of analogy, metaphor. Most of this metaphor takes place from a stance within the faith as a theology of nature. As for the type that takes place prior to the faith, a natural philosophy or theology, it can prove nothing, syllogistically. What I am attempting to do with my method is to preserve analogy, in general, as useful speech, while at the same time providing a rubric for different degrees of usefulness. For example, we need it to advance particle physics as we infer new particles from novel effects of heretofore unknown causes. But it has also been applied to cosmic origins, such as when we employ imaginary numbers using the square root of negative one to devise an hypothesis that the universe is finite but unbounded. And it has been applied to putative primal realities, such as when arguments have been advanced for primal origin, primal being, primal cause, primal goals, primal order, primal meaning and the classical so-called proofs – ontological, cosmological, teleological, axiological, epistemological and so on. Peirce drew a distinction between the initial abduction of an hypothesis or the formulation of an argument, itself, and what he called argumentation or the process of reasoning through to a conclusion, syllogistically. We recognize the possibility that there might be a particular question begging and that our attempts to frame up some meaningful categories and heuristics in order to attack it is an eminently reasonable exercise. This formulation of the argument is telltale of the reasonableness of our quest. It validates our wonder. It says: Very good question. So far, so good. But the situation can quickly devolve into an argumentation that, for various reasons, like a lack of sufficient information regarding initial, boundary and limit conditions of a system, Peirce would consider to be, in his words, a fetish. So, here’s the problem. We need criteria, a method, a rubric, to distinguish between such analogical reasoning as pushes backs the frontiers of knowledge and advances science and such reasoning as manipulates abstractions of varying degrees and truly indicates a fetish of sorts. So, we can ask, for example, what is the pragmatic value that can be cashed out of this conception versus the next, of this analogy vs another. In this way, we can avoid the tu quoque comeback that I’m merely reasoning analogically and speaking metaphorically, which is the same thing you are doing, so, where’s the rub?

And, it occurred to me that the rub is this. Humankind, as a broad community of inquiry (or value-realization), and various of its smaller cohorts or communities, do not just go around wily nilly employing abstractions just for the hell of it (of course we do, but that’s a discussion for another day) but, instead, our employment of signs and symbols are oriented to valuerealization and, in that vein, have been negotiated by the community (you know, language convention). So, without delving very deeply into semiotic theory or linguistic analysis or anything, I proposed a heuristic of four broad categories consisting of those concepts that 1) have been negotiated, the theoretic 2) remain still-in-negotiation, the heuristic 3) are nonnegotiable, required for meaning itself, the semiotic and 4) have not been negotiated between persons or across communities, the dogmatic. In a nutshell, then, the difference in one form of analogical argumentation and another vis a vis one that meets a host of informal, truth-indicative epistemic criteria (pragmatic utility, elegance, parsimony, fecundity, coherence, consistency and so on) and one that amounts to, well, a pure fetish, distills down to the relative mix of theoretic, heuristic, semiotic and dogmatic concepts employed in the argumentation. The higher the proportion of concepts previously negotiated, the better our chances for cashing out some value in practical terms. Yes, we all take leaps, such as the nonnegotiable semiotic leaps we take over against solipsism, nihilism & the humean critique of common sense notions of causality, such as the ones we take in favor of such first principles as noncontradiction and excluded middle, none of the semiotic leaps provable via syllogistic reasoning but presuppositions of reasoning, itself, both formal and informal. It’s the number and the nature of the other leaps, as gauged by our employment of too many non-negotiated dogmatic conceptions and too few theoretic ones that then sets apart meaningful discourse from a fetish. Much of what passes for natural theology is a fetish. The argument formulation is fine and can demonstrate the reasonableness of our questions, recognizing that we are at the end of our epistemic cable of intertwined truth-indicative criteria. The argumentation beyond that gets us nowhere. This is why I cannot argue against your view that metaphysical claims are fantastic. This is why I draw distinctions, though, between incomprehensible and unintelligible. I eschew absolute dichotomies when it comes to knowledge and prefer to deal with them in matters of degree per my rubric. This brings us to our assignment of God attributes and the nature of the analogies and metaphors applied in our putative god-concepts when we are reasoning philosophically prior to any leap of faith. How dialectical and how analogical are such? You used a descriptor vis a vis the attribute of goodness, which was the nth degree. I think that matches my own, which is of an infinite order. Simplistic kataphatic affirmations of primal reality are not philosophically defensible. They are highly problematical. But as you said so very well, and it is one of those turns of phrases that makes me say that I wish it were my own, not all metaphysical claims are equally fantastic. And I think my rubric allows us to provide some rigor and provides us some tools to adjudicate competing claims for who is the most out to lunch epistemically. Not all leaps of faith are equally warranted. When we leave behind science, we have forsaken the descriptive, positivist and theoretic concepts from which humankind has cashed out a great deal of pragmatic value. When we leave behind philosophy, we have forsaken the normative, logical, aesthetical, ethical and semiotic concepts, which are also indispensable. We proceed beyond them but not without them or we proceed at our own peril. These are the grounds by which we can reject creationism and such a moral statism as claims to be advocating philosophical deontologies when, in reality, because of an inordinate degree of dogmatic concepts are putting forward what are essentially religious positions. This is how we avoid the charges of absolute fideism and radical fundamentalism or even a radically deconstructive postmodernism. These are also the grounds upon which we stand to advance the charges of positivism, empiricism, scientism and an Enlightenment fundamentalism, which imagine that the only meaningful discourse is scientific or philosophic, as if the natural progression of human knowledge has never employed heuristic devices with our concepts proceeding through ongoing negotiation and renegotiation, as if our semiotic concepts were not, themselves, resistant, in principle, to the filters of hypothetical falsification and empirical verification, and as if they were not perduring as nonnegotiables only via an otherwise resilient reductio ad absurdum. +++ RE: I’m not denying that believers are able to trust that their God is benevolent and has some sort of plan that will redeem a long, senseless history of random human suffering. I’m just saying that there isn’t sufficient reason to believe in such a God. When you speak of reason, here, are you including both epistemic/theoretic and prudential/practical reason? And in what sense do you mean believe? In my tradition we pretty much mean an unconditional assent that does not depend on inference, or we mean an acceptance disposing one to trust, or even willfully accepting and acting in a way to inculcate trust, all implying that there is no seeing of the complete truth of the matter. I would suppose this also implies that there is going to be more than one interpretation of a reality that is possible, plausible (maybe even variously probable?) but manifestly not demonstrable or provable. In some sense, then, the very definition of belief vis a vis the faith life will preclude, in principle, epistemic reasons in that we are dealing with an unconditional assent? And to the extent such belief will involve our unconditional assent, hence willfully accepting and acting in a way that might further inculcate trust, then it would seem that a suitably nuanced pragmatic appeal might at least provide us some prudential reasons to go on and accept one interpretation rather than another and then act on it. I’m thinking a nuanced Pascal & James here. +++ RE: Pragmatic displays may provide sufficient reason to choose one interpretation over another, but never can they provide sufficient reason to choose one interpretation over all others. Neo-Anabaptist Christianity, Buddhist Atheism, Marxist Humanism, etc. etc., all are capable of offering a pragmatic account displaying the functionality of their truth claims. It’s a moot point.

This would take some unpacking for me to grasp, much less accept. In my view, in theory, I could conceive of a host of criteria that might be indicators of the relative practical efficacies and inefficacies of different interpretive stances toward reality, in general, and a vague godconcept, in particular. I addressed them in prior posts. The present constraints would seem to be methodological vis a vis properly gauging various sociologic metrics. Our provisional closures regarding same may not be universally compelling, but this approach does not seem to me to be unreasonable or unhelpful. The truth claims in question are not only a/theological but also often cosmological and anthropological, and the latter are accessible to scientific and philosophic critique. +++ RE: That coupled with the fact of the evolution of God concepts throughout history provides good reason to think that “God” is only ever the best thing humans can conceive of in a given context. That is not sufficient reason to assent to the latest ontology. It’s a reason to consider our “closures” provisional and our conceptions fallible. It’s not a reason to get radically apophatic, radically deconstructive or nonrealist. Your argument dissolves in parody if you substitute Science in the place of God. +++ I am very interested in delving more deeply into Wittgenstein’s thought. I very much buy into the autonomy of different human enterprises, as I’ve set forth at length in this thread (science vs philosophy vs meta-interpretive stances). But I otherwise integrally relate them, axiologically. From what I have seen re: Wittgenstein’s thoughts, there does seem to be some controversy re: who has faithfully engaged them and who may have misinterpreted and misappropriated them. For example, what would you say re: so-called Wittgensteinian Fideism? Is that a faithful rendering of his thought or a caricature? Language games, including the religious variety, in my view, are most definitely subject to criticism on pragmatic grounds. Religion is most definitely subject to external cultural criticism. If this locates an impasse for us, then, I’ll just accept that for now and dig deeper into his thought on my own. +++ RE: If you can’t see that pragmatic displays are viscously circular, I don’t know what to tell you. Not all tautologies are created equal. Some are more taut as measured by pragmatic, prudential and practical criteria, albeit fallibly. I think the theme that is now running in our exchange is that some of the things that you interpret as epistemic catastrophes for me are but weaknesses with work-arounds. Most pomo-theos seem to have retreated from a naive realism to a critical realism/fallibilism, while others have run the white flag of a nonrealist surrender up the epistemic pole. +++ RE: I think you’ve misread me. I never claimed that religions aren’t subject to criticism on pragmatic grounds. I’ve said they’re all equally subject to such criticism. More importantly, I’ve said that the pragmatic display of, say, one variety of Christianity isn’t enough to make it more plausible than say, Buddhism, even if the display passes critical muster, since it is just as possible for Buddhism to be pragmatically displayed and to pass critical muster. Just as it is possible for Buddhism to be critiqued pragmatically, it is possible for Christianity to be critiqued pragmatically, and there is no value-free criteria by which to critique them in the first place. If Christianity fails a pragmatic test, it can draw from other resources within its tradition in order to critique the assumptions of the critic, thus defusing any threat. This happens all the time. The resort to “divine mystery” is of course the ultimate trump card. At first, you seem to affirm it in principle, on theoretic grounds, but then subvert that with the suggestion that there are no value-free criteria available for critique? I appreciate that a problematic can exist on methodological grounds re: the difficulty of gathering sociologic metrics & then rigorously interpreting them. The pragmatic criteria proposed in my own tradition – orthopraxis authenticates orthodoxy – employs Lonerganian “conversions” (developmental processes akin to Piaget, Kohlberg, Fowler, Erikson et al) as criteria asking how well institutionalized practices foster intellectual, affective, moral, social and religious development. These are cross-cultural anthropological criteria and difficult to gauge but these are legitimate questions. Of course, it only works if one accepts, at least, semiotic and moral realisms (e.g. w/such distinctions as real and apparent needs, lesser and higher goods & some coherent approach that pays homage to aretaic/virtue ethics, deontological, consequentialist & contractarian ethics and so on; or at least a Sartrean view of our shared human condition leading us to devise similar prescriptions for what ails humankind despite our differences, such as we encoded in the UN Declaration of Human Rights). And we need to consider such evaluations on the whole. I think it is too early on humankind’s journey to do this very well, but I affirm this in principle and think it can help us on micro- if not macro-levels. Further, it is not unreasonable to imagine our methods will improve. As I mentioned earlier, we can discern where it is that science flourished and where it was, rather, stillborn. We can discern who is cranking out the most fundamentalists, creationists, militarists. The caveat is distinguishing between, for example, Christendom and Christianity, between where Buddhism has failed and where it may not have even been tried. And, yes, the results are mixed. Per my tautology, the Spirit’s at work all over. And this has nothing to do, in my view, with classical soteriology re: who’s saved but only to do with running the human development race more swiftly and with less hindrance. I have a radically ecumenical outlook, but not because I don’t believe that we can exercise discernment between traditions, but precisely because we can. +++ I have repeated myself in an attempt to draw out extra responses from you for the purpose of seeing if I heard you correctly, especially when I’ve been left incredulous by certain answers.I see progress in science, philosophy, culture and religion. And while theological science is mostly practical, I see progress in our theologies of nature and natural theology (which is essentially a philosophical advance). And some of this progress is precisely a retreat away from the old nominalism-essentialism conundrum and other sterile dualisms, such as via semiotic science and analytical philosophy. And thus it is that our categories and conceptions have improved as well as our self-critical analyses. And so I do not accept your false dichotomy between incomprehensibility and a final theory of everything. Rather, we are advancing slowly but inexorably even in the manner in which ultimate reality becomes more “intelligible” is my fallibilist, provisional closure, which is backed by a host of truth-indicative criteria.

We do not know enough about reality to say what will remain unknowable. (GKC) But let me say this in Wittgensteinian terms that you might better grasp my meaning: “To draw a limit to thought you must think both sides of that limit.” And that is where you have grievously erred in your defense of nonrealism, both metaphysical and theological. You may wish to consult the life’s work of Wittgenstein’s literary executor, Elizabeth Anscombe, for a more universally compelling appropriation of his thought. This is a difficult medium without the benefit of nonverbal gestures. You were right that I misread the nature of your religious epistemology, at first. There is a gulf, it appears. It is only in my desire to bridge it that I may have gotten a tad tedious. So, I apologize if I offended charity in any way. It was not my intent. See you in the funny papers. Below is an archive of a conversation at National Public Radio on the blog contribution by Ursula Goodenough: Are You A Religious Naturalist Without Knowing It? John Sylvest (John_Sobert_Sylvest) wrote:

I resonate with so much of Ursula’s account of Religious Naturalism [RN] & take Everybody’s Story as my core descriptive narrative. I would like to give an account of how I bust a particular move that I consider to be a theistic RN, which will suggest that there are some of us who broadly conceive RN as having a rather Big Tent! What I do is exploit the ambiguity that adheres in the word nontheistic, which can entail many different interpretive stances. I adopt RN, then, as a PREtheistic normative stance, which is to say – not as an alternative axis of interpretation, but – as my core normative narrative, which accounts for my philosophic & spiritual concerns. It is scripted like this: “Nature is all that we know there to be; its source is a mystery; its dynamics generate emergent phenomena of increasing complexity. Full stop. How might one find Purpose & Value in such a perspective? What about the moral/ethical, which entails outward communal responses to one’s core narrative?” And my answer to those questions: What Ursula said! The intrinsic rewards of truth, beauty, goodness & unity are ours to reap in abundance; indeed, Everybody’s Story. RN provides my core normative & evaluative narrative. And then, I do religion. Ursula Goodenough (Chlamy) wrote: @ John Sylvest How cool to have you with us! John and I have never met but we are longtime episodic e-correspondents on the topics at hand. And I love the choice that he so wonderfully lifts up. One can immerse oneself in Everybody’s Story as the narrative from which to construct one’s religious orientations, or one can so immerse oneself, and then do religion. It’s a more challenging move — I trust John will agree — than for those of us who only work with one story, but I find descriptions of these moves to be most intriguing (if not yet dispositive!). John Sylvest (John_Sobert_Sylvest) wrote: @Robin wrote:”It feels like religion and ideas shouldn’t be bounded by nature, somehow. Like by relying only on what we see and hear and know, and holding only that sacred, we are losing something essential, fantasy and imagination and possibility maybe? It just feels sad to me somehow and I am not sure why.” Robin, what if we say that Everybody’s Story, which is what we all know (from descriptive science), is both necessary and sufficient to provide humankind with morality, ethics, logic, aesthetics and such (our normative understandings) and with what we value, like truth, beauty, goodness & unity (our evaluative posits), which are intrinsically rewarding (iow, the pursuit of same is its own reward)? These descriptive, normative & evaluative stances would form one’s core cosmology. It’s a cosmology that really works for me & speaks of abundance, even given life’s tragic aspects. I’m relying only on what we see and hear and know to discern a cosmology, something I feel like we all share as spiritual quest. My interpretive axis of interpretation, or axiology, while not essential for morality & valuerealization, is theistic, something I pursue as a religious quest, hoping & believing (not w/o warrant) there might be MORE! John Sylvest (John_Sobert_Sylvest) wrote: @Ursula Goodenough (Chlamy) – I am very pleased to see your thoughts made available in this NPR forum, which I hope expands your audience. I still struggle for ways to articulate my own outlook in a manner that is accessible to more people, shorn of philosophy-speak & techno-jargon. No one worked with me more patiently and longsufferingly to help me better tell my story than you, Ursula, which is a testimony to a great heart in addition to that incredible head of yours! From my response to Robin and other category parsing exercises, one might see that I am in agreement with Wim Drees that axiology may be a more apt focus for theology than cosmology. John Sylvest (John_Sobert_Sylvest) wrote: Let me more directly address one thing @Ursula addressed: “It’s a more challenging move — I trust John will agree — than for those of us who only work with one story …” Yes, Ursula. The Everybody’s Story narrative and the RN response that you describe both well articulate what I call my cosmology, which is something I feel like I KNOW (without getting rigorously philosophic about what “know” might mean). What I call my axiology, my axis of interpretion, is oriented to a putative reality for which I feel like I can HOPE and in which I feel like I can TRUST, and not without a great deal of difficulty at times, faith & doubt being a single polar reality.

For those of a more philosophic bent, I feel like my cosmology enjoys an epistemic justification, which means that I look at competing cosmologies and feel like they are not equally probable, and I feel morally compelled to go with the most probable account, even if it is a provisional closure. Now, when it comes to my axiology, or my interpretive stance toward reality’s putative initial, boundary & limit conditions, competing stances do seem rather equiprobable, more so equiplausible. A normative justification, pragmatic criteria, then govern this wager (cf. Wm. James). John Sylvest (John_Sobert_Sylvest) wrote: @All – I echo all of these sentiments. Whether one employs good old common sense or a rigorous philosophy, we can reasonably say that questions beg. And it seems that – not only do we not have all the answers – we don’t even have all the questions. And of all the possible questions, it is highly problematic knowing which questions successfully refer to reality. Emergence, itself, is a powerful heuristic device that provides us some conceptual placeholders. It does not aspire to explanatory adequacy. Along with novel structures and properties, new laws emerge. In some attempts to probe the depths of nature, folks will often extrapolate these emergent laws into putative descriptions of a primal reality. But some of these laws, for all practical purposes, may be as local as the by-laws of our neighborhood bridge club. We often see such terms juxtaposed as chance or necessity? pattern or paradox? order or chaos? random or systematic? But nowhere in reality have we seen a physical instantiation of a so-called necessity. And reality is clearly not wholly described by chance or randomness. We do see nature presenting us with probability. But probability is premised on a temporal reality, which also emerged. Metaphysics? Caveat emptor. John Sylvest (John_Sobert_Sylvest) wrote: This speaks to our wonder regarding reality’s intelligibility. Haldane said reality was not only stranger than we imagine but stranger than we CAN imagine. Chesterton, otoh, cautions that we do not know enough about reality to say that it is unknowable. Clearly, we cannot say, a priori, when it is that our knowledge advance is being thwarted due to methodological constraints, epistemologically, or due, instead, to some type of in-principle ontological occulting. As far as final TOE’s, Gödel instructs us that we cannot prove a formal symbol system’s axioms within that system, itself. But human knowledge does not advance solely thru formal argument. Few need to proceed halfway thru the Principia w/Whitehead and Russell where the axioms for 2+2=4 are proved, but can taste and see the truth of those axioms. Perhaps someday a TOE will be put forth, the axioms of which we’ll find variously non/trivial, or un/interesting, or whatever? Pragmatically, when thwarted, we assume temporary methodological constraints & not ontological occulting, which would be an epistemic cul-de-sac. This is to say that a formal TOE will always be coupled w/an informal narrative. An utterly incomprehensible reality just might be infinitely intelligible? John Sobert Sylvest February 2, 2010 at 5:12 pm Ira, re: Is there no merit to admitting that maybe things won’t all be well, no matter how earnestly we believe (or want to believe) otherwise? Of course there can be merit in thinking maybe things won’t be well. That has a lot to do with why faith and hope are theological virtues. And insofar as faith & doubt, hope & a lack of expectation, are single polar realities, there is no nonvirtue in play when, in the pursuit of truth and beauty, one fails to take such additional risks as faith and hope. I have friends, for example, who self-describe as religious naturalists. See National Public Radio: Are You a Religious Naturalist?. They pursue truth, beauty and goodness in a nontheistic way that is undeniably sufficient to live a life of love and to realize life’s abundance, neither unaware of nor indifferent to life’s tragic aspects. John Sobert Sylvest February 2, 2010 at 6:11 pm Ira, are there unresolved questions on Thom Stark’s theodicy thread? I had sent Thom a private e-mail and am awaiting a response but perhaps it didn’t make it past spam filters. At any rate, it does seem like we were able to locate our impasse between theological realism and nonrealism. And that’s cool. There were certain arguments that I put forward that Thom considered moot. And I took that, from the context of his other counters, that he meant that in the sense of being not worthy of consideration (2nd dict. def.) rather than open to debate (1st dict. def.). I was offering criteria for adjudicating between competing worldviews and acknowledging that they were problematical, which is not the same thing as being moot. I will be blogging tomorrow at http://christiannonduality.com/blog/ on what might be involved in busting those moves called faith, hope and love in the 21st Century or postmodern world. +++ +++ Let me play John Lennon here. Imagine. Imagine that what is right and wrong, good and evil, is transparent to human reason. Imagine, too, that we can distinguish between apparent and real goods and lesser and higher goods and then reason our way from an is to an ought without religion. Imagine that, except for a few very complex moral realities, we mostly enjoy a consensus about life’s deepest values and have already articulated them in such documents as the Magna Carta, Declaration of Independence and codified them in such documents as The US Constitution & the Bill of Rights and the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Imagine that, with such a moral consensus, politics was the art of the possible and dealt more so with practical solutions and prudential judgment, even on matters of war and peace, but especially with regard to keeping everyone healthy, optimally educating everyone and striving for full employment. Imagine, too, that rather than having Republicans and Democrats, with such practical biases as so often morph into ideological absolutes, we would have, instead, the Tenders of the Golden Goose (because they are experts in keeping geese healthy, geese like business & industry & individual taxpayers) and Distributors of the Golden Eggs (because they were experts in delivery of essential products and services). Imagine, too, that all the Goose Tenders & Egg Distributors were all astute enough to know not to stress the Goose and fairminded enough to optimally distribute the eggs. Imagine, too, that rather than having Conservatives and Liberals, we would have Settlers and Pioneers, folks that were gifted with such charisms as, on one hand, boundary establishment & defense, on the other hand, boundary negotiation and transcendence. Now, what in the world would religion have to do if it were not otherwise preoccupied with moral and practical realities, much less encroaching on such empirical realities as fall under the purview of science.

There is no question that as one’s axis of interpretation, or axiology, an interpretive religion would transvalue our cosmological pursuits, those being descriptive science, normative philosophy and evaluative culture. Our cosmology serves the end of socializing humans, making us able to function in society, meeting one another’s needs. It deals with empirical, rational, moral and practical realities, as Merton would say, first taking us through the process of humanization, then through socialization. The problem is that our religious institutions have become more so instruments of socialization and less so of transformation. Religion gains its traction, then, not primarily or directly through the means of socialization and political institutionalization of services and political coercion. Religion gains its traction by fostering transformation, or Merton’s True-Self-realization, or the Ignatian contemplation to attain love, or the Buddhist awakening to our solidarity that compassion might naturally ensue. Religion is a risk-taking adventure whereby we amplify the risks involved in our cosmological pursuits of truth, beauty & goodness into the axiological pursuits of faith, hope & love toward the end of augmenting all human value-realizations. But religion has been domesticated into one more social institution alongside others. The sense of adventure has been lost and the risk-taking aspects have been tamed. It’s become a vehicle of respectability and social amenity when it should be, instead, instilling passion and shaping of desires. We need to honestly ask ourselves: What if science, morality and politics were already in good hands, then what value-added contribution would religion be expected to make? And we need to get on with THAT! The question then becomes, what if I told you that reality, at bottom, was friendly and that Someone loves you and has dreams for you beyond your own wildest imaginings? How would you respond to that Good News? That you are BE-LOVED! And what if we did all we could to sacrifice ourselves in kenotic, self-emptying for this person, these people, with whom we are sharing this Good News? There ain’t no Religious Right and Religious Left. Those are nominal socio-political realities cloaked in the garment of so-called religion. We need to emulate Ghandi and Martin Luther King and do an end-around all of these institutions with their sick identity structures trying to suck us into some machine on their own terms. In the end, it can change who’s in Congress and so on, but that would be a by-product not the designed end-product. The Spirit moves when He wills, where She wills, how they will — and is ineluctably unobtrusive even if utterly efficacious, subtle but powerful, triumphing without coercion. Non-violent civil disobedience and other tools of the trade are out of vogue. WHY? We’ve got viral memes and blogs to publish treatises. Why not? I’m engaging in provocative hyperbole and could play devil’s advocate with much of this. But I want to offer some food for thought. +++ John Sobert Sylvest February 3, 2010 at 5:12 pm A worldview, in my view, is an axiology, or an axis of interpretation, around which our cosmology spins. This distinction between an axiology and cosmology is explicated in an article I’ve often cited: Drees, Willem B. “A Case Against Temporal Critical Realism? Consequences of Quantum Cosmology for Theology.” Such interpretive stances lend themselves to three verdicts: proved, disproved and unproven. Some worldviews can be disproved, but only to the extent they’ve committed category errors that place them at cross-purposes with other autonomous methods, like science and philosophy (e.g. epistemology). For example, an anti-evolution creationism is untenable. Equally untenable would be an epistemic nihilism, solipsism and stances that abandoned common sense understandings of causation. Of course, we can not prove such principles as noncontradiction, common sense notions of causation or even a critical realist stance, itself, or disprove such stances as nihilism and solipsism through formal argumentation or syllogistic reasoning. We proceed, instead, with an informal reductio ad absurdum or the essentially pragmatic criterion that going there just doesn’t work, while going here does. The foundation remains bare and we are immersed in irony long before we start busting a/theological moves, which, if they cohere with our cosmology, are rendered, at best, the Scottish verdict unproven. My point is that a metaphysical realism and natural theology are necessary to at least get us to this Scottish verdict while avoiding the disproved verdict. This is what Peirce would distinguish as an argument, a coherent framing of the question, as distinct from argumentation, which, when it pertained to the putative reality of God, he considered a fetish. When it comes to coherence, some adopt it as a theory of truth. As a semiotic realist, I still hold the correspondence theory of truth but employ coherence, along with a host of other truth-indicative criteria, as a test of truth. Now, for my part, I do not vacillate between solipsism, nihilism and critical realism based on whether I had Cheerios or bacon & eggs for breakfast, even if the irony of my situation is ineradicable. Others might, but I see no sense in arguing with them. While I appreciate that, in a theological move, one will have to further amplify the risk that one’s already taken (already taken to get past a more fundamental absurdity), my point is that any irony arrived on the scene long before one busts that move. As to whether or not one is open to such charges as have been leveled by Marx, Feuerbach, Freud or even the sociobiologists, those are impoverished anthropologies, which fall prey to what many semiotic scientists, nontheists included, call the adaptationist fallacy. It engages but a caricature of the life of faith. But that’s not a controversy I feel called to settle or even further address. 1. John Sobert Sylvest February 3, 2010 at 5:46 pm My point is, Ira, that ALL of our moves are essentially pragmatic and that your ironist assumptions apply to ALL of our encounters of reality. (But I am not employing pragmatism as a theory of truth. There is a difference between what Peirce was doing versus Dewey, James and others in that lineage, much less Rorty.) As to your second question, no. I am simply suggesting that our essentially pragmatic moves, whether applying to common sense, or metaphysics, or theology, differ in degrees and not in kind. The same might be said of irony? 2. 12 John Sobert Sylvest February 3, 2010 at 6:50 pm Ira, let me say this. I have enjoyed exploring where it is that folks like you and Thom and I resonate and also where it is that we diverge. I am not that anxious to precisely locate any philosophical or theological impasse just to eliminate dissonance between our views for the sake of eliminating it. (And I’m not suggesting you do either. This is an aside.)

I very much like hanging out with folks who care very deeply about the same things I do, who share a certain passion. This has always been infinitely more gratifying to me than hanging around in hermeneutical echo-chambers where everybody in a forum is reinforcing and parroting my ideas back to me. That thwarts growth and polarizes society. Dissonance, done right, can be something we carefully nurture and exploit creatively, engaging others’ views as a foil that helps us to not only deepen our understanding of others but to deepen even our own self-understanding. One thing I do challenge my religious naturalist friends to do is to not miss the opportunity to articulate their vision on strictly their own terms and not in an over against fashion vs other approaches. This can better serve as a credo of sorts to be celebrated with other like-minded, like-hearted people. (This is not to suggest that they will not also want to return to the marketplace of ideas and engage in an over against way.) Now, there are some dissonant approaches out there that simply must be discredited, even demolished, because they are dangers to humankind and the planet. In my view, yours is not one of them. At any rate, my original resonance w/your view is likely rooted in our shared American pragmatist heritage and even shared linguistic/analytical trajectories. RE: the points at which we diverge, philosophically and theologically, well … make for rich reflection. Reality is pregnant with irony, not a little bit pregnant, not a lot. We can admit this even on the level of common sense. Also, metaphysically. Beyond that, theologically. That reality is pregnant we agree. Is she having twins or even triplets? There is no ultrasound available but there are some equiplausible takes in attempts to answer this question. And we do want to be circumspect. John Sobert Sylvest February 3, 2010 at 8:44 pm In conversations with my nontheistic religious naturalist friends over the years, a fondness for Rorty surfaces from time to time. In exploring their minimalist religiosity, I found that we shared a cosmology (e.g. science, epistemology & values) and I’ve actively explored and have been trying to tease out the differences between our interpretive stances or axiologies (Catholic vs nontheist, for example). And I have resisted attempts to categorically dismiss Rorty for reasons I mentioned previously, feeling there was something there to be exploited. The phenomenon of faith is a reality that, in my view, needs to be more broadly conceived. If we too narrowly conceive it, we do violence to the depth dimension (or immense complexity) of human beings. If we get too vague, it means nothing. But I still feel like, for example, that there is more than the conventional understandings and more than even my nuanced Peircean understanding that can count for what we call faith. For some, it is not a Kierkegaardian leap but more like a single Petrine step out of the boat. In other words, a Rortian Ironism could be appropriated as a type of faith and might well describe, in fact, the type of faith that untold numbers practice and have practiced. I’m not the only Catholic who has mused about this; others have engaged it: The Theological Uses of Rortian Ironism. This is all to recognize that in science we advance hypotheses that are inherently falsifiable and call them “working hypotheses.” In philosophy we adopt what we call “provisional” closures. In metaphysics our speculation is inescapably fallible. In theology our faith can proceed moment by moment with a response that is “right enough.” Faith, by definition, has never proceeded with the premise that we have captured God as She “really” is but, still, even our apophatic (via negativa) predications are clear attempts to increase our descriptive accuracy and differ from our kataphatic (via positiva) predications only insofar as they can be both literal and analogical. In other words, our positive affirmations are metaphors and have always only been metaphors. None of this, necessarily, entails a nonrealist approach. It might get the ironist out of the predicament of imagining she’s not getting closer to reality or feeling that he’s not able to take himself seriously? At any rate, I see a Rortian Ironism as eminently reasonable as either a secular or religious response to reality, all of these positions, again, describing various degrees of pragmatism and irony. I appreciate that Rorty might’ve found such an appropriation repugnant. But I wonder if we have discovered the position where someone like Thom, stands, for example, in between you and me? My own Peircean pragmatism is vague enough to include a quasi-Rortian, religious ironism within a minimalist realism. If this needs more unpacking to be accessible, I’ll certainly try to do that when I get the chance. John Sobert Sylvest February 3, 2010 at 9:21 pm So, we have established an accord that irony and pragmatism (albeit pragmatism variously conceived, perhaps … no definitely) are in play all the way up and all the way down, influencing common sense, epistemology, science, metaphysics and theology. Further, we have agreed that realism is in play in common sense, epistemology, science and metaphysics (minimalistically in the last instance). Cool. We can save further explorations for a rainy day. See http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/offer-declined-10 John Sobert Sylvest February 7, 2010 at 5:20 pm Well, Ira, I am deeply sympathetic to the idea that some stuff is socially constructed. And I affirm metaphysics as an enterprise that helps us clarify helpful categories, disambiguate vague concepts (not specific terms), frame-up coherent arguments and validate meaningful questions. To that extent, we can at least adjudicate between those provisional interpretations of reality that are totally out to lunch and those that are at least asking meaningful questions. The approaches that are most coherent, in my view, will acknowledge irony, abide with paradox and will not proceed to advance their arguments through some type of syllogistic argumentation, as if life’s deepest questions can be thus answered. But you describe a threshold (and acknowledged it could be deconstructed, so here it comes) and all things epistemological just ain’t that tidy. It’s too neat, too facile, too arbitrary, to say now I’m a realist and now I ain’t. Our grasps of reality, instead, admit of degrees and these differing degrees require increasing amounts of risk. And faith, hope and love are risk maneuvers and these risks are not just epistemic but existential. That’s the type of candor one might reasonably expect of believers. But one goes too far with one’s iconoclasm, in my view, to suggest that believers are just making stuff up. Thom Stark’s framing of the issue invites parsing? What does he mean by “reason” or even “sufficient”, when he writes:”I’m not denying that believers are able to trust that their God is benevolent and has some sort of plan that will redeem a long, senseless history of random human suffering. I’m just saying that there isn’t sufficient reason to believe in such a God.”

It is one thing to say that the case for God cannot be conclusively adjudicated through evidence. It would be quite another to suggest there is no evidence. It is one thing to say that the rational arguments for God cannot coerce belief. It would be quite another to suggest that belief in God is wholly nonrational much less irrational. It is one thing to say that there are no empirical and scientific reasons to believe in God. It would be quite another to suggest that there are no coherent philosophic and pragmatic reasons for belief in God. It is one thing to say that our approach to God and reality does not proceed from indubitable foundations. It would be quite another to suggest that post-foundational epistemology and theology must be necessarily, then, nonrealist. It is one thing to recognize life’s irony and paradox and to affirm, even, an essential pragmatism. It would be quite another to suggest that Rorty’s vulgar pragmatism is definitive. It is one thing to suggest that our belief in God takes us BEYOND the evidential, rational and presuppositional. It would be quite another to suggest that we make such an existential move WITHOUT them. It is one thing to lament that there are many who remain stuck in a naive realism with an unnerving certitude and dangerous fundamentalism. It would be quite another to suggest that there can be no coherent cumulative case approach to the reality of God, mitigating against the distance one must leap, or, in some cases, perhaps, step (as a Rortian ironist), with a rather confident assurance in what one might “reasonably” hope for, with no small conviction regarding certain things unseen. Alas, Rorty’s neo-pragmatism resembles Peirce only superficially. Susan Haack, a neoclassical pragmatist, wrote an enjoyable play that demonstrates their otherwise profound disagreements. “We Pragmatists” Peirce and Rorty in Conversation. She explains: The point of my “conversation” between Peirce and Rorty was, of course, to bring out how utterly different Rorty’s literary-political, anti-metaphysical “pragmatism,” with its disdain for logic and repudiation of epistemology, is from Peirce’s pragmaticist philosophy. And Rorty’s neo”pragmatism” is not only very different from Peirce’s; it is also quite distant from James’s, and even from Dewey’s. The old pragmatist whom Rorty most resembles is F.C.S. Schiller — the British philosopher whose radically relativist position James once described as “the buttend foremost” version of pragmatism.

Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Send

Tags: Alfred N. Whitehead, A m o s Y o n g, apocalypse, A q u i n a s, a t o n e m e n t, a x i o l o g y, Bernard Lonergan, Bertrand Russell, Brian McLaren, C a m u s, Center for Action & Contemplation, Center for Global Ethics, Charles Hartshorne, Charles Sanders Peirce, c o n t e m p l a t i o n, c o n t e m p l a t i v e, cosmic origin, cosmology, c r e a t i o n i s m, Daniel Helminiak, d i v i n e a c t i o n, Dostoevsky, dualistic, Duns Scotus, Elizabeth Anscombe, Erikson, E v e r y b o d y ' s S t o r y, f a i t h, felix culpa, Fowler, F r a n k S p e n c e r, free will, French existentialists, G . K. Chesterton, god-a t t r i b u t e, god-concept, H a n s K u n g, h e l l, H u c k l e b e r r y F i n n, h u m a n i z a t i o n, i m m o r t a l soul, indifferentism, Institute on Religion in an Age of Science, IRAS, i r e n i c i s m, J a y G a r y, John Haldane, John the Baptist, Kester Brewin, Kevin Beck, K i e r k e g a a r d, Kohlberg, Kurt Godel, Leonard Swidler, m e t a p h y s i c s, Mike Morrell, m o r a l r e a l i s m, m o r a l s t a t i s m, National Public Radio, n o n d u a l i t y, n o n r e a l i s m, normative sciences, orthopraxis authenticates orthodoxy, p e n a l a t o n e m e n t, Peter Rollins, p h e n o m e n o l o g y, Phyllis Tickle, P i a g e t, p n e u m a t o l o g i c a l, P r i n c i p i a M a t h e m a t i c a, Pseudo-Dionysius, radical orthodoxy, r e f o r m a d a, Religious Naturalism, Resurrection, Resurrection Event, Richard Rohr, R i c h a r d S u d w o r t h, S a r t r e, semiotic realis, s e m p e r r e f o r m a n d a, Shane Claiborne, socialization, s u b s t i t u t i o n a r y a t o n e m e n t, s y n c r e t i s m, The David Group International, The Dialogue Institute, T h e G r e a t E m e r g e n c e, theistic Religious Naturalism, t h e o d i c y, Theological Anthropology, theological n o n r e a l i s m, Thomas Merton, T i l l i c h, T i m K i n g, TOE, t r a n s f o r m a t i o n, Ursula Goodenough, W a l k e r P e r c y, Willem Drees, Wim Drees, Wittgensteinian Fideism, Z y g o n, Zygon editor

Jesus Loves Me, This, I Know … JB on October 8, 2009 in Uncategorized | No Comments » What difference would it make if our world and everybody in it, beyond being mere glorious contingencies of indifferent and impersonal cosmic causes, were created by a deeply caring, deeply involved, personal God, Who craves a loving, intimate relationship with each of us and, through the Spirit, is actively engaged in transforming our world and everybody in it, generously inviting us to fully participate in loving and transforming our world and everybody in it? From general revelation (the book of nature, for example), it seems to me that we can reasonably conclude that there is a God. We can also discern right from wrong, good from evil and learn to properly aspire to truth, beauty, goodness & unity. Some may even be led to conclude (or, at least, properly intuit) that, when all has been said and done, all may be well, even if in a vague and unspecified manner. What does special revelation add? It answers the question I posed above. The answer is neither a formula nor a set of beliefs; it’s not mostly descriptive in nature. Neither is the answer a set of norms, social mores or legal codifications; it is not mostly prescriptive in nature. The answer, then, is not essentially cosmological, which is to say that it is neither scientific nor philosophic. Neither would the answer contradict either our best scientific or philosophical insights. What special revelation (Holy Scripture) does is to introduce us to The Answer, a person, Jesus Christ, present in the people gathered, present in the word shared, present in the bread broken, present in more ways and in more persons, places and things than many seem ready, willing or able to recognize or admit …

This, then, is an interpretive stance and it changes what we will most value in this world. As an evaluative and interpretive position, it is essentially axiological (not cosmological, neither descriptive nor normative). It certainly transvalues all of our human endeavors, fostering our intellectual, affective, moral, social and religious growth and development, or, in other words, advancing human authenticity. Without such transformative efficacies, such a position would be hollow, indeed. Jesus changes everything. How many of us, though, are living proof?

Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Send

Science vs Natural Theology vs Theology of Nature JB on October 2, 2009 in Axiological, Cosmological, the descriptive - Science, the interpretive - Religion, the normative - Philosophy | 2 Comments » I like to be clear regarding this project or the other regarding whether or not one is doing science, philosophy or theology. And we mustn’t forget, oh my gosh, religion! And if one is talking about ALL of these spheres of human concern, in which sphere do they begin their conversation? and, in which do they end up? Except for the classical “proofs” by Aquinas and Anselm, and CS Peirce’s “Neglected Argument for the Reality of God,” and the Modal Ontological Arguments as crafted by Godel and Hartshorne only to be, in my view, lately and greatly improved by Christopher McHugh, I don’t consider much of what is going on, nowadays, to be natural theology or a natural philosophy of God. There is just not THAT much that one can say, in my view, about God, using philosophy as a starting point, at least not when methodologically restricting one’s musings to the rubrics of formal argumentation. The same is true for any other notions regarding “ultimate” or “primal” reality, using either philosophy or science as a starting point. All anyone thus establishes is a modicum of epistemological parity with alternate worldviews, i.e. elaborate tautologies. Don’t get me wrong. I an not at all dismissive of these enterprises, which demonstrate the reasonableness of faith (or, for those of you who consider this too strong, that it is not unreasonable or is, for what it’s worth, as reasonable as other interpretive stances vis a vis their Scottish verdicts). For some, like me, they have been indispensable parts of our journeys. For most, though, I’ve been told they don’t matter very much. And I trust what they report and am better and better coming to grasp why. Even then, I’ve enjoyed many, many fruitful dialogues with many nonbelievers who do seek such apologetics and we’ve grown in mutual respect and understanding and self-understanding. Worldviews, thankfully, are not mere formal arguments. They represent deeply and profoundly experienced existential orientations and ultimate concerns. And, if they are authentically re-ligious, they “tie life’s experiences back together” and heal us that we may survive and grow us that we may thrive. If we are not experiencing both healing and growth, both broadly conceived, well, that’s what the Prophets are for! They remind us that we are to be about the actualization of value. The interface between science and theology is not terribly interesting, philosophically, unless our project is to disambiguate their definitions. If it remains interesting, even early in the 21st century, it is only because so many scientistic and fideistic apologists are arguing past each other, precisely because they’ve neglected the work of philosophical disambiguation, which understandably can be difficult subject matter (see my discussion of The Great Tradition, properly conceived). Unlike philosophy (natural theology) and science, wherein we bracket, best we can, our theology, in a theology of nature we start with God and see His presence in all things and hear Her siren song from all places! From a different explanatory stance, we break out in analogy and metaphor, poetry and song, allegory and parable, joke and koan, story and dance, ritual and sacrament! And we speak of trail dust and stardust, quarks and supernovae, maidens and sailors, the Cosmic Adventure (John Haught) and the Divine Matrix (Joseph Bracken), leaping whitetails and creeping lizards, bright indwelling presence and luminous dark nights, hope and love and faith …

Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Send

Tags: A n s e l m, A q u i n a s, Charles Hartshorne, Charles Sanders Perice, Christopher McHugh, Cosmic A d v e n t u r e, C o s m o l o g i c a l A r g u m e n t, Divine Matrix, Great Tradition, J o h n H a u g h t, Joseph Bracken, K u r t Godel, Modal Ontological Proof, Natural Philosophy, N a t u r a l T h e o l o g y, Neglected Argument for the Reality of God, O n t o l o g i c a l A r g u m e n t, Proofs of God, Science, St. Francis, Theology of Nature, W o r l d v i e w

Liturgical Spirituality serves an erotic love JB on October 1, 2009 in Practices & Experiences, the interpretive - Religion | No Comments » The “Collected Works of St. John of the Cross” translated by Kavanaugh & Rodriguez (ICS) has a Scriptural Index which reveals that Juan cited almost every book of the Old & New Testaments in his writings and the citations number somewhere between 800-1,000 bible references (I didn’t count precisely, but that is a fair estimate)! It is easy to understand how new students of contemplative spirituality focus on, what is to them, the novelty of Juan’s via negativa. One could err, however, by failing to take into account Juan’s fidelity to Scripture, Sacraments, Liturgy and almost-Ignatian emphasis on “God in All Things” and almost-Franciscan emphasis on creation. (How’s that for a litany of kataphatic modalities?) Denis Read OCD, an ICS member, calls Juan the “liturgical mystic” and sanjuanist spirituality “liturgical spirituality”. In addition to Juan’s love and fidelity to Scripture, to the Eucharist (one of greatest personal trials in prison in Toledo was not being able to celebrate Eucharist) and to the other sacraments (strong emphasis on reconciliation), Juan quoted the Church’s liturgical books liberally, including hymns, antiphons of the LOH – Divine Office, Roman Ritual, etc!

Richard Hardy, PhD in “Embodied Love in John of the Cross” states: “The question we must answer is whether John is espousing the goal of an ethereal, “purely spiritual” love, or rather an embodied love replete with sensuality and delight.” Juan’s emphasis on nature, the imagery of his poetry, his relational imagery reveal a man overflowing with sensuality and delight! He is selling us on nothing less than Divine Eros and as Hardy says: “in the light of this erotic love challenges today’s Christian to embrace a lifestyle that risks all for the sake of all.” The apophatic-kataphatic remains in a highly creative tension with Juan and gets resolved, not by emphasis on one mode versus the other, but rather by a rhythmicity, by Juan’s recognition of God’s every “spiration” and by Juan’s “re”-spiring in accordance with same. Juan does NOT move us away from sensory delight but to purified sensory delight. Juan does not negate the kataphatic devotion but moves us to transformed devotion.

Sanjuanist liturgical mysticism is “mysticism par excellence.” In “Open Mind, Open Heart,” Thomas Keating writes about aprophatic/kataphatic contemplation that there has sometimes been a misleading distinction suggesting opposition between the two, when, in fact, a proper preparation of the faculties (kataphatic practice) leads to apophatic contemplation, which in turn is sustained through appropriate kataphatic practices. To risk all for the sake of all … now that’s something worth considering! There is all of this and a lot more to consider here at christiannonduality.

Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Send

Tags: a p o p h a t i c, Denis Read, Divine Eros, Divine Office, E u c h a r i s t, John of the Cross, k a t a p h a t i c, l i t u r g i c a l, l i t u r g y, Liturgy of the Hours, R i c h a r d H a r d y, T h o m a s K e a t i n g

Map-making & Story-telling – the twain shall meet JB on September 29, 2009 in the interpretive - Religion | No Comments » Oliver Sacks’ book and movie, “Awakenings”, describes how brain-damaged individuals can be roused out of stupor by music and art when nothing else can reach them. Tony deMello spent his life teaching the importance of awareness versus analysis, of insight versus information, perhaps patterned after the founder of his order, St. Ignatius, who emphasized the need to “taste” the truth versus merely “knowing” the truth. From Amos Wilder: “Imagination is a necessary component of all profound knowing and celebration … It is at the level of imagination that any full engagement with life takes place.” From Morton Kelsey: “God knew that human beings learn more by story and music, by art, symbols, and images than by logical reasoning, theorems, and equations, so God’s deepest revelations have always been expressed in images and stories.” I included the above quotes in an essay I wrote many years ago entitled John of the Cross, Liturgical Mystic. Jamie Smith recently published Desiring the Kingdom, which a publisher’s review describes as a focus on the themes of liturgy and desire: ”Malls, stadiums, and universities are actually liturgical structures that influence and shape our thoughts and affections. Humans–as Augustine noted–are “desiring agents,” full of longings and passions; in brief, we are what we love.” The lesson we take away, here, is that not only is our relationship with God shaped and influenced through story-telling, the manner in which we live, move and have our being in the world is also.

Charles A. Coulombe writes of one of Catholicism’s greatest story-tellers, J.R.R. Tolkien: “It’s been said that the dominant note of the traditional Catholic liturgy was intense longing. This is also true of her art, her literature, her whole life. It is a longing for things that cannot be in this world: unearthly truth, unearthly purity, unearthly justice, unearthly beauty. By all these earmarks, Lord of the Rings is indeed a Catholic work, as its author believed: But it is more. It is this age’s great Catholic epic, fit to stand beside the Grail legends, Le Morte d’Arthur and The Canterbury Tales. It is at once a great comfort to the individual Catholic, and a tribute to the enduring power and greatness of the Catholic tradition, that JRRT created this work. In an age which has seen an almost total rejection of the faith on the part of the Civilization she created . . . Lord of the Rings assures us, both by its existence and its message, that the darkness cannot triumph forever.” Story-telling thus engages our concrete, imaginative & practical mind through our social imaginary, which can be thought of as the equivalent of hometown knowledge. Hometown knowledge is our experience of understanding how to get from home to school to the grocer’s and back home. This nondiscursive participatory understanding is quite different from our propositional knowledge, which engages our abstract, conceptual & theoretical mind through our discursive map-making approach to reality. The difference between these complementary approaches to reality might best be appreciated as we think back on occasions in our lives when newcomers or strangers to our hometown stopped and asked us for directions. Have you ever had the uncomfortable experience of being asked for directions only to bumble and fumble and stumble and mumble your way to a helpful response? That’s your story-telling ability trying to translate its understanding of into knowledge about using your map-making ability. It’s not that we are never asked for directions by someone who otherwise shares our hometown knowledge, who shares our understanding of our local community. When they do, however, we experience the ease and facility of remaining in our story-telling mode without having to rely on our map-making skills (The new grocer’s is behind the school).

While most of us rely most heavily on our story-telling mode as we navigate reality together with others, whether in the classroom, living room or boardroom, all of us, at some time or another, must fall-back on our map-making and map-using mode of processing reality. Furthermore, it is a great curiosity to many that there are a few of us who, like me, by temperament, are natural born map-makers. In fact, that is our default approach to reality. In other words, we primarily engage reality through our abstract, conceptual, theoretical mind employing mostly our propositional knowledge and map-making ability. If you ask us a question, we’ll hand you a map (it’s already been drawn, I assure you) and it may even be a map of your hometown or your own backyard. And you will look at it with total fascination but utter bewilderment, unable to recognize the intricate representation of reality you’ve been handed. And we’ll look at you, gazing proudly at our marvelous creation, waiting for that aha moment of recognition on your face, a moment that, disappointingly and unfortunately, seldom seems to materialize. Now, I’m using the image of a map, metaphorically, of course, to illustrate the map-maker’s abstract, conceptual, theoretical approach to processing reality, which pervades both our spoken and written word, leaving others scratching their heads and talking about us behind our backs (if we’re lucky). And this is being contrasted with story-telling, which has the ability to frustrate us as much as we frustrate others. You’ve heard the old joke: I asked her for the time and she told me how to make a watch. Well, that pretty much summarizes how most map-makers experience most story-tellers. Now, there comes a point in time when one quits beating one’s head against the wall just because it feels good when one stops. After a great deal of introspection, one day, I went back and examined my many and diverse writings trying to recall which had elicited good responses and clear recognition and which had left my audience with glazed over eyes in a diaphanous miasmic fog of inaccessibility and unintelligibility. Put plainly, it wasn’t the absence of map-making that created clarity and fostered understanding, for I seldom depart from my default processing mode. Instead, it was the presence of story-telling in addition to the map-making, the inclusion of music, art, stories, images, metaphors and symbols. In other words, the good maps had legends (double-entendre intended), in a manner of speaking.

At any rate, I’ve never been a natural born story-teller and I’m not certain I’m going to bother deeply cultivating that particular skill going forward in that it has never been my particular calling much less charism. I have learned that it is often essential, though, as I have cultivated a better audience awareness. I have mostly hobknobbed with other mapmakers and theoretical eggheads, exploring together the psychological, philosophical and theological aspects of the religious terrain of humanity’s formative and transformative spiritualities, mapping this terrain with esoteric jargon (heavily nuanced words used as shortcuts and not purposefully devised for their quaint obfuscatory charm). For the most part, we understand each other’s map-making and lingo. What I have decided to do, though, is to complement my map-making website with this story-telling blog and to use it as a vehicle to begin translating my abstract, theoretical conceptualizations into more concrete, practical imaginations, or, in other words, as a place to begin adding legends (stories) to all of the maps I’ve made over the years, should I discern that such would be a worthwhile endeavor. It’ll be interesting to me to see how much of this I am led to do. One thing I hope I won’t do, any more, is to plop down any of my maps in the wrong places at the wrong times on poor souls who (through my most grievous fault, mea maxima culpa, not theirs) don’t know if those maps are designed to depict their own backyard or the way to Osama bin Laden’s cave. There is also something that needs to be said regarding the need for story-tellers to become better map-makers. That’s something best left to a story-teller, I suppose, especially one with the experience of riding with a driver who simply refuses to ask for directions. Whoa! And, to be perfectly clear, I’m employing that driver as a metaphor for those who play theology without a net (how’s that for mixing metaphors?).

Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Send

Tags: Amos Wilder, Charles A. Coulombe, J.R.R. Tolkien, James K. A. Smith, John of the Cross, l i t u r g y, Lord of the Rings, m a p-m a k i n g, Morton Kelsey, m y t h-m a k i n g, O l i v e r S a c k s, s t o r y-t e l l i n g, Tony deMello

« Older Entries

Newer Entries »

CHRISTIANNONDUALITY. C O M

BL O G

beyond thinking & proposing to imagining & participating Home About

Gospel – differentiating its brand in the marketplace

T o d a y’ s L i t u r g y

JB on September 28, 2009 in the interpretive - Religion | No Comments » Right & wrong. Good & evil. Merits & demerits. Debits & credits. Reward & punishment. Responsibility & accountability. These are the obligational aspects of human socialization, a process of formation & reformation that helps us function in society. Every society already “gets” this without the benefit of special revelation. The Old Testament revealed that a personal, faithful God was active & involved with humanity, establishing covenants, making promises. In the New Testament, the Gospel, the Good News, Jesus revealed the aspirational aspects of human transformation, a process that brings us into an intimate Daddy-like relationship with a tender, loving God. This differentiates the Gospel in the marketplace, so the aspirational should be emphasized at least as much as the obligational. Maybe more? So, the obligational aspect of our growth is about things like enlightened self-interest, imperfect contrition (sorrow for consequences to ourselves), extrinsic rewards and eros (what’s in it for me?). The aspirational is about the intrinsic rewards of truth, beauty, goodness & unity, the pursuit of which is its own reward. It’s about agape (what’s in it for others) and perfect contrition (sorrow for consequences that others suffer). It’s about growing in intimacy. The Old Covenant still works and the meeting of our basic obligations is still sufficient to enter the Kingdom (& to enjoy abundance). It’s just that, in the Gospel, the New Covenant, we are called to so much more, to superabundance! God, like any good father or mother, wants more for us than we want for ourselves. When we see anyone settle for less, it is natural to grieve, but we should be gentle & accepting of where they are & respectful of their choices. Our invitation to come along to the New Creation should reflect our own faith & hope & love & joy & courage & peace!

Translator

By N2H

Amos Yong apophatic Axiological axiologicallyintegral

Bernard Lonergan Brian McLaren Charles Sanders Peirce contemplative cosmology emergence emerging church Enlightenment

epistemology faith False

Self fideism Hans Kung James K. A. Smith Jesus Creed John Duns Scotus kataphatic Kevin

Beck Kurt Godel Merton

Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Send

metaphysics Mike Morrell Natural

Theology nihilism

nondual nonduality

orthodoxy radical emergence radical orthodoxy rationalism

Richard Rohr Science

scientism semiotic theodicy Theological Anthropology

Thomas Merton Tim King transformation

Tags: Good News, Jesus, t r a n s f o r m a t i o n

True Self Walker Percy

What They Didn’t Show on Faux News JB on September 26, 2009 in Uncategorized | No Comments » Same thing happened to Dubya during a joint session but when the dissenter yelled: “You prevaricate!” he smiled and gave him a thumbs up.

Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Send

W P-C u m u l u s b y R o y T a n c k a n d Luke Morton requires F l a s h P l a y e r 9 or better.

Cultivating the Roots, Nurturing the Shoots MARCH 2010 M

1 8 15 22 29

2 9 16 23 30 « FEB

3 10 17 24 31

4 11 18 25

5 12 19 26

6 13 20 27

7 14 21 28

Recent Posts

Irving Kristol’s True Legacy: modesty? JB on September 26, 2009 in the normative - Philosophy | No Comments » Charles Krauthammer waxes eloquently in a fitting tribute to Irving Kristol’s strength of character and personal charm: My theory of Irving is that this amazing equanimity was rooted in a profound sense of modesty. First about himself. At 20, he got a job as a machinist’s apprentice at the Brooklyn Navy Yard. He realized his future did not lie in rivets, he would recount with a smile, when the battleship turret he was working on was found to be pointing in the wrong direction. It could only shoot inward — directly at the ship’s own bridge.

Recent Comments christiannonduality.com Blog »

Krauthammer then segues into a celebration of Kristol’s ideological spirit (with a not so oblique counter to Buckley’s most recognizable imperative, Stop!): “This manifested itself in the work for which he is most celebrated: his penetrating, devastating critique of modern liberalism, and of its grand projects for remaking man and society. But his natural skepticism led him often to resist conservative counterenthusiasms as well. Most recently, the general panic about changing family structures. Irving had an abiding reverence for tradition and existing norms. But he thought it both futile and anti-human to imagine we could arrest their evolution. He never yelled for history to stop.” Kristol was understandably disillusioned with modern liberalism’s pretensions and grandiosities and justifiably skeptical of grand projects for refashioning our pluralistic society. The question that begs is how this can be squared with neoconservatism’s unbounded optimism toward and triumphalistic vision of militaristically democratizing tribalistic cultures. One can only imagine that nurture served to ameliorate only a fraction of the nature embedded in Kristol’s liberalistic DNA but could not fully eradicate that irresistible and all too insistent urge to fix something, somewhere, somehow. What is even more dramatically ironic, though, is that Krauthammer’s battleship turret allegory so very aptly describes and so very sadly and poignantly evokes the legacy of an ideological infrastructure that, in so many ways, points in the wrong direction. Once again, mugged by reality, chastised by misadventures overseas, one can only hope and pray that the modesty of this good man, which Krauthammer rightly would have us celebrate, would become his greatest legacy and emulated by those who are still held captive by his neoconservative phantasms. For my part, I hope and pray that Kristol’s introspective and self-critical reformative past thus becomes prologue and that his followers and Bill Buckley’s would once again, together, stand athwart history with me and yell, Stop! in Afghanistan.

Send article as PDF to Enter email address

Send

Blog Archive » Thoughts re: t o d a y’s debate – Philip Clayton vs Dan Dennett on Intelligent Design – a poorly designed inference christiannonduality.com Blog » Blog Archive » W h y B r i a n McLaren’s Greco-R o m a n Narrative is NOT a caricature on A New Kind of Christianity? McLaren didn’t make this up. It’s worse than that! christiannonduality.com Blog » Blog Archive » W h y B r i a n McLaren’s Greco-R o m a n Narrative is NOT a caricature on E v e r y t h i n g T h a t’s Old is New A g a i n – this (McLaren’s “ N e w” Christianity) is truly an old time religion K i e r a n C o n r o y on A New Kind of Christianity? McLaren didn’t make this up. It’s worse than that! Philip Clayton on Thoughts re: t o d a y’s debate – Philip Clayton vs Dan Dennett

Type, Hit Enter to Search

We Distinguish in Order to Unite Select Category

more on Nonduality

The True Self The Passion Hermeneutical Eclecticism & Interreligious Dialogue The Spirit

The Contemplative Stance Hesychasm Mysticism - properly considered Karl Rahner Wounded Innocence Rogation Days

John Sobert Sylvest said... Congratulations Kevin, Tim, Mike & Frank. Your articles all resonate with the wisdom of uncertainty (cf. Alan Watts). Yet, there is a harmonic fugue inviting others to share a certain vision.

http://davidgroupinternational.com/

Radical Orthodoxy Presuppositionalism vs Nihilism? Science Epistemic Virtue Pan-semioentheism: a pneumatological theology of nature Architectonic Anglican - Roman Dialogue The Ethos of Eros Musings on Peirce Eskimo Kiss Waltz the Light Side of Dark Comedy Blog Visits Other Online Resources Are YOU Going to Scarborough Fair? Suggested Reading Tim King's Post Christian Blog The Dylan Mass If You Are In Distress, Spiritual or Otherwise pending The Great Tradition properly conceived Postmodern Conservative Catholic Pentecostal

A radically deconstructive postmodernism would challenge such a clarity of vision. A still regnant rationalistic modernism would label this approach logically inconsistent due to its lack of firm foundations. What gives? I would like to succinctly set forth where it is that our views converge & why it is that we became fast friends. Y'all are well articulating an authentic Third Way, a reality others have laid claim to from time to time but haven't, in my view, really pulled off. What I think it is that we all properly emphasize is process over product. And we do this in any number of ways. Primarily, it is an emphasis on methods as preceding systems. Thus, we focus on epistemology prior to ontology, on the physical prior to the metaphysical, on practices prior to conclusions. We don't resist closure, just a rush to closure. We don't eschew prudential closure but consider it provisional. One can thus engage in cosmological pursuits without having a definitive cosmology. One can be rigorously philosophical, normatively, without having a philosophy, descriptively or interpretively, which is to acknowledge that one can be spiritual without being formally religious. Fr. Benedict Groeschel once described our transformative journey as being clear but tentative, early on, while obscure but certain, later in life. In some sense, I think this best captures the dynamic we've latched onto. It is not that we have no certainties, whatsoever. Rather, our certainties are oriented toward vague realities. Those who most vigorously defend their own clear visions of our uncertain reality are driven by an anxiety derived from the very tentativeness of such positions. So, I offer these distinctions: process vs product, method vs system, practices vs conclusions. And I also offer these distinctions: the certain and the tentative, the clear and the obscure or vague. Thus it is that we do not necessarily lack certainty about life's most compelling realities (truth, beauty, goodness & unity) or even faith in the efficacy of our processes, methods and practices. Instead, in an affirmation of their depth dimensions and the richness of the texture of our experiences of those realities, we recognize that we necessarily have but an obscure view, only vague notions in the way of products, systems and conclusions vis a vis our ultimate concerns and primal reality. Because of this, even after our best empirical, rational and practical approaches we must necessarily fallback on our story-telling ability, which gives primacy to our participatory imaginations beyond (but not without) our propositional cognitions. This is my abstract, conceptual take, which really needs a more concrete, practical explication. And that's what you guys do so well! Godspeed! Tim, you are exceptionally gifted in sharing, in a concrete, imaginative and practical way, so very many insights that I have grappled with over the years in an abstract, conceptual and theoretical way (my inclination by temperament). Your story-telling really gets an idea home in a way that my map-making never could. In my view, you are expressing themes that date back to the teachings of our early church fathers while also reaching forward with the best theologians of mainline

Christianity. The big words that come to mind are apokatastasis (apocatastasis), panentheism and pneumatocentric inclusivism. The Big Story that conveys the truth, beauty, goodness and unity being expressed in these themes, both abstractly and concretely, both theoretically and practically, both conceptually and imaginatively, is the One we have encountered in the Greatest Story Ever Told. It’s the story of a God-with-us, all-forgiving, all-loving, ever-present, everfaithful, ever-coaxing His/Her co-creators to participate ever more fully in this grand cosmic act of giving birth to a pervasively transformed reality. We recognize in our seasonal celebrations that Christmas contains Easter, Easter contains Christmas. It’s all the same Mystery, the same Act of Love. So, too, Sunday contains Monday. While we do recognize the transformative efficacies of liminal spaces, such sacred space is not spatio-temporal. So much of what takes place on Sundays is liminoid, whether in churches or in stadiums.The holy is much bigger than all that, much more WHOLLY, no-thing that can be compartmentalized or controlled. Richard Rohr says this well: “Let me first explain what I mean by liminal or sacred space (I will use the terms almost interchangeably). ‘Limina’ is the Latin word for threshold, the space betwixt and between. Liminal space, therefore, is a unique spiritual position where human beings hate to be but where the biblical God is always leading them. It is when you have left the ‘tried and true’ but have not yet been able to replace it with anything else. It is when you are finally out of the way. It is when you are in between your old comfort zone and any possible new answer. It is no fun. Think of Israel in the desert, Joseph in the pit, Jonah in the belly, the three Marys tending the tomb. IF YOU ARE NOT trained in how to hold anxiety, how to live with ambiguity, how to entrust and wait—you will run—or more likely you will ‘explain.’ Not necessarily a true explanation, but any explanation is better than scary liminal space. Anything to flee from this terrible ‘cloud of unknowing.’ Those of a more fear-based nature will run back to the old explanations. Those who love risk or hate thought will often quickly construct a new explanation where they can feel special and again in control. Few of us know how to stay on the threshold. You just feel stupid there—and we are all trying to say something profound these days.” I think you and Richard would get along quite well, Tim.

Below is in response to: Glenn Beck Is Not a Pomocon John Sobert Sylvest September 25th, 2009 I don’t have enough familiarity with Glenn Beck’s conservatism in order to nuance it with the rigor of your other commentators. Cursorily, it does seem to me that he is not an authentic pomocon. Your blog is aptly named Postmodern Conservative, which describes approaches that are methodological & practical but not ideological like

either postmodernISM or conservatISM. A pomocon, in my view, applies such tools as subsidiarity & tradition as proper biases, not absolutes. S/he employs a contrite fallibilism in response to the postmodern critique but remains metaphysically and morally a realist, not sawing off the epistemological branches where one’s ontological eggs are nested. A pomocon thus avoids the epistemic hubris of an Enlightenment fundamentalism and the excessive epistemic humility of a radically deconstructive postmodernism (practical nihilism & moral relativism). Suitably chastised in postmodernity, a pomocon recognizes that one’s deontology must be considered at least as tentative as one’s ontology is speculative (and Christianity is still in search of a metaphysic). A pomocon recognizes the distinction between propositional cognition and participatory imagination and views them as axiologically integral (working together in all human value-realizations) even if methodologically autonomous (science, philosophy & religion, for example) and affirms a semiotic realism where language has both reflective and productive roles vis a vis reality. It seems to me that we especially go astray when we both selectively apply and absolutize such proper biases as the subsidiarity principle. For example, big government is either always good or always bad. For example, big government is potent overseas but impotent at home, or big govt should stay out of our boardrooms but is welcome in our bedrooms & living rooms. Paleocons, socialcons, theocons, neocons & anticons (liberal extremists) are often inconsistent with where they want BIG GOVT, whether domestic or foreign, social or economic, and tend to absolutize such postures, where subsidiarity would have socialization processes hold or fold as needed. The Libertarians are the most consistent (got to concede that) in wanting to have nothing whatsoever to do with BIG GOVT and also confuse license with liberty and are thus the kookycons. The reason I can’t comment on Glenn, in particular, is b/c, the few times I tried to watch him, he seemed to be one of those spookycons! Below is in response to: http://postchristianblog.com/blog/post-christian-community I have Christian friends who do hi church, friends who do lo church and friends who do no church, as well as friends from nonChristian traditions. And I have tried to, as you say Tim, “stand under” them all that I may both better understand them as well as more deeply understand myself. Back in the old days, I was the Henry Potter (It’s a Wonderful Life) of the community, Chairman of the Board of the bank and also on the Draft Board (the Selective Service System). There was fairly extensive & ongoing training involved of draft board members because we had to know, for example, how to distinguish between the true conscientious objectors and the Klingers (MASH #4077th). Although few, other than my Quaker acquaintances & some Catholic friends, are true pacifists, this is a position affirmed as Gospel-informed and wholly acceptable in my denomination, which has also developed highly nuanced just war principles, which recognize some wars as necessary evils.

If there is any principle I wholeheartedly affirm, it is the subsidiarity principle, which per my interpretation means, unless it is absolutely necessary, all things being equal, we should not institutionalize (i.e. via coerced socialization processes) any human activity such that we coopt the prerogatives, curtail the freedom and thus offend the dignity of any individual. This is to suggest, then, all things being equal and in a perfect world, one might with John Lennon more easily: Imagine there’s no countries It isn’t hard to do Nothing to kill or die for And no religion too Imagine all the people Living life in peace For all the hoopla, recently, about that bogey-man socialism, a hoopla I stand-under because of my own subsidiarity bias, people seem to ignore the reality that, for a couple of thousand years or so, there have always been people living in different communities who each give according to their abilities and take according to their needs, communally, whether in convents or monasteries or at home in our families. There is nothing intrinsically evil in such an approach. We simply recognize that, because of our human finitude and sinfulness, it’s impractical to expect humankind, at this stage of its collective intellectual, affective, moral and social development, to overcome its tribalistic tendencies and embrace an unqualified transkin altruism. As Richard Rohr and Brian McLaren would urge, we haven’t figured out how to be tribal but not tribalistic. Truly, all things being equal & in a perfect world, there would (and SHOULD) be no government, no law enforcement, no military, no judiciary, no legislature, no compulsory education & insurance (including auto & health) and no motorcycle helmet or seatbelt laws. Might we not also “imagine” that, as humanity DOES develop & coercive institutions DO properly fold in succession, organized religion (s) might very well lead the way? With the advent of such deinstitutionalized religion(s), wouldn’t structures become progressively more de-clericalized, much less hierarchical & juridical? Our ecclesiastical institutions and ecclesiological approaches are precisely to be about fostering such intellectual, affective, moral and social development (or conversion per Lonergan) and such orthopraxes authenticate our orthodoxies. Thomas Merton speaks of the humanization and socialization processes that thus form each persona (false self) early on our journeys. Unfortunately, there is a great tendency for most to equate this with the end of the journey. This persona enables us to function in society and it is necessary, but it is not sufficient, for there is much more beyond humanization and socialization and it is known as transformation (realizing our True Self). Richard Rohr notes how our churches are quite good at socializing people but we might all recognize that the results are decidedly mixed when it comes to their fostering of authentic transformation. I’ve met folks from every great tradition as well as no tradition who seem to me to be utterly transformed, yes, whether hi church, lo church or no church, whether following a myth, true myth or amythia. Just food for thought.

My friend, Kevin Beck, recently tweeted: “Either these are not the gospels or we are not Christians.” (Thomas Linacre, Henry VIII’s dr, said this after reading gospels.) This is a devastating critique, in my view, of our society and our churches, something with which my spiritual sister, Simone Weil, would resonate. I have suggested her as the patroness of the de-institutionalized church. I look at our institutional structures and can only characterize them, per my reading of subsidiarity, as necessary evils or, more sympathetically, as pastoral sensitivity loopholes to what are otherwise clear and unambiguous Gospel-imperatives? I hope there will always be those among us who, by their very manner of living as eremitics, hermits, monastics, pacifists and aeclessiastics (my neologism) will be voices of prophetic protests, beckoning us all to come to the desert to confront our temptations to pride, power, pleasure, possessions and mediocrity, challenging us all to take the Gospel radically and seriously thus invoking fewer loopholes and rationalizing fewer escape clauses. Our tradition has room for pacifists and soldiers and can hold this contradiction, albeit painfully, even as we withhold harsh judgment of these widely divergent paths. I think it has room and must make more room for the aeclessiastics, who are unchurched by our visible institutional structures while, paradoxically, the paragon of Kingdom living and integrally belonging to the invisible Mystical Body. Life is too short to proofread. Besides, I have to go get ready for church. (Who I am kidding? The Saints are on!). Below is in response to: http://zoecarnate.wordpress.com/2009/09/21/open-or-closed-tableeucharistcommunion-wwjd/ If folks are properly disposed, as I see it, celebrations of sacraments really can effect precisely what they bring to mind. At the same time, only a rank clericalism would deny that, quite often, we are celebrating sacred realities that have already been effected outside of our sacerdotal systems. For example, we recognize that authentic marriages and reconciliations can be realized without being officially witnessed. The same could be argued for Eucharist, broadly conceived. The Eucharist celebrates covenant, memorial, thanksgiving, meal & presence. Presence is broadly conceived as Christ represented in the people gathered, the Word shared, the minister presiding and in the partaking of the sacred species. It seems to me that, if a closed table approach were a dogma or doctrine grounded in either Scripture or Tradition vis a vis Eucharist, that, in order to be wholly consistent, others would have to be denied not just the sacred species but would have to be denied the Presence of Christ by avoiding their own 1) presence at the meal 2) presence with the presider 3) presence during the breaking open of the Word 4) presence among the people gathered 5) presence at the memorial commemoration 6) presence during the covenant’s recalling and 7) presence sharing in thanksgiving. This isn’t grounded in dogma or

doctrine but in a reformable discipline, just like women’s ordination and celibacy and the rationale is incoherent. There is a reason why, in interreligious dialogue, we begin at the level of practice and experiences before advancing to dogma. There is a reason why, more and more, we are turning to liturgical catechesis. The reason is that human beings learn more through storytelling and participation via our shared social imaginary than we do through rational cognition and propositions via shared formulations. Jesus didn’t say “Take, repeat after me,” but said, rather, “Take, eat.” The unity will then ensue. The thrust of my argument, then, is that the celebration of the whole Eucharist, as broadly conceived, will precisely effect the unity that it brings to mind. That participatory reality is its foremost purpose and utmost efficacy, far more important than symbolizing complete cognitive agreement or assent to doctrinal propositions by all who are assembled. More plainly put, the Eucharist should be our vehicle to unity, not our token of unity. Below is in response to: http://thomstark.jesuspolitics.net/?p=535 Thom, I really enjoyed this and it sounds terribly right-headed to me. I devised my own set of neologisms over the years to address the same sort of dynamics you discuss here. In any given community, however broadly or narrowly defined, our concepts, symbols or ideas tend to be either 1) dogmatic or non-negotiated 2) heuristic or still-in-negotiation 3) theoretic or negotiated or 4) semiotic or non-negotiable, by that community. Wim Drees, the new editor of Zygon, defines theology as a cosmology + an axiology. I nuance my own approach by saying that I am being theological when I am being both cosmological and axiological at the same time. This is an admission, in a manner of speaking, that I/we don’t yet have a cosmology in the form of any specific ontology. I guess this is an admission to my own temperament, which resists any rush to closure and which recognizes any closure as provisional. In other words, I am suggesting that methods precede systems, epistemology precedes (even if it models) ontology. This is also to say that I aspire to be philosophical without having a philosophy, or better said that I emphasize getting my questions right over thinking I have the right answers. When it does come to negotiating my concepts and moving toward a provisional closure, it is not so much that I am/we are turning to the subject or making the so-called linguistic turn or that host of other “turns” that describe the history of philosophy as it is that I am/we are making the turn to community. And we turn to this community of earnest inquiry and of serious valuerealizers in all of our endeavors, which I like to categorize by methodology. Cosmology, then, includes our descriptive and normative endeavors, or, in other words, science and philosophy, respectively asking the questions of reality: What is that? (Is that a fact?) and How can I best obtain or avoid it? Axiology, then, includes our evaluative and interpretive endeavors, or, in other words, What’s that to me? and How can we tie all of this together (re-ligate)? I guess we could call these, respectively, culture and religion.

While all of our endeavors, whether scientific, philosophical, cultural or religious, employ all sorts of concepts — theoretic, semiotic, dogmatic and heuristic, it is no accident that our descriptive or scientific discourse employs more theoretic concepts; our normative or philosophical discourse employs more semiotic concepts, which are the notions & basic beliefs we rely on if meaning, itself, is going to be possible, hence their non-negotiability; our interpretive discourse or metaphysical & religious myth-making tend to remain heuristic or in ongoing negotiation; and our evaluative discourse is going to be more non-negotiated or dogmatic, maybe even, crudely put, a matter of individual, or at least cultural, taste. The practical upshot, then, is that our cosmological endeavors will enjoy a certain primacy in describing and in grappling with the universal human condition. It is, as you say, narratively prior and enjoys the broader context. This reality is reflected in how we speak and the nature of the terms we have employed, the theoretic and semiotic, which enjoy a highly negotiated status in the wider community. We do not need a shared vision of the whole, axiologically, which is to say that we do not need a shared interpretive ontology or metaphysic (e.g. substance, process, experience) or root metaphor, in order to take inventory of the wants and needs that we have in common, or even to discern the differences between real and apparent goods, lesser and higher goods. Lonergan’s protege’, Helminiak, equates our spiritual focus of concern with the philosophic or what I have called the normative. We are spiritual, then, before we are ever religious. We can recognize, with Sartre, that, since we are similarly-situated in this somewhat universal human condition, the prescriptions we devise for this situation we describe are going to be remarkably consistent, for all practical purposes, even if the interpretations in which we ground them are otherwise very divergent or even relativistic, theoretically speaking. As a concrete example, this is why, in interreligious dialogue, systematic theologian Amos Yong recommends a pneumatological approach over a Christological approach, at least at the outset. Spirit seems to be an almost theoretic concept, cross-culturally and fairly ubiquitous, interreligiously. This certainly works better than a Christocentric inclusivism (as Hans Kung points out, Rahner’s concept of the anonymous Christian is not helpful for interreligious dialogue) and way better than our old ecclesiocentric exclusivisms (which fewer and fewer of us can countenance much less believe). I have been especially interested in the exchange between D. Opderbeck & Jim Belcher. I have not read Jim's book, only this thread, other blog threads and some book excerpts & reviews regarding same. That last quote from Newbigin helps and sounds right-headed and right-hearted. In our epistemic approach to any reality, different methods mutually influence each other: evidential, rational, presuppositional and

existential. When that reality involves an ultimate concern or primal reality, by definition & in principle, we pretty much understand, a priori, that we are going to be confronted with our finitude & fallibility, that reality is going to be grasping us, existentially, far more than we will be apprehending reality, propositionally. Our relationship with God, then, will deepen far more via participatory understanding than thru propositional knowledge. Does this square with the distinction that is being drawn between the Cartesian tradition and the evangelical spirit? Does this dynamic touch upon what is being called "Proper Confidence?" The locus of confidence, then, is a radical trusting in Another and neither grounded in nor essentially justified by various human methodologies. In some sense, I think our Christian Tradition has proceeded with this type of "understanding" (not set of propositions) from the get-go, although there have been various over- and under-emphases and abberations down through the years. A certain Enlightenment fundamentalism came along that not only improperly characterized (and caricatured) the human relationship to Ultimate Reality but also too narrowly conceived our epistemic relationships to reality, in general, which is to say that it caricaturized human knowledge writ large in terms of scientism, empiricism, positivism, rationalism, pragmatism and so on. The postmodern "critique" was a necessary therapy and now provides a hygiene that eschews such forms of epistemic hubris. All human knowing thus involves both a participatory understanding and a propositional knowledge, both noncognitive and cognitive aspects. So, if we are saying that, regarding Primal Reality & God, our existential moment enjoys a certain "primacy" over the other aspects of human knowledge (evidential, rational & presuppositional), then that seems right to me. If, on the other hand, anyone is suggesting that the existential enjoys some type of "autonomy" and thus enjoys a certain gnosis apart from the evidential and rational aspects of human knowledge, then that would be an arational gnosticism and/or fideism, which many would reject. Biblical inerrancy or literalism is thus, in principle, incompatible with a nonfoundational epistemology, which chastizes not only our epistemic hubris vis a vis HOW we know but also any overconfident notions THAT we know. http://blog.beliefnet.com/jesuscreed/2009/09/deep-church-as-third-way4.html

Â There are some realities that all of the great traditions (even outside Christianity & monotheism) seem to have in common. All make various attempts 1) to articulate the truth they've encountered, 2) to celebrate the beauty they've experienced, 3) to preserve the goodness they've been gifted and 4) to enjoy the fellowship for which we were born as radically social animals. And all seem 5) to affirm and refer to some form of pneumatological reality or Spirit. The essential elements of our attempts to re-ligate a human reality often torn asunder seem to involve, to different extents, these articulations, celebrations, preservations, enjoyments and affirmations, which all have both propositional and participatory aspects at the level of our primary encounter of God as we fallibly attempt to describe it, effabling, so to speak, about the Ineffable. This

Spirit, universally, seems to come after us in a radically incarnational way, using other people and other creaturely realities to mediate this encounter thru creed (dogma), cult (liturgy, ritual), code (law, disciplines) and community (fellowship), all fingers pointing at the moon. Fallible and sinful as we are, dogma decays into dogmatism, ritual into ritualism, law into legalism and community into institutionalism, the Spirit ever blowing where and when and on whom It will. As I have surveyed the differences between my own Roman Catholicism and the Anglican tradition, it has seemed to me that we do not so much differ on these essential aspects but, instead, on accidentals like church polity & disciplines. And, honestly, I am in deeper sympathy with the Anglican approach to these realities (but instead of bolting traditions, which I see no sense in doing over accidentals, I remain with my dysfunctional family and in loyal opposition). In theory, what is called the Magisterium or teaching office, is that servant of the people who listens to the sensus fidelium (sense of the faithful) and then articulates it. In practice, this hierarchical structure, in my view, has often gotten this process backwards, especially with its over-reliance on speculative metaphysics vis a vis morality rather than listening to the lived experience of the faithful. So, if Protestantism gone awry has it sola scriptura, Roman Catholicism has its solum magisterium and an institutionalism run amok. What we seem to be about then, in our interdenominational comparisons, I think has much to do with those five categories and the norms we attempt to establish for them via orthodoxy, orthopraxy, orthopathy and orthocommunio. When they are authentically orthothe Spirit authenticates them by the fruits of the Spirit. Ortho-, however, has more to do with being whole and complete and nothing really to do with being perfect, so the Spirit moves in surprising places to those not attuned to Its Reality. In those 5 categories, we will locate our differences, I propose. And it is incumbent upon us to discern which of these differences are rooted in essentials and which in accidentals, realities that lend themselves to our insidious over- and under-emphases. And we might recognize that we want to avoid any progressivism that treats essentials as if they were accidentals, and any traditionalism that treats any accidentals as if they were essentials. And we want to avoid any socalled Third Ways that are insidiously indifferent to these important distinctions and embrace any Third Way that is working earnestly to discern what it is that we truly have in common, which I submit is a LOT more than that which we have allowed to separate us, again and again and again. I toss this out as one way to frame this discussion and not THE way. Transformation, in my view, is quite the essence. And while it may be true that certain dogma, rites, laws and institutions might not foster ongoing transformation as well as others --- intellectually, affectively, morally, socially & religiously (Cf Lonergan via Don Gelpi)--- I think it is also true that dogmatism, ritualism, legalism and institutionalism often have a lot more to do with the individual believer and worshiper and follower and congregant than necessarily with the dogma, rite, law or congregation, itself. We shouldn't just show up at church to have it

done unto us but should show up as church, being church and doing church, prepared to give and receive. There's room for high and low church, a diversity of ministry and unity of mission, many different spiritualities playing out via temperament and charisms, many expressions of piety, many authentic lifestyles (eremitic, monastic, lay, religious) and so on. We need boundaries and norms but can still honor a significant degree of catholicity and plurality. For example, without being heterodox, in my tradition, I don't but into traditional notions of atonement but go with the Franciscans and Scotists, who take the Incarnation as a cosmic inevitability built into the cards from the get-go and not the result of any felix culpa. At any rate, some claims to empty rituals and boring liturgies just might say more about the claimant than the celebration, itself? Again, though, we might ask what's at stake? And I think the answer is transformation. And I also think we are aspiring to be able to run the good race with the greatest facility and the least amount of hindrances, to live a life - not just of abundance, but - of superabundance. After all, there are those of us who believe that all persons of goodwill will be saved. We will that all persons share in our Good News and its transformative efficacies out of compassion for all. We want to get it right and are deliberating, out of compassion, how to best cooperate with the Spirit in us all. http://blog.beliefnet.com/jesuscreed/2009/09/is-low-church-evangelicalismp.html

Let me shift into storytelling mode and share some things of a more practical nature. I raised four children. One of the things that I taught them and that I hope they caught from me in many other ways was that, for all practical purposes, there is no hell. My version of Pascal’s Wager has nothing whatsoever to do with hellfire and brimstone. We do take all sorts of risks seeking all sorts of rewards. Regarding risks, I was a bank CEO and followed the axiom that profits do not come from taking risks but, instead, from superior skill at managing risks. This applies across a wide spectrum of human activities. I have also taught my children that one does not need religion to lead a meaningful, even abundant, life. Truth, beauty, goodness and unity are there for the taking by anyone with or without this or that grand metanarrative. So, not only did I not teach my children that they needed religion to get “saved,” I did not teach them that religion, conventionally understood, was even necessary to live a life of abundance. Rather, I taught them what I believe, and time will tell whether they have also caught this from my manner of living, which is that I have risked a stance toward reality of unconditional surrender, unconditional trust and unconditional gratitude, such an unconditionality as not only needs no formal apologetic but which, in principle, could not coherently rely on same. Why such a risk? I have stared, not unflinchingly, into the abyss, and have wagered on Jesus of Nazareth and have practiced with the Buddha, seeking enlightenment out of compassion for those whom I love so much, that they would not have to suffer my unenlightened

self, and seeking a superabundance of truth, beauty, goodness and unity for us all, values which are intrinsically rewarding, which is to say are rewards in and of themselves. Thus it is that my journey became my destination and the quest became my grail. If I am living a life of superabundance, well that should be a lot like being able to fly. The way I see it, if I was at a neighborhood BBQ and flew over my neighbors from one rooftop to the next before coming down to the ground to join them for a beer, and if, when I did join them to pop a top, no one inquired of me as to how in the world did I just do what I did, flying angel-like over the neighborhood, what possible good would it do or what possible reason would I have to ask them if they’d like to know how I did it? They say that, in those days, ten men from every nation will come and take you by the sleeve and say that they would go with you for they have seen & heard that God is with you? Hmmmm … I’m quite the newbie to this Emergent Conversation and only became aware of it via the rants of my friends of a more fundamentalistic bent, those who are always filling my in-box with those epistles du jour as had been debunked at snopes months, sometimes years, ago. You draw the distinction between where Christianity happens to be going and should be going, the old is/ought or fact/value or given/normative or ontology/deontology distinction, which some claim is a dichotomy, a road one can’t travel. And if we are honest, as you suggest, we will recognize (or discern) that the Holy Spirit is going and has always gone a lot of different places. In some sense, the emergent conversation is the acting out of just such an honesty as has come to just such a conclusion. If the postmodern critique has taught us anything, it is that our grasps of what we have long-considered reality’s IS or givens or facts or ontologies is somewhat tentative. It follows then, that our journeys from is to ought, given to normative, ontology to deontology, descriptive to prescriptive, are going to be a tad more problematical. My aphorism has been that our deontologies should be as modest as our ontologies are speculative (or tentative). In non-philosophy-speak, it is to say that, if you don’t know where you are, then you can’t really know where you are going. A radically deconstructive pomo asserts that we can’t know where we are, which is a self-subverting incoherent assertion. Our (re)constructive approach says that we can approximate where we are and triangulate (and sometimes kedge) our way forward. This emergent conversation seems to be taking place between a plurality of positions and dispositions that have recently awakened to the value of self-criticism, to epistemic humility. It would be a sad and ultimate irony if it took on a de novo epistemic hubris and ushered forth with a new form of dogmatism (this IS it) that leads to a new type of legalism (ergo, all OUGHT to do this), which sets forth rigid norms in the form of doctrines & disciplines. It makes some sense to me, in our triangulation attempts, to use tradition as one of our points of reference. We can retrieve from our tradition those flexible norms that recognize, affirm and foster a multiplicity of spiritualities and a diversity if pieties; I’m thinking of such a catholicity as has place for eremitic (hermit), monastic & parochial lifestyles, where all enjoy equal-opportunity approaches to the priest, prophet & queen/king in each of us, where folks with the same charisms can nurture each other in communities like Franciscans

or Benedictines or Dominicans or Jesuits or what have ya. Most of all I’m dreaming of a community that is not intent on taking me as an INTP, introverted intuitive thinking perceiver, and remaking me into the much more common type of ESFJ, extroverted sensing feeling judger, which most seem to think Jesus was. This lemme, lemme upgrade ya schtuff has got to stop! I have found my community by seeking out and joining different dysfunctional families, by hanging out with brokenness. Somehow, when I gather with others who, like me, are also finite, dysfunctional and broken, I feel more whole and experience more healing and glimpse, even, the Infinite. Not to be pollyannish about this, it’s not like we’re all necessarily nurturing each other or that we enjoy some fleeting moments of being more than the sum of our parts; that’s not the dynamic at all. Rather, it’s that in this dough we encounter leaven, salt & mustard seeds, folks who are a light in this darkness, a city on this rocky hill, a saving remnant; I imagine this is because the most transformed & compassionate people among us are hanging out on the margins and with the marginalized, with those in poverty (and I mean poverty broadly conceived)? When I was in a poverty think tank, I sought out what was called the 4th World Movement, folks who minister to the poorest of the poor. Honestly, I came away from that experience with the belief that I was already hanging out with folks who were spiritually & emotionally poorer and ostensibly more miserable. I found such misery in corporate boardrooms and family living-rooms of America. It’s not the many but the few who help me keep my perspective intact. It’s not so much unique as it is uncommon. One of my dysfunctional family memberships is Roman Catholicism. What has kept me sane is a lot of solitude and an immersion in Thomas Merton. When Marc Ambinder announced during the POTUS primaries that I was the cofounder and co-owner of romancatholicsforobama.com , I was inundated with hate mail, mostly by my co-religionists, too many emails to read and requiring an auto-responder. Still, three days before Senator Kennedy had had his first seizure, then undiagnosed cancer, I received an encouraging e-mail from his wife, Vickie, a fellow Louisianian, telling me how much they appreciated and admired my effort. That one affirmation weighed more in the balance of keeping my perspective than the thousands of condemnations. I get wacky e-mail at christiannonduality.com also, but every so often a Tim King comes along, I understand at the prompting of Mike Morrell, and encourages me to keep going. That’s Who the Holy Spirit is — the en-courage-er and, let me tell you, we all sorely need it. To Whom else can we go? In my view, epistemology is epistemology is epistemology, such that, for example, there is no religious epistemology per se. So, too, re: anthropology & any so-called theological anthropology. Any postmodernISM, which aspires to the status of a philosophical system, inexorably, gets radically deconstructive, tending toward a litany of epistemic perjoratives: practical nihilism, moral relativism, essential pragmatism, facile syncretism, insidious indifferentism, false irenicism, ad nauseum and self-subversively sawing off the epistemological limb where its ontological eggs were nested. The postmodern CRITIQUE, on the other hand, was serious and

deserving of a response by an excessively rationalistic and a prioristic foundationalism, which aspired to apodictic certainties, whether via the empirical demonstrability of a scientism informed by an Enlightenment fundamentalism or via the medieval metaphysical proofs argued by a sterile scholasticism. As I wrote last week, there has been some tendency 1) in evangelical & Arminian traditions to overemphasize the evidential (evidence that demands a verdict) 2) in reformed & Calvinist traditions - the presuppositional (belief as philosophically basic) 3) in fideist, Lutheran & neoevangelical traditions - the existential (faith as experience) and 4) in Catholic, both Roman & Anglican, the rational (logical argument). In all of these traditions, a more holistic approach is EMERGING. This approach is best articulated, in my view, by the American Pragmatist Tradition, particularly the pragmaticism of Charles Sanders Peirce, wherein pragmatic criteria are truth-indicative, which is to say pragmatism is a TEST of truth & not a THEORY of truth. In this sense, then, we still affirm a metaphysical realism, even a moral realism, even as we embrace a contrite fallibilism, recognizing our apprehension of values is somewhat problematical. This nonfoundational approach is not too different, for all practical purposes, from those critical realists who still embrace a weakened foundationalism. Peirce's approach combined with that of Bernard Lonergan makes for a very integral perspective. It is not too very different from Wilber's AQAL with the notable exception being that AQAL must be better nuanced as AQALST, where the ST=same time, otherwise what is being affirmed as transrational becomes, instead, an arational gnosticism. Lonergan's protege', Daniel Helminiak, takes Wilber to task on this, but their differences might resolve with more nuance. Finally, all value realizations involve both propositional knowledge (epistemic duality) & participatory understanding (epistemic nonduality), involve the empirical, logical, practical & moral aspects of our descriptive & normative approaches to reality, cosmologically, as well as the relational & social imaginary aspects of our interpretive & evaluative approaches to reality, axiologically. The medievals have a name for this type of AQALST openness, contemplation. This contemplative stance, which goes beyond but not without the dualistic mind, is what I advocate as Christian Nonduality and what Richard Rohr considers to be the third of four pillars of Emerging Christianity. The most succinct statement of this position is that the normative mediates between the descriptive & interpretive to effect the evaluative. I derived this from Don Gelpi, SJâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Peircean take: The normative sciences (logic, aesthetics, ethics) mediate between phenomenology & metaphysics. This left the question begging: Toward what end? And I added the evaluative aspect based on the work of Robert Cummings Neville. The incoming editor of Zygon (Institute on Religion in an Age of Science), Wim Drees, draws a distinction between the cosmological and axiological, which overlays nicely on my Peircean-Nevillean derived scheme. Once fleshed out, which is what christiannonduality.com is about, we recognize familiar distinctions such as between doing and being, propositional knowledge & participatory understanding, conceptual map-making and the social imaginary, and, following Jacques Maritain: We distinguish in order to unite, which is to say that we

needn’t introduce false dichotomies or to place these value-realizations in an over against/versus dynamism (necessarily). Rather, we can affirm how all of these different aspects of human rationality (incl pre-, non- and trans-) are integrally-related. This is not some wimpy perspectivalism, however. When we say that none of these human rationalities is AUTONOMOUS, this is NOT to suggest that we are, at the same time, denying that any given aspect of human rationality may not be enjoying a certain PRIMACY, or “its moment,” so to speak, during this or that human value-realization. These various aspects tend to wax and wane, to now come in to sharper relief and to now fade into a background context. For example, life’s lesser goods, which we tend to enjoy only in moderation and as extrinsic rewards of a dualistic mindset, are most often PURSUED via our propositional, problem-solving knowledge. Life’s greater goods, such transcendentals as truth, beauty, goodness and unity, which are intrinsically-rewarding and can be enjoyed w/o measure, most often seem to ENSUE from our relational, participatory understanding. During our empirical and logical and moral and practical valuerealizations, then, our problem-solving mind is enjoying a certain primacy, even though noticably transvalued and conditioned by our participatory understandings (incl evaluative dispositions). These value-pursuits mostly involve getting the answers right. When we are pursuing the intrinsically rewarding existential orientations of our transcendental imperatives to relationship w/others & God/de, in truth, beauty, goodness & unity, our participatory understanding is enjoying its moment, a certain primacy, even though noticably transvalued and conditioned by our propositional knowledge. In each case, we go BEYOND but not WITHOUT. It does seem, then, that in the life of one who’s adopted a contemplative stance, who’s given the nondual perspective its moment, habitually, that orthoPATHOS will enjoy a certain primacy, even if not autonomously, as it mediates between orthodoxy and orthopraxy to effect orthocommunio. This is an acknowledgement that the existential enjoys a certain primacy over the evidential & rational & presuppositional even as it in no way can be considered autonomous. Balance and moderation, then, in such a perspectivalism, is not achieved by always giving equal place and equal time to each perspective --- descriptive, normative, interpretive and evaluative ---, as through some a priori rational schema, but is something that requires a posteriori empirical discernment in community as orthopraxis authenticates orthodoxy. IOW, this is problematical, as one might expect our richly textured existence to require. The most important value-pursuits in life more so involve, then, less so getting the answers right as in getting the right questions, which will retain, if truly wise, an element of mystagogia. When I say descriptive, it is jargon mostly for science, falsification, positivism and such, which, in the simplest of terms, asks: What is THAT? Or, Is that a FACT? When I say normative, it stands for philosophy, mostly, especially logic, aesthetics and ethics & epistemology (How do we know what we know?) and asks: How can I best acquire/avoid IT (or THAT)? Taken together, this is what Wim Drees seems to be calling cosmology. In my view, this is Everybody’s Story and we should not go around wily-nily just making this stuff up.

It is mostly given. And this includes morality (is to ought, given to normative), which I and some others hold is something anyone can figure out without the benefit of any special revelation. When I say evaluative (Drees’ axiological), I am talking about our posits regarding values, or in the simplest terms, asking the question: What’s IT to me? What does THAT mean to me? The interpretive refers to the question: How does all of this TIE-BACK-TOGETHER? = religate = religious. Lonergan-Gelpi talk about conversions – intellectual, moral & social and affective & religious. One might think of these in terms of developmental stages (think Piaget, Kohlberg, Fowler et al – the stage theorists in psychology). It so happens that the axiological concerns are our deepest and most insistent and that, in large measure, when it comes to life’s most important concerns (our ultimate concerns), well, from a cosmological perspective, we’re totally screwed. There is a certain amount of epistemic parity here, which is to say, even after our best empirical investigations and rational demonstrations, the best verdict we can offer, cosmologically, is the Scottish verdict = unproven. So, while we cannot go around fashioning a cosmology to suit our tastes, we do have a great deal of freedom in choosing our axiological stance = What’s it to me? and How does this all hold together? As Wm James noted, such a choice is vital (it matters a lot), forced (we pretty much have to choose & not choosing is a choice) and a live option (follow your heart but don’t betray your head). So, while I do not accept that there are competing cosmologies, I do recognize competing axiologies and I do believe we can successfully adjudicate between those that are good, better and best, within many constraints, by looking at how well any given tradition or religion or denomination or cohort has institutionalized conversion (LonerganGelpi not Evangelical-style), which is to ask how its people have developed intellectually, morally and socially (cosmologically, propositional knowledge) and also affectively and religiously (axiologically, participatory understanding). Remember, we are talking about epistemology here. My references to both cosmology and axiology address methods not systems, questions not conclusions. It is my view that methods precede systems, fallibilistic systems at that. Metaphysically, then, I am agnostic on such “ontological” matters as philosophy of mind, the essential nature of reality, various root metaphors such as substance, process or semiotic approaches and so on. If someone put a gun to my head, on philosophy of mind, I’d probably choose a nonreductive physicalism but without losing sleep over the possibility of some type of spooky, ghost-in-themachine, Cartesian dualism. I affirm metaphysics as a project but feel that it is WAY too early on humankind’s journey to come to even a good provisional closure, ERGO, we had best move along without a definitive view vis a vis our other human value-realizations. While some emphasize the existential approach to our ultimate concerns and dismiss evidential, rational and presuppositional arguments, I say not so fast. Our religious interpretive approaches are constrained by the best that scientific-descriptive and normativephilosophic approaches have to offer, such knowledge as has advanced slowly but inexorably. A good interpretive approach, or religion, when

it is busy TYING IT ALL together, cannot fabricate its own scientific facts and philosophic norms but must incorporate same within its perspective. A religion, like Christianity, may not be able to empirically investigate or logically demonstrate in a conclusive manner its entire stance toward reality, but any evidence it does muster must be historically accurate and any arguments it does fashion must be, at least, valid if not otherwise demonstrably sound per extant scientific methods and coherent philosophical norms. It must be reasonable and it must be as reasonable as other competing stances, which is to say that it must, minimally, not be disproved even if not proved. Any faith is going to require some epistemic risk and any such risk demands some type of reward in terms of human value-realizations. We amplify such risks to augment values but these risks must be dutifully “managed.” In Phyllis Tickle’s writings, I noted with interest her use of a cable metaphor, a cable of meaning with various strands. I have not inquired further, but it is interesting that Charles Sanders Peirce employed a cable metaphor, also, in a not wholly unrelated way, epistemologically. Peirce’s pragmatism, more appropriately pragmaticism, employs a nonfoundational approach, to be sure, but it is a constructive postmodernism, a semiotic realism, which affirms metaphysical and moral realisms along with its contrite fallibilism. There are many things in life we cannot empirically investigate or rationally demonstrate: 1) belief in other minds over against solipsism 2) belief in reality’s intelligibility over against nihilism 3) belief in first principles like identity, excluded middle and noncontradiction. We take risks and are rewarded when we believe in realities like truth, beauty, goodness and unity. Hopefully, when we amplify these risks into creed, cult, code and community, we augment such value-realizations. The strands of the Peircean cable could be said to include the descriptive, normative, interpretive and evaluative, as well as abduction (hypothesizing), induction (empirical testing) and deduction (logical argument). It is nonfoundational epistemologically, only questioning the nature of our grasp of reality, which is not the same thing as denying either reality, itself, or the fact that we can apprehend reality, partially, even if we do not comprehend it, wholly. It recognizes that our systems are tautological but it also recognizes that just because something is a tautology does not mean it is not true. Further, it suggests that not all systems are equally taut and we can devise tests to see which best comport with reality, fostering authentic valuerealizations like intellectual, affective, social, moral and religious development. It eschews the epistemic hubris of modernism and the excessive epistemic humility of postmodernism, embracing an epistemic holism that is more akin to weakened foundationalisms than wimpy pomos. re: Ptolemy, Copernicus, Newton & Einstein, a cautionary note The consensus view in science employs an emergentist heuristic, which does not aspire to an exhaustive explanatory adequacy but does provide some very helpful conceptual placeholders. As Ursula Goodenough says, emergence means we get "something more from nothing but." We recognize that in this far from equilibrium environment in which

we live, novel (but dissipative) structures arise. Some semiotic (infoconveying & meaning-making) realities arise which, apparently, transcend but do not violate physical causal closure. The take-away is that even reality's laws are dynamic and emergent, with some continuity to be sure but also some undeniable discontinuities (one could call them ontological and vaguely refer to them even when unable to robustly describe them). There is, then, a certain danger in extrapolating universal laws from a reality that, for all theoretical & practical purposes vis a vis Primal Reality, might be as local (and recent) as the by-laws of your neighborhood condominium association. Another correspondent mentioned string & quantum theory, which interest me more so because any enhanced modeling power of reality will provide us with richer metaphors that will last longer before collapsing and more taut tautologies from which we can better navigate our ways from IS to OUGHT, but much less so because they might somehow better facilitate our so-called metaphysical grasp of reality's essential nature or (much less) improve our God-concepts. This is why I have some misgivings about any temporal critical realism & various (speculative, propositional) cosmological positions as related to theology and emphasize, instead, our (participatory) axiological dispositions. When it comes to humanity's ultimate concerns, our evidential, rational and presuppositional apologetics are not unimportant. They are, in my view, necessary but not sufficient because they cannot, whether alone or together, coerce a belief, or maybe better a stance, whether of nihilism or panentheism (or whatever existential flavah Irritable's stealing du jour). We all end up falling back on our existential orientations with an attitude of gratitude & what Kung calls a justified fundamental trust in uncertain reality or with any number of other dispositions people indulge from time to time and in the course of a lifetime (sometimes even a day). And, as Richard Rohr said in the emerging church conference (convened with Brian McLaren), there's no sense in spending the next 20 years of one's life raging and railing against other approaches, just go ahead and do it better. I think that's the most effective apologetic. So, even as we go BEYOND the evidential, rational & presuppositional apologetics of yesteryear, we do not want, in my view, to go wholly WITHOUT them and we certainly need to temper our reliance on them (BIG TIME). Below is a quote from Wim Drees: http://www.counterbalance.org/ctns-vo/drees2-body.html

Critical realists such as Barbour, Peacocke and Polkinghorne have been careful to avoid theological speculations about t=0, recognizing that its status is controversial and subject to the shift in theories. However, they have not been equally attentive to the challenge to temporality per se by special relativity and general relativity, let alone by quantum cosmology and quantum gravity. Moreover, Drees claims the latter ought not be dismissed merely because they are speculative. Such a strategy to insulate temporal critical realism is ad hoc, since temporal critical realists are already committed epistemologically to a hierarchical unity of the sciences, and thus changes - even if only potential ones - at the fundamental level of the hierarchy carry enormous epistemic leverage. For its part, the timeless character of physics and

cosmology leads us to view God in more Platonic terms. Drees explores this option in some detail, including the problem of divine action, the arguments for viewing God as an explanation of the universe, and the constructivist view of science as myth. He concludes by suggesting that axiology may be a more apt focus for theology than cosmology, and this in turn would lessen the impact science has on theology. Norland Téllez Here's what I'm trying to get at in our discussions on Twitter (from Wikipedia on Lyotard on "The collapse of the "Grand Narrative"): Tues at 14:01 Norland Téllez The collapse of the "Grand Narrative" Most famously, in La Condition postmoderne: Rapport sur le savoir (The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge) (1979), he proposes what he calls an extreme simplification of the "postmodern" as an 'incredulity towards meta-narratives'.[6] These meta-narratives sometimes 'grand narratives' - are grand, large-scale theories and philosophies of the world, such as the progress of history, the knowability of everything by science, and the possibility of absolute freedom. Lyotard argues that we have ceased to believe that narratives of this kind are adequate to represent and contain us all. We have become alert to difference, diversity, the incompatibility of our aspirations, beliefs and desires, and for that reason postmodernity is characterised by an abundance of micronarratives. For this concept Lyotard draws from the notion of 'language-games' found in the work of Wittgenstein. Tues at 14:01 ·

John Sobert Sylvest Who's Afraid of Postmodernism?: Taking Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault to Church (The Church and Postmodern Culture) (Paperback) by James K. A. Smith, who claims that their ideas have been misinterpreted and actually have a deep affinity with central Christian claims. You are gathering that I am deeply sympathetic to Smith's view. From Amazon: Smith makes for an enjoyable read, employing illustrations and examples from such films as The Matrix; Memento; One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest; O Brother, Where Art Thou?; and The Little Mermaid. Along the way, Smith also dissects the popular teachings of postmodern writers like Brian McLaren (reviewed and interviewed in this issue), Leonard Sweet and Robert Webber. I've not read this book but am familiar w/ his thought from theological journals. Tues at 15:31 ·

Norland Téllez And yes, I would agree with that. For ex, Jung showed in his massive analysis of Nietzsche's Thus Spake Zarathustra that with his so-called

atheism, Nietzsche had actually reached, in a certain way, the ultimate Xn form, which is in keeping with Xty's true revolutionary values, a transvaluation of all values. On the other hand, as you point out in terms of Vudeja, postmodern thought is a "radial emergence" of something entirely new, as is our current geo-political situation, and cannot be reduced to a creative expression of the same traditional values... 4 hours ago ·

John Sobert Sylvest Some of the emergent novelty is institutional (accidental) and some is clearly constitutional (essential), which differs not so much in origin or kind but, rather, degree. What emerges, of course, is an augmentation of the transcendent values, truth, beauty, goodness & unity, which are existential orientations transvalued into transcendental imperatives. A living organism, like a church, undergoes aggiornamento (bringing up to date) via institutional self-subversion (apoptosis) & semper reformada est (cell renewal) via amplifications of epistemic risk-taking where understanding yields to faith, memory to hope, will to love, alienation to community. 3 hours ago

Norland Téllez Although if epistemic risk-taking is to be a real risk, then it means risking the transcendental modality itself along with its institutional subversion; it would mean the risk of forsaking its transcendentalist aspirations and valuations. A true existentialist orientation would precisely resist this absorption into a "spiritual" totality rooted primarily in Xn mythos. Hence the experience of Nietzsche and Kierkegaard is of supreme importance in understanding what the selfdeconstruction of Xty actually: a supreme risk. For where you know the outcome, or you preserve the linearist conception of history as "augmentation" and "progress," then no real risk is taken. You remember our friend Kierkegaard saying that to acknowledge the decisive only to a certain extent means precisely not to acknowledge it? Well the same can be said of a true "epistemic" risk. And I am not speaking of Pascal's wager either... 2 hours ago

John Sobert Sylvest Epistemic risk-taking, to be efficacious, must be normed by as many truth-conducive criteria as possible (empirically & rationally) & by as many truth-indicative criteria as necessary (noetically, aesthetically & pragmatically). Thus normed, amplifications of risk-taking ordered toward the augmentations of value play out as biases, not absolutes. For example, I applied an aphorism in bank management: Profits do not come from taking risks but from superior skill at managing risks (many Wall St. bankers & hedge fund mgrs were oblivious to this distinction). It is a false dichotomy, ergo, to narrowly define risks in terms of "true" & "real" & "decisive," absolutizing risks in terms of

"total" self-deconstruction rather than recognizing & affirming that emergent reality goes partially beyond but not wholly without old system properties when generating novel properties. Criteria to be employed would include growth in human authenticity thru intellectual, affective, moral & social development. 17 minutes ago

John Sobert Sylvest This is not to deny the accuracy of your description of the existentialism of Nietzsche and Kierkegaard. Neither should we fail to recognize certain nonlinearities. Discontinuities in emergent realities result fr thermodynamics yielding to morphodynamics yielding to teleodynamics, the onset of telos. Such discontinuity can be vaguely referred to in terms of properties and laws but cannot yet be fully described in either epistemological or ontological concepts, which may or may not be non/linear or dis/continuous. Novel metanarratives result from our harnessing of telos via symbolic accessions & syntheses that complexify & transfigure human value-realizations. Mythos is "true" when it evokes an appropriate response to reality, not solely in terms of the literal, empirical. Such tautologies are elaborate and variously taut & it is too early on humankind's journey to exhaustively adjudicate between all of them. We reach a point of diminishing epistemic returns. 3 minutes ago

John Sobert Sylvest Some worldviews are clearly out to lunch, a burger short of a happy meal, a sandwich short of a picnic, lights on w/nobody home, elevator not going to the top, biscuits not fully cooked ... 2 minutes ago Norland Téllez Norland Téllez You are a beautiful man John Sobert Sylvest! Thank you for creating this nice "esoteric" space for this discussion which, although started by us, any one can join--even if it is not as easily done as most other things on FB! It is certainly nice to have such a deep discussion with someone of your caliber as I get too used to dominating the debate ... Read morewith people who have not touched this territory;) For it is a labyrinth and whoever has lost Ariadne's thread through these secret alleys of history will certainly be lost! I will continue this further in a bit, though, as I am right now caught up with things at home. about an hour ago Norland Téllez Norland Téllez One more thing I'd like to clarify off the bat is that my use of Kierkegaard and Nietzsche is, of course, strategic and not dogmatic. That is why I wrote that their EXPERIENCE rather than their "teachings"--if they have any--is the most instructive of all in determining the consequences of the "Deconstruction of Xty" in terms of the self-subversion... Read more of the logocentric metaphysics of

presence. Their existential example, like their writings, however, is full of paradoxes and "discontinuity" that it is not easy to reduce into simpler terms.... 54 minutes ago John Sobert Sylvest John Sobert Sylvest Kierkegaard, Don Quixote, St. John of the Cross :) 37 minutes ago Norland Téllez Norland Téllez Another point of agreement/disagreement is in dealing with the question of the other, which is so central to p-m thought, and of multiplicity as the displacement of the ideal totality. The Grand Narrative needs to be investigated as well from the POV of the epic imagination, where a study of the absolute epic form yields to the discovery of the ... Read moreindividual Novel, and the hero moves from being a "higher type" (Aristotle) to that of the "common man", where today the hero has become precisely [the Existenz of the] "ordinary man." Therefore I find Lyotard's position inescapable in view of what Gabriel Marcel called "A Broken World". To speak of the metanarrative of THIS world one should also turn to Eliot, who has likewise landed into the spiritual WASTE LAND of the Broken World. 34 minutes ago Norland Téllez Norland Téllez Is it possible to reach a point in which you no longer exchange one world-paradigm for another, but actually jettison the whole need of paradigms, the need of a fixed transcendental horizon outside the shifting sands of the [mytho-historic] temporality of the world? 30 minutes ago John Sobert Sylvest John Sobert Sylvest Yes, 1 can b authentically agnostic & amythic. But I think one can also reach a point of conscious-competence in one's employment of paradigms & engagement of myth w/o yielding to either an excessive epistemic humility or an amythic stance. One aspires, then, via a provisional closure, to what one hopes is the most nearly perfect articulation of truth, most nearly perfect celebration of beauty, most nearly perfect preservation of goodness, most nearly perfect enjoyment of unity, all w/o getting too hung up on one's ineradicable finitude, w/o giving into an unmitigated nihilism, w/o drowning in an unfathomable existential angst & w/o arrogantly judging others & where they are on the journey. Faith, then, is a surrender, but not an unreasonable leap. Many also employ it as unconscious-competents. All of us move fwd w/ our best sneaking suspicions, going beyond our incomplete cosmology (descriptively & normatively) w/our axiological visions of the whole (interpretively & evaluatively). 2 seconds ago

Norland Téllez I love it, John, when I hear you talk about multiplicity, about the many, about many "meta-narratives," rather than the One which is to encompass all. Historically speaking, something has collapsed as we enter the "nuclear" age of science & tech, the last two branches of Xn metaphysics (Cf. David Noble's THE RELIGION OF TECHNOLOGY where the link ... Read morebtween the Xn mythos and Science & tech is solidly established)--we are certainly no longer the same. Now we know there are MANY world Religions, with the dominance of the Judeo-Xn-Islamic Monotheistic complex, all aspiring to posses, precisely in historic form, the transcendental unity of the One God; for all rivers of wisdom must seek their course to their source in the One ocean. As Heraclitus said, listening not to me but to the logos it is wise to conclude that All is One. Nevertheless, in the phenomenality of time, we can only experience this transcendental totality in historical fragments, one piece at a time and never the whole. Norland Téllez So we must struggle in the realm of the many for there communication has its birth and origin--the process of differAnce or differentiation in time. Whereas the One can be by itself, it takes two to tango, that is, to give it communicative expression. Norland Téllez To return to the meta-narrative theme, I think I need to hear more from you how you understand this concept. For to me, the narrative which is to contain all narratives, what Joseph Campbell called the Monomyth, can precisely not be another narrative. Thus a metanarrative to me is a super-narrative, the monomyth, and not another story. In alchemical language, the grand récit would be analogous to the lithos ou lithos (the stone that is not a stone): the story that is not a story. Norland Téllez So Although the axiological and logocentric position of AVOW fails to acknowledge what is a cornerstone of postmodern thought, namely, this move "From Grand R... Read moreécit to Petit Histoire" as Giselle

Christian Nonduality

The Contemplative Stance NEW: Cathlimergent Internet Forum The Christian Nonduality Blog Home Radical Emergence Nonduality & the Emerging Church Emergence Happens When: To Avow & Dis-avow an Axiological Vision of the Whole Montmarte, Colorado Springs & the Kingdom Wanted: Women Warriors Maiden, Mother, Crone & Queen: archetypes & transformation East Meets West Ki, Qi, Chi, Prana & Kundalini No-Self & Nirvana elucidated by Dumoulin One: Essential Writings in Nonduality - a review Simone Weil

THE CONTEMPLATIVE STANCE - a philosophical heuristic The Tetradic Fugues of a Radically Orthodox Epistemological Architectonic â&#x20AC;&#x201C; an exploratory heuristic OUTLINE: Epistemological Posture â&#x20AC;&#x201C; a nonfoundational perspectivalism situated in a fallibilistic, triadic semiotic realism Epistemic Rubrics

John of the Cross Thomas Merton

Semiotic Aspects

normative descriptive interpretive evaluative

Conceptual Dispositions semiotic theoretic heuristic dogmatic

Conceptual Categories

Rogation Days Radical Orthodoxy

qui (who)

Presuppositionalism vs Nihilism? Science

quid (what) quando (when)

Epistemic Virtue

quo (where)

Pan-semioentheism: a pneumatological theology of nature

quam (how)

Architectonic

quantus (how much)

Anglican - Roman Dialogue

quotiens (how often)

The Ethos of Eros

quia (because)

Musings on Peirce

quale (what kind)

Eskimo Kiss Waltz the Light Side of Dark Comedy Blog Visits Other Online Resources Are YOU Going to Scarborough Fair?

quare (why)

quod (that) haec (this)

Conceptual Distinctions epistemic indeterminacy – methodological constraints epistemic a priori and a posteriori

Suggested Reading Tim King's Post Christian Blog

ontological vagueness – modal ontological necessity and contingency

The Dylan Mass If You Are In Distress, Spiritual or Otherwise pending The Great Tradition properly conceived Postmodern Conservative Catholic Pentecostal

semantical vagueness – excluded middle and noncontradiction semantical analytic (explicative) and synthetic (ampliative)

Elements of Actionable Norms truth-conducive and truth-indicative arguments epistemic warrant and epistemic parity philosophical methods and philosophical systems equiplausibility principle and Pascal’s wager

Hermeneutical Approaches – epistemically indeterminate and semantically and ontologically vague phenomenological approaches intersubjective objective subjective intraobjective

Anthropological Outlook – existential orientations and humanistic imperatives as Lonergan’s conversions; minimalistic realisms: semiotic, aesthetical, moral and metaphysical; Kung’s nowhere anchored and paradoxical trust in uncertain reality; practical nihilism of strong and weak agnosticisms, nontheisms and speculative atheism

Natural Theology – abduction of the Ens Necessarium; weak realisms: semiotic, aesthetical, moral and metaphysical; Kung’s justified fundamental trust in uncertain reality; deism, theisms community

creed cult code

Theology of Nature – pansemioentheism, a pneumatological theology of nature Laws of Nature necessitarian regularist antirealist Emergent Regularities protodynamics thermodynamics morphodynamics teleodynamics eschatodynamics Aspects of Thirdness Delimitation: creativity Relimitation: help Liminal: transformatively helpful creativty and creative help; limit exploitation Liminoid: formatively creative play; limit exploration

Apologetics – theological perspectives, a theological perspectivalism; robust realisms rational and presuppositional evidential existential trans-evaluative Anthropological Outlook – existential orientations as theological imperatives (theosis) community as orthocommunio creed as orthodoxy cult as orthopathos code as orthopraxis

Applications – philosophies of science, mind and religion; theologies of nature; formative spiritualities

The Tetradic Fugues of a

Radically Orthodox Epistemological Architectonic – an exploratory heuristic reintroducing enchantment or what G. K. Chesterton called the thrilling romance of orthodoxy Precis the normative mediates between the descriptive and interpretive to effect the evaluative Epistemological Posture – a nonfoundational perspectivalism situated in a fallibilistic, triadic semiotic realism Epistemic Rubrics Semiotic Aspects normative descriptive interpretive evaluative EPISTEMOLOGY AS VALUE-REALIZATION We can think about human activities in terms of value-realizations. Each value-realization seems to consist of several other valuerealizations. Each of these, while distinct , is indispensable and integrally-related to the others. What makes them distinct are their unique goals along with their distinct strategies and tactics for achieving those goals. To put it another way, we could say that they each employ different methods or rules or logics. So, we can say that they are intellectually-related even if not strictly logically-related. For example: 1) One value we could pursue is to get the answer to such questions as Is that a fact? Is that what I think it is? What is that? 2) These questions are different from such concerns as What's it to me? What do I care? Do I want that? 3) And those questions are different from such inquiries as How can I get some of that? What's the best way to get that? That first category involves descriptive value-realizations with methods like empirical observation and measurement, falsification, logical demonstration and hypothetico-deductive reasoning and it provides our descriptive premises. The second category reveals our evaluative posits. The third category involves normative things like best practices and provides us prescriptive premises. There is a fourth category which involves our interpretive concerns and which answers the question How do we tie all of this together? It provides the framework for the methods we will choose and the

justifications we will employ in support of our evaluative and normative goals. Without resolving all of the interpretive questions left begging, we can observe that our normative pursuits mediate between our descriptive and interpretive endeavors to effect our evaluative concerns. And this is to recognize that once we know what something is and whether or not we care about it and want it, then we turn to our best practices, hopefully, to see how to optimally obtain it. At this point, what we have done, formally, is to have coupled a prescriptive premise --- that is either self- evident (so called) or agreed upon by social convention as a valid premise --- to a descriptive premise and then we have syllogistically reasoned our way to a valid normative conclusion, which, if also sound, will allow us to realize our evaluative goal. What we are engaging is an exploratory heuristic that combines insights that I gleaned from Don Gelpi regarding Charles Sanders Peirce and also from Robert Cummings Neville. Gelpi describes one Peircean rubric this way: The normative sciences mediate between phenomenology and metaphysics. Neville's axiology is heavily informed by human value pursuits. These insights are combined, herein, into this epistemic rubric: the normative mediates between the descriptive and interpretive to effect the evaluative. These are very broad categories. The normative sciences include logic, aesthetics and ethics, for example. If we wanted to narrow these conceptions, for any particular application of the rubric, we could say, for example, that the prudential mediates between the empirical and metarational to effect this or that value-realization. It could be further narrowed to describe the prudential in terms of either the practical or moral. What we are doing is providing an exploratory heuristic or metatechnica to help us talk about such problems as are being discussed here, or to talk about such things as the putative fact-value dichotomy or even the hard problem of consciousness. Such a heuristic provides placeholders for patterns that most can recognize and many can use, no matter what interpretive stance they bring to the conversation. By referring to the different logics of these categories, we are of course recognizing distinctly different value commitments as well as the axioms we employ in their pursuits but also am observing that there is a mix of propositional and nonpropositional, rational and nonrational, inferential and noninferential approaches in play. One way to look at it is that, while these categories involve distinctly different value commitments, employ radically different axioms and engage both our rational and nonrational faculties, each category necessarily presupposes the others; each is methodologically autonomous but all are inextricably intertwined, triadically, in the same way that abductive, inductive and deductive inferences presuppose each other, in the same way that the modal categories of possible, actual and necessary/probable imply each other. Conceptual Dispositions semiotic theoretic

heuristic dogmatic THE LANGUAGE WE USE & THE IDEAS WE HAVE – A CLASSIFICATION SCHEME Humankind, as a community of inquiry, a community of valuerealizers, articulates its descriptive, evaluative, normative and interpretive claims and stances with categories and concepts that are variously semiotic, theoretic, heuristic or dogmatic. These categories and concepts can be classed, broadly speaking, according to whether or not any given assembly of value realizers has negotiated their meaning. Negotiated terms are thus considered theoretic. Those still-innegotiation are heuristic, acting as placeholders. Non-negotiated terms, not shared by the community-at-large or held only by a restricted assembly of value realizers, are dogmatic. Semiotic terms are non-negotiable because they include such as First Principles and self-evident values on which meaningful communication, itself, depends. The proper integration of the various aspects and perspectives of human value-realization, as measured by the appropriate emphases to be placed on each in relation to the others, can best be discerned in the language employed by humankind’s different communities of valuerealization, as it reveals each community’s collective assessment of its various, relevant conceptualizations by virtue of any given concept’s expressive status as semiotic, theoretic, heuristic or dogmatic. This is because, presumably, such epistemic status will reveal the amount of value that the community has been able to cash out for any given concept per that community’s established evaluative criteria, corresponding, roughly, to the old scholastic notations of possible, plausible, probable, certain, uncertain, improbable, implausible and impossible. Conceptual Categories qui (who) quid (what) quando (when) quo (where) quam (how) quare (why) quantus (how much) quotiens (how often) quia (because) quale (what kind) quod (that) haec (this) This Scotistic perspective resonates with Jack Haught’s aesthetic teleology and von Balthasaar’s notion that truth and goodness are imperiled in a culture that loses its sense of beauty. It seems to me that if, with Scotus, we do not take the Incarnation to be a response to some

felix culpa but a cosmogenic inevitability, we might reimagine our felix culpa to otherwise reside in our radical finitude. Because we are finite, we experience an epistemic-ontic divide, which is to recognize that ours is an ecological rationality that is inescapably value-driven, which is to further suggest that we must go beyond the empirical and logical aspects of our intellect to heed our evaluative aspects --- not only to thrive, but --- to survive. In Scotistic terms, then, the descriptive, normative, interpretive and evaluative aspects of our ecological rationality are formal distinctions of an otherwise singular human reality, which is the value-realization. Such a value-realization for a finite being requires a harmonic balancing of the perspectives, which I will prescribe below in terms of a fallibilistic, nonfoundational perspectivalism. The pursuit of such harmony is also normed by our deeply-felt aesthetic sensibilities. Scotus gifts us with other insights. Going beyond qui (who), quid (what), quando (when), quo (where), quam (how) and quare (why), and even quantus (how much) and quotiens (how often), in our search for the ever-elusive quia (because), Scotus especially invites us to also consider the significance of quale (what kind) and quod (that) and maybe most especially of haec (this). Because of his quid-quale distinction, we learn that we can divorce our semantics from our ontology and affirm, for example, a univocity of being. Because of his concept of haecceity, or thisness, we learn that, as Peirce would later take it, we can make nondescriptive references like quod, for example Wittgensteinâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s THAT things are, which is the mystical. This opens the door to engage in a robust phenomenology even as we prescind from any particular metaphysics as we recognize that it is one thing to successfully describe or explain a reality and quite another to successfully reference and model a reality. We can talk intelligibly about realities that lie beyond our full comprehension by at least apprehending them, in part. Evaluatively, haecceity opens us to the reality of individual significance, which affirms the precious value to be realized in each otherwise inimitable creature and moment, which then especially affirms the dignity of each human, and this all has tremendous normative impetus. If in our competing accounts of primal reality we reach a Scottish verdict, establishing, at best, an empirical and logical epistemic parity, then, as a result of this radical finitude, normatively, applying the equiplausibility principle, we might choose to be guided by beauty and goodness rather than caving in to a practical nihilism, and this felix culpa of ours will require of us a radical kenosis, a selfemptying of memory, understanding and will in surrender to hope, faith and love, the greatest of these being love. And this is to recognize that, if we must move beyond our best truth-conducive aspirations and operations and theories of truth to rely on our best truth-indicative approaches, both aesthetical and moral, as the Fab Four said: All you need is love. And that is as true for John, Paul, George and Ringo as it was for Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Conceptual Distinctions epistemic indeterminacy â&#x20AC;&#x201C; methodological constraints epistemic a priori and a posteriori ontological vagueness â&#x20AC;&#x201C; modal

ontological necessity and contingency semantical vagueness â&#x20AC;&#x201C; excluded middle and noncontradiction semantical analytic (explicative) and synthetic (ampliative) Elements of Actionable Norms truth-conducive and truth-indicative arguments epistemic warrant and epistemic parity philosophical methods and philosophical systems equiplausibility principle and Pascalâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s wager PROCESSES INFORMAL LOGIC Argumentation might be examined from three different perspectives: the logical perspective, regarding its product; the rhetorical perspective, regarding natural persuasion; and the dialectical perspective, regarding the processes of argumentation. Our specific focus is on the logical perspective and the establishment of probative weight and epistemic warrant. What are the criteria for assigning these scholastic notations: possible, plausible, probable, certain, uncertain, improbable, implausible and impossible? To be clear, then, we are not discussing formal logic, which is indefeasible, monotonic and deductive, the assertions of which must be surrendered if not proven. Rather, we are dealing with informal logic, again, as employed in everyday common sense, scientific hypotheses and legal argumentation. It is provisional, defeasible and nonmonotonic and can be classed as either inductive inference, such as the statistical syllogism, or presumptive inference, which is known by its reversals of the obligation to prove (presumption must be given up if disproved). The 1) inductive inference is weaker than 2) deductive inference (strong inference) and probability is employed to help us gauge the frequency with which the argument will hold true. 3) Presumptive inference is weaker still, made up of both a) abductive inference, which employs probability values in its minor premises, such as an inference to the best explanation, and of b) plausible inference, the weakest of all, which employs confidence values and is normed by the equiplausibility principle, for example. For our purposes, the equiplausibility principle norms our provisional closures and actions by placing before us the decision to choose that which is the most lifegiving and relationship-enhancing, amplifying beauty, goodness and unity in our ongoing pursuit of truth. For example, given the equiplausible notions that there is, in the dim light, either a snake or a rope on our parlor floor, we shall treat the thing as a snake. Given the equiplausible notions that this uncertain reality is a glorious contingency or a grand design, we shall respond eucharistically, with profound thanksgiving to Our Benefactor, and like Pip, in Great Expectations, set off in search. Confer Robert Cummings Neville in AMERICAN JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY & PHILOSOPHY Vol. 18 NO.3 September 1997 REPLY TO SERIOUS CRITICS 281: I think rather that the question is how we respond to the ground of

being that creates the natural world with such indifference, and here Corrington and I are not together. He says that sadness has the last word and that the proper response is lamentation. So his philosophy is a brilliant naturalistic theory that laments the fact that the mother who ejects us is cold indifferent effulgence. My response was forged in the grief of the death in infancy of our first daughter, which occurred a few short weeks before I had to deal with the copy editing of God the Creator. There was a passage toward the end of that book where I originally had quoted with approval the line from Job: "The Lord gives and the Lord takes away; blessed be the name of the Lord." My wife and I had loved our daughter with a love whose limits had not been reached, and she was taken away. Could I leave that line in? The result of much soulsearching was to leave it in as the mark of my response to the Giver and Taker. What it meant was that I could still adore the creator of a world whose forces of disease are blind to the purposes and passions of the human economy. The Dao is simply like that. That was in 1966, and nearly everything I have written since then has aimed to search out the ways, hows, and whys of that world, and the loveliness of its creator whose ways are not our own. Eternity and Time's Flow is my most explicit treatment of the shortness of life and other kinds of sadness. It's looking into the abyss no matter how you cut it. The issue is whether to rage like an abandoned orphan or melt in bliss at the loveliness of that power. See Douglas Waltonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Argument from Appearance: A New Argumentation Scheme in Logique et Analyse, 195, 2006, 319-340, which is available here: http://io.uwinnipeg.ca/~walton/papers in pdf/06arg_from_appearance.pdf Â

METHODS "there must be a renewal of communion between the traditional, contemplative disciplines and those of science, between the poet and the physicist, the priest and the depth psychologist, the monk and the politician." Merton Our overall thrust is geared toward the search for enhanced modeling power of reality, toward trying to better define and attain epistemic virtue, toward a reconsideration of the "best practices" to be employed in our normative sciences of logic, aesthetics and ethics. It is a search for a Goldilocks epistemology, which is to say, one that has neither too much hubris nor an excessive humility. When it comes to humankind's descriptive enterprises, which are inherently normative, when we encounter paradox, we sort through different scenarios and try our best to determine its origins. To the extent we cannot determine whether any given knowledge advance is being thwarted by, on one hand, methodological constraints, or on the other, some type of in-principle occulting, the proper bias is to assume the former and eschew the latter. This is simply a pragmatic approach wherein methods will generally precede systems. Our methods will

necessarily assume such things as common sense notions of causation, reality's intelligibility, certain first principles like identity, noncontradiction and excluded middle, such principles alternately holding or folding in a semantical vagueness that flows naturally from the ontological vagueness and epistemic indeterminacy we ordinarily encounter in reality. Ontological vagueness means we change our modal ontology from the possible, actual and necessary to the possible, actual and probable. Epistemic indeterminacy is when we don't know if we are constrained methodologically or ontologically (the in-principle occulting I mentioned above). Epistemically, we can draw distinctions between the a priori and a posteriori. Ontologically, we can draw modal distinctions between the necessary and the contingent. Semantically, we draw distinctions between the analytic (explicative) and synthetic (ampliative). While the knowable and unknowable might be valid categories, this distinction is problematical and invites yet another between the provable and the knowable. For example, with Godel we might accept that we cannot prove the truth of the axioms of our systems, in theory, but this does not imply that we might not otherwise be able to see their truth, for all practical purposes. So, while the postmodern critique deserved a response, the proper response, in our view, was the move from a naive realism to a critical realism or even a pragmatic fallibilism. Even if reality writ large remains incomprehensible, it is also still apprehensible, which is to say intelligible, lending itself to varying degrees of modeling power. Anyone who wants to enhance this modeling power must accept the onus of cashing out their novel methods in practical value-realizations.

The most succinct summary of the difference between the pragmatists and the traditionalists of other schools, in our view, would be that the pragmatists' agenda would generally seek to replace the philosophizing of sociology with the sociologizing of philosophy. Below is a list of how we conceive the pragmatists' agenda in a conversation with the other schools of philosophy. If we honor a pneumatological hermeneutic, we will seek truth, beauty, goodness and unity wherever they may be found, which will always be in pilgrim churches and fallible, finite individuals. We must not make fetishes out of our own perspectives but should engage other perspectives recognizing the traces of the Holy Spirit’s creative work in all others, of course realized in varying degrees. The history of philosophy, unlike other sciences (Kuhn notwithstanding), has been marked less by the standing on others’ shoulders from preceding generations and more by the successive generations standing on their ancestor’s necks (McInerny), with overly pejorative rhetoric and often even incivil discourse. Going forward, striking a more irenic pose, let us endeavor, instead, to employ others’ perspectives moreso as an assist and less so as a foil. To wit: With foundationalism, remain realist but fallibilist With rationalism, seek internal coherence and logical consistency but with provisional closures Avoid confusion between necessity, an analytic concept, and

probability, a synthetic concept, which is grounded in psychological expectations With the insights of both essentialism and nominalism, employ descriptions using vague heuristic devices With the insights of na・ve realism, enjoy a second na・vet・ with a truly critical realism Honor today’s time-honored, standard practices by updating them with always revisable methods Honor today’s time-honored, standard systems by updating them with always revisable theories Honor the notion of objectivity by fearlessly committing one’s concepts to a broader community of inquiry & social practice Augment the insights gleaned from the epistemological problems of representation, mirroring and correspondence with those to be gained from our grappling with such problems as are related to human valuerealizations via perpetually enhanced modeling power of reality Consider what might happen if we repaired the Cartesian split, disavowed the Platonic myth, subverted the Kantian paradigm, worked an end-around the Humean critique, chastised the confidence of the Traditionalists and pragmatized Analytic philosophy or not. Can we a priori dismiss all of the insights of old systems, even if they are otherwise seemingly mutually incommensurate or unintelligible? How can we a priori know which paradoxes are veridical, falsidical, conditional, antinomial? And whether or ignorance is grounded in temporary methodological constraints or some permanent ontological occulting? Honor philosophy by distinguishing it from science, not by its a priori character, not by suggesting that academic disciplines are divided (horizontally) by nature’s carvable joints, but with the realization that such borders are drawn, rather, according to levels of abstraction (vertically) --- See Rorty, Putnam, and the Pragmatist View of Epistemology and Metaphysics by Teed Rockwell at http://users.sfo.com/~mcmf/rorty.html With Dionysius, we might recognize the apophatic character of all literal predications of God. With the Medievals, we might recognize the very weakly analogical, which is to say, metaphorical, nature of all kataphatic predications of God. With the Skeptics, we must recognize that even the most rigorously formulated god-concepts cannot compel assent inasmuch as they, at most, demonstrate the reasonableness of some faith formulations (which is not insignificant), at best, yield a Scottish verdict --- not proven, when subjected to the rigors of philosophical scrutiny. With Lombard, we can leverage our fundamental trust and radicalize it into an unapologetic and unqualified commitment to truth, beauty, goodness and unity, desisting, however, from any notion that we can absolutize our access to same as we convert our existential orientations

toward these self-evident and intrinsically rewarding values into robustly, even if inchoate, theological imperatives. With Scotus, we can recognize our limitations in articulating any truly coherent principles that might demonstrably foreclose on all of our philosophical problems of beginning, whether of infinite regress, causal disjunctions, tautological self-reference and circularity; rather, we can only employ philosophy in the elucidation of our concepts, such as, for example, in Peirce’s abduction of the Ens Necessarium and Occam’s association of necessity with the divine order. This pansemioentheist stance positively resonates with Franciscan sensibilities and creation-sensitivities, especially with the radically incarnational perspective that took God’s involvement with the cosmos as an eternally preordained given notwithstanding the popular and classical felix culpa theories. The soteriological efficacies remain, in any case. With Erasmus, we can affirm a minimalist deontology, following Adler’s explication of Aristotle’s ethics. With Locke, we can affirm the probabilistic elements of any assent, such as those involved in the preambles of faith, which establish, at least, epistemic parity with other interpretive systems vis a vis primal conditions, providing some epistemic virtue as must necessarily precede other normative justifications of assent, however strong or weak. With Hume, we can recognize the problems that inhere in our informal logic and inference. With Kant, we might gain an appreciation of the putative immanentist and transcendentalist natures of divine interactivity, but we best temper any overly optimistic theological anthropology with the recognition that, as radically social animals, optimal realization of human values requires the successful institutionalization of Lonerganian conversions. With Hegel, we can form an inchoate panentheistic vision. With Freud, Marx, Feuerbach and Nietzsche, we gain an invaluable assist in our efforts to dispatch, as per Emerson, the half-gods, that God might then arrive. With Kierkegaard, we can better recognize the radical nature of our trust. With Newman, we can recognize, in our grammars of assent, the cumulative nature of otherwise independent probabilities, reminiscent of Peirce’s description of a rather strong cable made from otherwise intertwined weak strands, or filaments of belief, all consistent with a nonfoundational, fallibilistic approach. With James, then, we’ll assert our will to believe (however firmly or tentatively) or assent (however strongly or weakly) based on those concerns that are vital and ultimate (Tillich) and existentially forced upon us. With Dewey, we will sociologize philosophy rather than merely philosophize sociology. With Peirce, we will cash out the value of our conceptions considering only such options as are epistemically and normatively live (James) and dutifully ordered toward such human value-realizations (Neville)

as best foster human authenticity (Lonergan) as measured in terms of intellectual, affective, moral, sociopolitical and religious conversions (Gelpiâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Lonerganian account). With Peirce, we might recognize the distinction between philosophical argumentation (discursive and dialectical analyses, both inductive and deductive) and the philosophical argument, itself (the product of abduction). With Wittgenstein, we can gain a self-awareness of our language games and how they implicitly entail normative criteria for justification of beliefs, our everyday beliefs as well as distinctly religious beliefs, again, our informal logic, if you will. With Haldane, we can recognize that religious faith resembles the unprovable but incorrigible first principles, which make science possible, which establishes a modicum of epistemic parity between scientific descriptions and religious interpretations, while also recognizing that philosophical naturalism is not entailed by methodological naturalism. With Haack, we might recognize that while philosophy and science are not distinguishable, horizontally, by carvable joints in reality, they do, nonetheless differ in their approach, vertically, by levels of abstraction. And so, with Murphy, we might recognize the differences between science and theology in terms of degrees and not in kind, hence affirming our assertion that one epistemological shoe fits all philosophical feet. The historical basis for this biographical excursus was drawn from an article by James Swindal of Duquesne University, which is entitled, Faith and Reason, as accessible in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy at http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/faith-re.htm We have now demonstrated that the history of philosophy can be viewed in terms of various over- and under-emphases that result in various fetishes or absolutizations. Different aspects of the singular, integral act of value-realization --- descriptive, normative, interpretive and evaluative --- have been treated as autonomous modes of valuerealization. Let us issue a cautionary note here. When we say beyond rationality and speak of the transrational, we are recognizing that, in addition to the empirical, logical, practical and prudential, there are also nonrational and relational aspects to human value-realizations; and it is only because we are finite and fallible that we must necessarily fallback on what are weaker truth-indicative signs (like defeasible inference, symmetry, parsimony and usefulness, for example) and cannot otherwise rely solely on the more robustly truth-conducive operations like empirical observation and logical demonstration. We must first exhaust our best truth-conducive efforts before relying on truth-indicative signs (as fallible tie-breakers); and we must keep all of these modeling power attempts very integrally related even as we respect the autonomy of their different methodologies. In summary, we must distinguish between our theories of truth and our tests of truth. Â NORMING ACTIONABLE KNOWLEDGE One practical upshot of this consideration, in our view, seems to be that epistemology is epistemology is epistemology. There need not be

one epistemological scheme for one human value-realization and yet other schemes for other value-realizations. This is not to deny different integrally-related yet otherwise autonomous methodologies with their specific axioms suited for distinct value-commitments. This is to suggest that the different strategies for norming actionable knowledge, belief or assent should not involve the raising and lowering of some mythical epistemic bar, one suitable to the evidentialists, another for different fideists and yet another for so-called reformed epistemologies. A committed fallibilist doesn’t shorten or lengthen the field of epistemic play, does not move the epistemic goal posts for this type of human endeavor but not another, does not variously place high and low hurdles, or even none at all, around the epistemic track basing such maneuvers on the type of value being pursued. Rather, one runs as far as one can, jumps whatever hurdles are there, high or low, pursuing one’s value-realization goals with singular purpose, taking from reality what it offers today and returning tomorrow to see what it may hold. If one gains knowledge, wonderful, forms a firm belief, great, or can only develop a weak assent, oh well. One simply must act and one simply must norm such action and justify it based on one’s fundamental trust in uncertain reality (Kung), one’s recognition of certain incorrigible first principles and one’s legitimate aspirations to realize the best and the most of humankind’s entire evaluative continuum, which is to say, robustly employing all manner of aesthetic, pragmatic and prudential criteria. Whatever attitude of trust or assent, whatever act of will or commitment, one might recognize that, while all integrally-related value-pursuits have rational and irrational aspects, out of fidelity to and trust of uncertain reality, itself, human intellectual pursuits must be transrational, which is to say, always and necessarily, going beyond mere rationality but never without it. Hermeneutical Approaches – epistemically indeterminate and semantically and ontologically vague phenomenological approaches intersubjective objective subjective intraobjective While the respective methodologies of these different aspects of valuerealization are indeed autonomous, they are otherwise relativized by being intellectually-related even if not strictly logically-related. The same thing has happened with our different hermeneutical approaches --- subjective, objective, intraobjective and intersubjective --- as they have alternately been privileged, one over the next, rather than integrally-related as complementary vantage points, all contributing to each human value-pursuit. Anthropological Outlook – existential orientations and humanistic

imperatives as Lonergan’s conversions; minimalistic realisms: semiotic, aesthetical, moral and metaphysical; Kung’s nowhere anchored and paradoxical trust in uncertain reality; practical nihilism of strong and weak agnosticisms, nontheisms and speculative atheism Natural Theology – abduction of the Ens Necessarium; weak realisms: semiotic, aesthetical, moral and metaphysical; Kung’s justified fundamental trust in uncertain reality; deism, theisms community creed cult code THE SEMANTICAL PERSPECTIVE ON NATURAL THEOLOGY Our methods precede our systems. We can successfully reference realities we have not yet successfully described. We can model realities we have not yet fully explained. We can partially apprehend (intelligibly) realities we have not yet fully comprehended. We can thus apprehend, reference and model a reality, even if we cannot otherwise comprehend, describe or explain that reality. However, we cannot a priori know whether our lack of comprehension, description or explanation drives from temporary methodological constraints, from a permanent ontological occulting, or some combination of same. Faced with such epistemic indeterminacy and ontological vagueness, we must retreat into a semantical vagueness. This semantical strategy thus prescinds from any robustly metaphysical approach to a more modest and tentative phenomenological perspective. Our modal ontological categories of the possible, actual and necessary change to possible, actual and probable. Our application of first principles then varies from one modal category to the next such that 1) both noncontradiction and excluded middle hold for actualities, while, 2) for possibilities, noncontradiction folds and excluded middle holds, and 3) for probabilities, noncontradiction holds and excluded middle folds. Possibilities thus differ from probabilities in that the former are overdetermined and the latter are underdetermined. The necessary, or necessity, is an analytic concept, while the other categories refer to synthetic concepts derived from human experience and psychological expectations. I suppose the practical upshot of all this is that when an overdetermined, epistemic indeterminacy, as epistemology, models an underdetermined, ontological vagueness, as ontology, we cannot aspire to a robustly metaphysical comprehension of such a reality and can neither successfully describe nor explain such a reality using robustly theoretic concepts. Rather, we can only reference and model such a reality using indeterminate and vague heuristic concepts. One might consider our theoretic concepts as those that have already been negotiated by a community of inquiry, while our heuristic concepts are those still-in-negotiation. This consideration is methodological and semantical, an analytic and not a synthetic account of human signification, a semiotic of Charles Sanders Peirce, which Scotus, and maybe even Pseudo-Dionysius, anticipated, inchoately, such as with Scotus' univocity of being and

formal distinction and Dionysius' neoplatonic logic? In this order of knowing and signifying (designating), we might say, with Wittgenstein, that we can distinguish our discourse about THAT things are from our discourse about HOW things are, such that we not confuse a successful reference with a successful description, a successful model with a successful explanation. This approximates the Scotistic quid-quale distinction although the quid is yet to be described. .One might refer to the reality of God, for example, by referencing God as a vague cause, a cause proper to such effects, a substance proper to such accidents, as could not be predicated of any other known causes. Thus we would have an existential statement involving universals, a meaningful statement because its predicates (effects and accidents) have a referent. Univocity of thatness, like necessity, is a logical or analytic concept. Apophasis is involved here to the extent we are literally saying, for example, not this cause and not that one and not any other cause known to us vis a vis primal realities. These semantical rubrics apply for all speculative sciences, for example, both metaphysics and theoretical physics, as well as natural theology. As one's investigation proceeds, turning from a semantical perspective to an ontological consideration, which requires the equivocity of howness, we invoke the subset of equivocity --- analogy, and the different subsets of analogy, like metaphor (weak analogues), in our God-talk, and also in metaphysics and the speculative sciences. Kataphasis and apophasis are involved here, both sharing the positive epistemic valence of increasing our descriptive accuracy (beyond mere successful reference), describing what something is or is not like. Apophasis can also serve in our devising of coherent concepts for formal argumentation, such as in modal ontological arguments, where negative predications can serve to guarantee conceptual compatibility of concepts used in an argument and also to avoid parody of an argument. Kataphasis may also, of course, aspire to robust literal explanations, and maybe even full theoretic comprehension, for those realities that are more epistemically determinable and more ontologically precise. At any rate, the divorce of our semantics from our ontologies is thrust upon us by different encounters with different realities insofar as they are variously overdetermined and underdetermined, epistemically indeterminate or ontologically vague. Not having normalized our accounts of gravity and quantum mechanics, much less primal reality, itself, Christianity remains in search of a metaphysic (Whitehead) but, happily, has thrived and will continue to thrive, enjoying a more or less phenomenological perspective. An ontological question still begs regarding God's transcendence and the analogy of being, metaphysically speaking, and it is that of causal disjunction. How can any reality enjoy a causal efficacy upon another reality if related only as a weak analogue or metaphor? Must there not be a matrix of interrelated causes and effects holding reality together? And might that be a Divine Matrix (Joe Bracken)? Might the neoplatonists have an insight into this vast intraobjective identity of all realities from which emerges our grand intersubjective intimacies with one another and Reality in a vague participatory way? Might this support, if not a more epistemically determinate and ontologically precise panentheism, a more phenomenologically indeterminate and imprecise panSEMIOentheism, to which we can successfully refer even

if not robustly describe? We needn't reject analogy within the order of being itself, for it is necessary to increase our descriptive accuracy of realities, both determinate and indeterminate, both vague and precise. But is mere analogy also sufficient? Confer Robert Cummings Neville in AMERICAN JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY & PHILOSOPHY Vol. 18 NO.3 September 1997 REPLY TO SERIOUS CRITICS 281: I maintain the controversial view that although we arc responsible for our own actions insofar as they result from our decisions our decisions are also part of the overall singular creative act of God, and thus God and we are both authors of those actions in appropriately different senses." Issues of consistency and coherence aside, how does the experience of God bear upon this? Surely God is sometimes experienced as external, and we sometimes experience the perversity of our hearts, if not our moral successes, as being both non-divine and in opposition to God. But surely also we sometimes experience the loss of self, its evaporation, in the singular act of God, with the consequence that personal identity, including negative (or positive) moral identity, is trivialized and all is appreciated as a divine movement beyond good, evil, or personal significance. The constant fight against antinomianism in nearly all religions testifies to the latter kind of experience. I don't know which is most basic of the two experiences, but my theory allows for both and the process theory for only the first. Process theology in the long run is hostile to mysticism. 16 See Soldier. Sage. Saint (New York: Fordham University Press, 1978), chapter 5. A Peircean pansemioentheism, relying on Peirceâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s concept of thirdness (habits, regularities, axiological realities), would take a firm pneumatological stance in accord with a neoplatonic participatory schema. In the final analysis though, one cannot mend the causal disjunction problem onto-theologically, because, to the extent reality presents as an ongoing fugue between pattern and paradox, order and chaos, the random and systematic, we cannot a priori know and do not a posteriori yet know whether realityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s regularities emerged from chaos and contingency or from order and consistency insofar as probabilities occupy something of a middle ground leaving us to wonder about their primal origin and whether or not we inhabit a glorious contingency or grand probability. In the end, our hermeneutical turn, metaphysically, is a theo-ontology, an account of primal reality that enjoys epistemic parity with competing accounts and which then invokes the equiplausibility principle, which leverages our minimalist realisms into more robust but still critical realisms going beyond mere satisficing and survival values to ultimate concerns and meanings. In addition to the semantical, univocal predication of being between Creator and creatures, also ontologically, in order for there to be any meaningful interactivity between the Uncreated and created, we can only suspect that there is some metaphysical reality that could, in principle, be univocally predicated of both Creator and creatures, even as we concede that, for all practical purposes, the epistemically determinate and ontologically precise nature of such a reality could be grasped only through special revelation. My guess is that it would be described semiotically and would involve an otherwise ineluctably unobtrusive but still utterly efficacious tacit dimension, which invites us, kenotically, per ardu ad astra, ad veritatem per caritatem. For our God is a gentlemanly suitor, Who would not force His way; neither

timid nor coy, She seductively and patiently pursues us. Theology of Nature – pansemioentheism, a pneumatological theology of nature Apologetics – theological perspectives, a theological perspectivalism; robust realisms rational and presuppositional evidential existential trans-evaluative Anthropological Outlook – existential orientations as theological imperatives (theosis) community as orthocommunio creed as orthodoxy cult as orthopathos code as orthopraxis THE THEOLOGICAL INTERFACE Turning our attention, now, from a mostly philosophical consideration, let me treat the interface between this architectonic and a more theological stance. Authenticity, in our view, grows as our faith transists from the clear but tentative to the vague but certain (a paraphrase of Benedict Groeshel). And this so happens to track our spiritual movement beyond (but not without) the discursive and kataphatic to the nondiscursive and apophatic, beyond (but not without) the merely rational and practical (as well as storge' and eros) to the robustly transrational and relational (as well as agape' and philia), which is the essence of the contemplative gaze. Merton grappled with such distinctions as between immanent and transcendent, impersonal and personal, apophatic and kataphatic, existential and theological, natural and supernatural, implicit and explicit, acquired and infused, as did Rahner, in an effort to reconcile East and West. Many of these theological conundrums were rooted, perhaps, in philosophical error, as the essentials of the Christian message became needlessly entangled with arcane and archaic metaphysics. What if, for example, Transcendental Thomism was ultimately derived from Kant who, instead of responding to Hume, should have ignored him? What if Rahner's thematic grace was, instead, a realization of transmuted experience (Gelpi)? What if we viewed original sin not so much, or at least not solely, in terms of an ontological rupture located in the past but as a teleological striving oriented toward the future (Haught)? What if the Incarnation was not a response to some felix culpa but a panentheistic reality featured in the cosmic cards and loaded in the probabilistic quantum dice (Scotus) from the eternal getgo, metaphorically-speaking? Might the dichotomy between the natural and supernatural resolve into the ontological possibility that

"it's all supernatural" and that all experience is thus graced and differs, thusly - not necessarily in kind but, instead - in degree? Might addiction psychology better explain at least some cases of so-called demonic oppression and possession? If with Scotus, we take the Incarnation as an eternal inevitability, and with Phil Hefner, we take humanity as created-cocreators, might our theodicy questions change in focus from why it is that we suffer to what it is we will do about it? Rather than the Rube Goldbergesque theological machinations of this or that Thomism (transcendental, existential, analytical, aristotelian and so on), for example, could we not, rather, prescind from our specific metaphysical ontological approaches to a more vague phenomenological perspective that affirms the robustly relational and personal, still conforming to humankind's vague intuitions regarding "intimacy" with the Divine, while recognizing that our autonomy from Brackenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Divine Matrix of interrelated causes and effects is, necessarily, only "quasi," thus also conforming to humankind's vague intuitions regarding "identity" with the Divine? Perhaps some of Merton's dualistic conceptions are mere distinctions and not, necessarily, true dichotomies, at least from the standpoint of salvific efficacy, which was the real conundrum with which Merton and Rahner were, in essence and at bottom, grappling --- that over against a somewhat prevalent exclusivistic ecclesiocentrism. If all reality is graced and not bifurcated out into natural and supernatural, the very questions change even as the Incarnation remains the Answer, for it has never been an ideology or merely another set of affirmations, but, instead is an initiation into an intimate relationship. If grace is transmuted experience and all experience is graced, from the standpoint of salvific efficacy and Lonerganian conversion, then, we (humankind) have all been abundantly gifted with what is necessary and sufficient (let's say, at least, minimalistically speaking). Implicit faith might thus be viewed as a type of unconscious competence. What is at stake, then, via explicit faith (amplified in sacrament and liturgy, for example) is the further transmutation of our human experience into a conscious competence, which leads, in turn, to a superabundance. In this context, certain questions will not arise, for example, such as those that require such distinctions as acquired and infused contemplation, natural and supernatural, immanent and transcendent, while others take on a new significance, such as between the impersonal and personal, apophatic and kataphatic, existential and theological, implicit and explicit, for example. Our experiences of God will thus differ not necessarily in kind but in degree and not necessarily in ontological terms of either substance or process but in those of fullness of realization. Our vague intuition of "identity" can re-gift us with the realization of our unitive destiny, we believe, reinforcing just how close God is to us via the Divine Matrix of interrelated causes and effects (without leading us into quarrels over monisms and pantheisms). It can serve to moderate our dialectical imaginations, which, in some parts of Christianity, have redistanced God in a manner tantamount to a de facto Deism, which is clearly at odds with a reality Jesus conveyed by calling Yahweh "Abba.". At the same time, and ironically, our analogical imaginations have overemphasized the analogical and metaphorical and this has raised

questions of relevance via causal disjunction, for how can a reality described only via analog interact causally with anything else? The "identity," which we like to describe as "intra-objective," we believe reinforces and does not detract from but, rather, enhances the "intersubjective intimacy" in a reality that is radically graced, pervasively incarnational. We are perhaps guided more so by Beauty and Goodness to hold these types of beliefs as Truth and not so much by metaphysical proofs, which, while they indeed hint at the reasonableness of our beliefs, cannot compel one to recognize their veracity or soundness. They can be normatively justified and evaluatively relevant, enjoying epistemic parity with other explanatory attempts, even if not otherwise epistemically warranted. This is also to say that being in proper relationship to Love is intrinsically rewarding, an end unto itself beyond any apologetic or theodicy. Some of our experiences of God, East versus West, for example, thus may or may not differ with respect to their origin, natural versus supernatural (as we might attempt to describe same metaphysically, for example in ontological terms of substance or process approaches), but rather with respect to degrees vis a vis the fullness of our realization of the God encounter. This simply recognizes that there's a lot of room for discussion in this regard, to wit: Rahner vs de Lubac vs Gelpi vs other modernists and postmodernists vs the old dualistic extrinsicism of scholasticism. Insofar as it does help tremendously to know what you're doing, we think we must recognize the distinction between conscious and unconscious competence vis a vis explicit and implicit faith. We very much affirm that our God encounters differ "in kind" from this perspective. What we do resist, however, is any temptation to suggest that this versus that experience is necessarily natural or supernatural or that the Holy Spirit is necessarily here but not there (pneumatological exclusivity). Still, we would not deny anyone's experiences or even their own interpretation of those experiences even as we think we might properly question how much normative impetus such interpretations could and/or should exert for others in the broader community of human value-realizers. Because there are metaphysical implications which flow from revelation, we prefer to think of human value-realization in terms of a recursive feedback loop such that the normative mediates between the descriptive and interpretive to effect the evaluative. Each of these human value-realizations presupposes the others. This is not a strictly truth-conducive algorithm (or strong type of inference) but a fallible process that is also, maybe even moreso, truthindicative (a much weaker form of inference). We cannot even give a complete theoretic account of how knowledge works but can attest, pragmatically, that it indeed works, slowly and falteringly but inexorably advancing such human value-realizations as truth, beauty, goodness and unity (through such as creed, cult, code and community). The categories, concepts and claims associated with each aspect of this feedback loop are communicated, unavoidably, by a mixture of dogmatic, heuristic, theoretic and

semiotic terms, which we can describe, respectively, as non-negotiated, still-in-negotiation, negotiated and nonnegotiable vis or vis this or that community of inquiry or value-realizers. Here are the practical implications of this schema. First, clearly, our dogmatic interpretive positions have clear metaphysical implications, especially implicit in our affirmation of God. This leads to a positivistlike descriptive claim, to be sure, but it tends not to get in the way of other positivist endeavors because, as far as our metaphysical enterprise is concerned, it is a claim regarding primal and/or ultimate origins, boundaries, limits and initial conditions, (and, analogously, the tacit dimension of the Holy Spirit via a Peircean thirdness) or what we might consider to be ontological paperwork that resides in the bottom drawer of the last desk in the back corner of the basement of our metaphysical library. Again, we do not want to say, for example, that all hypotheses (let's say, this time, theological anthropologies) are equally worthy of acting as working hypotheses (let's say, spiritualities), as if it were sufficient that our logical arguments be merely valid but not also sound. But what epistemic criteria are at our disposal when it comes to speculative systematic theology, for example? or natural law interpretations vis a vis a practical moral theology? such that we can differentiate levels of external congruence with reality in addition to other criteria like logical validity and internal coherence? Or, to put it another way, how do we determine which tautology has the most taut grasp of reality? Well, there are a host of considerations such as inventoried in the work of Stanley Jaki, and other criteria we previously listed such as hypothetical fecundity and such, as well as being mindful of the proportional mix of dogmatic, heuristic, theoretic and semiotic terms that are employed in any given metaphysical affirmation. It is not enough that we engage our fanciful imaginations vis a vis what might have happened to humanity (i.e. death) regarding original sin in light of evolution. It is not enough to claim that our natural law interpretations are philosophical and not theological in order to compel a moral vision. We must be mindful of our terms and definitions and employ as many nonnegotiable (semiotic) and negotiated (theoretic) concepts and categories as possible, and as few non-negotiated (dogmatic) ones as necessary, employing those that are still-in-negotiation (heuristic) mindfully and respectfully. Otherwise, our moral and political discourse will only be heard and heeded in ideological and dogmatic echo chambers. Otherwise, we are "proving too much." Otherwise, we will experience major disconnects from other people and their lived experiences, thus missing out on other credible and important witnesses to revelation. THEOLOGY OF NATURE divine liminoid as formative play chaos theory complexity theory evolution and emergence physical anomalies & paranormal Aspects of Thirdness - Logos

Definition of Delimitation: creativity Definition of Relimitation: help Definition of Liminal: transformatively helpful creativty and creative help; limit exploitation Definition of Liminoid: formatively creative play; limit exploration Thirdness as Limits: pneumatological delimitation, relimitation & liminality Kenosis as Divine Delimitation both Pneumatological and Christological Divine Liminal Threshold (neoplatonic proodos) Firstness - modal ontology of the possible Reality of the Ens Necessarium Liminal Space (neoplatonic mone) ontology of quasi-autonomy referenced by Process approach of divine matrix Thirdness - modal ontology of probable generally unobtrusive but utterly efficacious and tacit dimensionality incarnational reality as pneumatological relimitation and human divinization divine relimiting prerogatives hesychastic theoria signs and wonders charisms Theosis as Human Delimitation Human Liminal Threshold or Limen (neoplatonic epistrophe) ontology of intimacy described by Thomistic analogy of being ontology of identity described by Scotistic univocity of being Secondness - modal ontology of the actual incarnational reality as Christological relimitation divine humanization Jesus of Nazareth Mystical Body Cosmic Christ Human Liminoid Experience In a more comprehensive consideration, we would survey a hermeneutical progression from epistemology through the philosophies of science, mind and religion to a theology of nature, describing a putative fugue of Peircean thirdness as it resonates in each of these foci of human concern (hence, a tetradic fugue). Epistemologically, we would propose an exploratory heuristic to facilitate the discovery of this Peircean dynamic as it consistently and coherently informs the philosophic methods that will ultimately frame our theology of nature.

Our epistemology, while nonfoundational, is manifestly realist, albeit in a minimalist sense. This particular fallibilist and critical realism also commits to both metaphysical and moral realisms. Peircean thirdness plays out in a triadic dynamic wherein the normative mediates between the descriptive and interpretive to effect the evaluative. In our philosophy of science, we consider the emergentist paradigm and consider thirdness in life forms, especially associating it with the characteristics of third order emergence, whereby spatial properties playing out over time begin to replicate, thus providing a substrate for selection dynamics, which involve an intricate interplay of initial conditions, boundary conditions and limit conditions. These conditions and characteristics of thirdness come into sharper focus with the teleodynamic interactions we consider in our philosophy of mind heuristics, whereby biosemiotic realities effect a minimalist telos, or downward causation, on other biosemiotic realities through an ineluctably unobtrusive but utterly efficacious implicate ordering or tacit dimensionality. In our philosophy of religion and natural theology, our analogical imaginations engage this thirdness in our abduction of the Ens Necessarium, a putative mediating reality intuited from our inescapably vague modal ontology, where we prescind from the necessary to the probable, for, even as it ubiquitously seems to suggest itself, always and everywhere, the necessary invariably eludes us. Thus the stage has been set for our Pansemioentheism as our pneumatological imaginations engage this pervasive thirdness in a Creator Spirit in our theology of nature. The fundamental argument that we would set forth is that a robust pneumatological imagination that is externally congruent, logically consistent, internally coherent, hypothetically consonant and interdisciplinarily consilient with both a Peircean metatechnica and the rubrics of modern empirical science is the 21st Century Rosetta Stone for unlocking an enhanced modeling power of reality as described by science, normed by philosophy, interpreted by theology and evaluatively realized by humankind in all of its prudential (both practical and moral) and aesthetical value realizations. Hereinabove, we already addressed some practical aspects of this systematic theology for formative spirituality, in particular, the life of faith, in general. Improperly considered, faith aspires to establish epistemic warrant in order to attain foundational interpretations of primal reality and articulate absolute norms for categorical imperatives, which can be a priori and objectively validated, privately even, through various noncontradictory abstractions. Properly considered, faith, propositionally, aspires to epistemic parity with other equiplausible interpretations of primal reality, and, evaluatively, radicalizes our fundamental trust in reality, transforming our existential orientations and temporal value-pursuits into the actionable norms of our transcendental imperatives and ultimate concerns, the transcendent nature and universal validity of which must be 1) communally discerned (orthocommunio); 2) tested argumentatively through rational discourse (orthodoxy); 3) authenticated pragmatically (orthopraxis) and 4) ritualistically cultivated (orthopathos). These

norms are thus communally, or intersubjectively, actionable, which is to recognize that we invoke because we have first been convoked (ecclesially). And the action, then, is pneumatological, which is to say, divine. PANSEMIOENTHEISM – a pneumatological theology of nature grounded in a minimalist realism a charismatic Franciscan contemplative perspective By pansemio- we are not specifying an ontology but are recognizing a phenomenological pattern that might include the proto- and quasisemiotic, such as in thermo- and morpho-dynamics (or first and second order emergence), in addition to the biosemiotic and teleodynamic (third order emergence). Reality may present, for instance, with proto- (or primal) dynamics, thermodynamics, morphodynamics, teleodynamics and eschato- (or final) dynamics, similar to a neoplatonic procession. First, second and third order emergence, or thermo-, morpho- and teleodynamics may thus represent proleptic realities. Both the formal causation (a Polanyian tacit dimension) and final causation (downward causation) of biosemiotic realities, however minimalistically conceived and without violations of physical causal closure, would proleptically present both back and front doors for a radically interconnected matrix (Divine per Bracken) of causes and effects in reality. Such interactivity can be utterly efficacious while still ineluctably unobtrusive acting pervasively through primal reality’s initial, boundary and limit conditions, whether temporally, atemporally or trans-temporally. [See Terrence W. Deacon, Emergence: The Hole at the Wheel's Hub, __Chapter 5, The Re-Emergence of Emergence: The Emergentist Hypothesis from Science to Religion__ (Hardcover) by Philip Clayton (Editor), Paul Davies (Editor) Oxford University Press, USA (August 24, 2006)] This is a hermeneutic for a thoroughly enchanted nature, recognizing no necessary distinctions between natural and supernatural, or hierarchical orders of grace, or privileged levels of revelation, emphasizing, rather, the degrees of realization, levels of awareness and growth in the Spirit over any dualistic dichotomies and exclusivities. Most postmodern Christian theologies of nature seem to be in the throes of metaphysical angst, as if other hermeneutical rushes to closure now require us to place our ontological cards on the dialogical table. Christianity was once said to be in search of a metaphysic (Whitehead) and that sounds very right-headed to me, still. Why should we join the rush to declare our position and specify our ontological claims just because everyone else is busy committing category errors, conflating their methods and systems? When has the Kerygma ever competed with positivistic and philosophic, descriptive and normative, methodologies? Do our theological anthropologies require the successful resolution of initial, boundary and limit conditions of the universe or multiverse, or even a decision in favor of one philosophy of mind or another --- eliminativist, epiphenomenalist, nonreductive physicalist, emergent monist or even a radically Cartesian dualist account? Haven’t we always survived and thrived, even, with our phenomenological accounts and subjective and intersubjective experiences?

The final methodological descriptions of our cosmic origins and epistemic faculties, however they turn out, will not change the essential thrust of our interpretive stances, whether of an aesthetic teleology or a pneumatological theology. We know from our empirical observations that biosemiotic realities require both a minimalist formal and final causation in addition to efficient causation. We can affirm, methodologically, top-down and bottom-up causations? There can be no denying of the possibility of a Divine Matrix of interrelated causes and effects even as we prescind from any robust descriptions of either the causal joints or the divine prerogatives. Whatever one’s ontic account of our putative cosmic or epistemic boundaries, we haven’t yet an account of primal reality, herself. All competing interpretations, if methodologically faithful to prevailing positivistic and philosophic norms, at best, are equiplausible accounts that, ontologically, enjoy epistemic parity but certainly not the epistemic warrant we might otherwise properly ascribe to our various ontic disciplines. All competing interpretations should not pretend to have discovered the perfect root metaphor, the complete consistent system (Godel), or metaphysical Mecca. For gosh sakes, we haven’t yet reconciled gravity and quantum mechanics. And this isn’t a capitulation to the notion that theology only rushes in to fill gaps left by the positivistic sciences. This isn’t to deny that some theologians once did such a thing, and many still do; rather, it is to recognize that, when they do, they are simply being bad scientists. And vice versa; so many scientists are awful philosophers and god-awful theologians. However integrally related our methods and findings are, they still represent autonomous aspects of inquiry about distinctly different value-pursuits. Interpretations of primal reality, as equiplausible accounts of primal reality, while descriptive enterprises, theoretically, are essentially evaluative posits, practically speaking, precisely because their propositional elements have left us with Scottish verdicts and in search of other actionable norms, which, then necessarily, go beyond the inferential to the manifold and multiform other aspects of human value-realization. The strategy we put forward for competing with other metaphysical accounts is not to compete; their questions are wrong. Thus it is that phenomenology remains both necessary and sufficient for doing theology, which ends up being a practical and not a speculative science, for the most part. To the extent, then, that epistemology models ontology, and our ontology is a phenomenology, which is to say vague, then our epistemology is going to be, quite simply, fallibilistic. Hereinabove, then, we described what we like to call a Peircean metatechnica, which does not ambition metaphysical specificity but does rely on, provisionally, some patterns one can discern phenomenologically in nature. While we think it is important to affirm metaphysical realism, in general, we do not think it is otherwise important to engage any particular and robust metaphysic, in particular. Saint Bonaventure taught us Franciscans that when you stop seeing the divine presence in one of the seven links of the Great Chain of Being, the whole thing will fall apart. When you cannot recognize the divine indwelling in the earth itself and

the waters upon the earth and the plants and trees that grow upon the earth and the animals, you will not see it in the human. And that’s what has happened. We finally don’t see that presence in the angels, saints or the divine itself. from Richard Rohr's Great Chain of Being Applications – philosophies of science, mind and religion; theologies of nature; formative spiritualities SPIRITUALITY – INTEGRALLY CONCEIVED LIFE’S VALUE PURSUITS If we take life as a journey made up of individual steps, which we might consider to be value-pursuits, and we measure the distance we travel in terms of milestones, which we might consider to be value-realizations, then we might consider each complete movement to require, minimally, three separate motions, optimally four. Those motions would be 1) the descriptive motion, where we ask: Is that a fact? 2) the evaluative motion, where we ask: What's it to me? and 3) the normative motion – normative sciences per Peirce being the logical (symbolic), aesthetical and ethical – where we inquire: How do I best obtain (or avoid) it? There is no value-realization movement that does not consist of these three integrally-related motions. We won't specify, here, how this differentiates us from other animals as Homo sapiens, but will note that these distinctly human motions and movements are the very essence of spirituality. And we may, through the vagaries of formation, deformation and reformation, be variously competent or incompetent, spiritually. Also, even if competent, we may be either consciously or unconsciously competent, which is where the fourth motion comes in, 4) the interpretive, which asks: How does all of this tie together? This interpretive motion, coupled with our evaluative attitudes, comprise the very essence of religion, which may variously be institutionalized (organized) or not, which may even be theistic, nontheistic, atheistic or agnostic. Thus it is that many can say they are spiritual but not religious, or that they are religious but not "believers." GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT & CONVERSION A fulfilling spiritual journey thus requires our ongoing development and growth intellectually, affectively, morally and socially. Optimally, it will also be religious, which, as an interpretive and evaluative motion, necessarily entails much more than mere propositional assent, descriptively, but also the celebrations of the beauty we have encountered, evaluatively, the preservation of the goodness we have discovered, normatively, and the enjoyment of the community we have realized, unitively. [Piaget, Erikson, Kohlberg, Fowler and other developmental theorists have described such growth dynamics psychologically. Gelpi, building on Lonergan, describes them in terms of conversion, which leads to progressive human authenticity.] There is much that humanity shares spiritually, and even religiously, of a nonpropositional nature. This allows us to endeavor together to

celebrate the beauty, advance the goodness and enjoy the community we have already realized and can foster our engagement in ever more authentic dialogue that we might together construct a much more compelling metanarrative. A MERTON-INSPIRED REFLECTION ON THE HUMAN JOURNEY In Thomas Mertonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s writings and recorded lectures, he generally describes our human journey in terms of humanization, socialization and transformation. Early on, formatively, we become less like little animals and more human. Primary school teachers report that parents turn in mixed results in this regard, speaking of the little animals that often occupy our primary schools. After some success with humanization, next we are socialized in all sorts of ways by all sorts of institutions like marriage, religion, government and schools. Through socialization, we learn how to function in society and we get our needs met through mutual give and take. This is mostly a pragmatic dynamic governed by extrinsic reward systems. We think in terms, hopefully, of enlightened self-interest as we buy into such notions of truth, beauty, goodness and unity. At some point, we might attempt to describe their origins, which, minimalistically and reductionistically might be partly explained in terms of evolutionary adaptive significance and sociobiology. There are even more robust explanatory accounts that can be had from a cybersemiotic perspective (cf. Soren Brier). These existential orientations might also be explained as transcendental imperatives. This is about as far as much of humanity ever goes. And, to be sure, it is nevertheless a beauty and wonder to behold. Sometimes, due to exceptionally good formation, but maybe most often through crisis, as Merton would say --- usually a crisis of continuity (death in all its forms) or of creativity (the need to matter or make a difference) --- some journey further, which is to say beyond mere humanization and socialization to transformation. Transformation has many descriptions, which vary from tradition to tradition, but its essence, in our view, is marked by the move beyond extrinsic reward systems to intrinsic reward systems, which is to recognize that some pursue truth, beauty, goodness and unity as ends in themselves, or, as we might say, as their own reward. By definition, one needs no apologetic or defense or explanation of such a path. And, it sometimes can make little sense to invite anyone to take such a path because there is no way to explain such a reward system to the uninitiated. For one thing, it may not be developmentally appropriate. Also, it can only be self-realized. At any rate, this type of approach is more often "caught" than taught. Another hallmark of transformation is the gifting of a new interpretive lens and evaluative disposition, which views reality not just empirically, logically and practically but also relationally. Merton often spoke of Bernardian love which progresses from 1) love of self for sake of self to 2) love of God for sake of self to 3) love of God for sake of God to 4) love of self for sake of God. Richard Rohr has often spoken of this same transformative dynamic by contrasting the dualistic mind, which is preoccupied with its practical and functional concerns using its problem-solving mindset, with the nondual approach, which is a loving gaze at reality, a trusting stance, a wholly different consciousness. Hans Kung describes a

justified fundamental trust in uncertain reality. What seems to be equally compelling to many people, if I have properly interpreted their religious naturalist stance is this transformative dynamic, which progresses from 1) love of self for sake of self to 2) love of cosmos for sake of self to 3) love of cosmos for sake of cosmos to 4) love of self for sake of cosmos, where the cosmos is broadly conceived to include us all in ineffable solidarity with depthful compassion. TRANSFORMATIONAL DYNAMICS Most of the great traditions very much affirm what we would call the erotic aspect of our relationship to reality, or, in other words, the "what's in it for me" dynamic. This is a good thing and quite natural. This eros is, in fact, both necessary and sufficient, spiritually and religiously, for all reality really requires of us, at bottom, is an enlightened self-interest. This is, in fact, the exoteric aspect of most traditions. The cessation of suffering in Buddhism would be such an example. The mystics of all traditions, however, also give witness to a more esoteric aspect, which is the agapic dynamic, which is the realization of the superabundance to be found in the intrinsically rewarding parts of our journey. This goes beyond doctrines and metaphysics and belief systems, though not necessarily without them. Similarly, agape goes beyond eros although not without it. This goes beyond the empirical and rational and practical to the robustly relational, to the "just-because-ish-ness" of reality. This theme also resonates in the writings of many humanists and very poetically so in the writings of our early American transcendentalists and universalists. In the spirituality practiced by all of the great traditions, we do encounter many utterly transformed people and can reasonably attribute this to their esoteric teachings and mystical practices (and I broadly conceive mysticism to include both existential and theological varieties). And that is quite the essence. They otherwise differ, then, in the exoteric and socialization aspects of the human journey. And we do not want to say that getting those aspects as right as we possibly can is not important because optimal humanization and socialization and indoctrination can best foster transformation and better form people for transformation. Adjudicating which paths best lead to authenticity, following the aphorism that orthopraxis authenticates orthodoxy, is another task for another consideration. What we want to emphasize is that it is important to pay attention to the world's transformed people and to listen to their reflections on how it is their transformations may have come about because each such story contributes, along with many others' reflections regarding their paths, to part of the blueprint for the human journey. Also, it is great to recognize what we have in common with others even as we grapple with those aspects of the journey that are different. If all had transformation in common, we'd collectively figure out the norms of humanization and socialization much faster! THE CONTEMPLATIVE STANCE For those who cultivate a habitual contemplative approach, as commended by Merton and reinforced by Rohr and many romantic humanists, it can be difficult to discuss reality at a level that is one or two removes from experience. As one dwells habitually in a relationship to reality with an approach that goes beyond words and

without prejudgment, with an approach that is robustly relational and not solely analytical, the ineffability that inheres in the process does not readily lend itself to a lingua franca of mysticism precisely because we are being led into an experience beyond words. We must rely, rather, on stories and myths and songs and koans and poetic narratives and metanarratives. And it seems to me that this presents special challenges for contemplative dialogue, whether interreligious or with coreligionists, or existentialist or humanist. How do we, then, otherwise profitably discourse with others about such experiences? Does contemplative experience lend itself to philosophical parsing and theological anthropology? Yes, but with caveats. In our view, any dialogical segue back into the world of words and analysis, in order to remain consonant with our contemplative approach, must simply and foremost proceed, similarly, without prejudgment and with a simple loving gaze. It also proceeds more profitably from an enhanced self-awareness of our own descriptive, evaluative, normative and interpretive stances as this awareness, in turn, heightens our awareness that others won't always share our descriptions and interpretations or our norms and values and that they won't always use our concepts and categories when making various claims about their experiences. Contemplative dialogue, then, perhaps more than many other types of dialogue, especially lends itself to idiosyncratic use of vocabulary and especially leads to situations where people can easily talk past one another. There is another type of dialogue where this happens often, metaphysical talk. And there is yet another, perhaps the most challenging of all and, as you guessed, it is the metaphysics of contemplative experience. Perhaps this is why so many contemplative critiques seem rather facile and also fraught with misunderstanding as people try to fit one another with hermeneutical straightjackets. The difficult spade work of philosophical disambiguation of categories and concepts is indispensable if the garden of dialogue is to bear good fruit. Even within faith traditions, which share vocabularies, dialogue is challenging because there is so much disagreement regarding what is essential vs accidental, core vs peripheral, regarding those traditions and their teachings and practices. WHAT IS METAPHYSICS THAT WE SHOULD BE MINDFUL OF IT? In our view, following Whitehead, Christianity indeed remains in search of a metaphysic, but so does all other human endeavor. So, we have a very open mind about "how" it is that all manner of things may, can, will and shall be well. And we have to be similarly open regarding just what “well” means. Exactly "how" this may be so is, for me, a positivist or descriptive endeavor (e.g. scientific, falsifiable), which articulates its claims with categories and concepts that are, in a word, theoretic, in other words, scientific or positivist. Those claims and concepts and categories are negotiated by those in humanity who participate in our fallible but earnest community of inquiry. As previously set forth, many claims and concepts and

categories are still-in-negotiation (heuristic) in this community of inquiry that we call humankind. Humanity, as a community of valuerealizers, also engages in interpretive and evaluative endeavors, staking various claims regarding whether or not --- "that" --- all manner of things may, can, will and shall be well and articulating them with categories and concepts that are religious or ideological and, generally, not negotiated (dogmatic). Human spirituality more fully comes into play as a philosophic or normative endeavor, which might be thought of in terms of "best practices" that serve to mediate between our descriptive-positivist and interpretive endeavors to effect our evaluative goals in all types of human value-realizations. Ultimately, what is "best" is not negotiable; it is, then, in a word, semiotic, making meaning and intelligibility possible, in the first place, like various "first" principles; it simply is what it is, although discovering it is somewhat problematical. The normative, then, mediates between the descriptive and interpretive to effect the evaluative. Or, we could say that the philosophic mediates between the positivist and ideological-theological to effect human value-realizations. The practical upshot of this hermeneutic is that our interpretive and evaluative stances make some claims on our normative approaches, which, in turn, will certainly bolster our descriptive endeavors through enhanced modeling power of reality without, at the same time, making any specific descriptive or positivist claims. These various stances, approaches and endeavors are integrally related, intellectually, but not strictly related, logically, which is to recognize that human valuerealizations, such as knowledge, for example, are not merely formally derived or driven by strict computational algorithms, instead being open-ended or plastic and dynamic. What we are suggesting is that metaphysics is mostly a descriptive and positivist endeavor and that we do not look to religious or existential mystical traditions for direct metaphysical insights. Our religious and ideological traditions exert their influence over positivist endeavors, instead, indirectly, through their shaping of our normative or philosophic outlooks, thereby, hopefully, enhancing our modeling power of reality. All of this is to say, then, that, for example, we do not look to any religion or ideology to determine the nature of human consciousness, to determine whether or not what we call the human soul is intrinsically immortal, to determine whether or not the universe is eternal, or how to resolve the many paradoxes that result from the classical tensions between essentialism and nominalism, substance and process approaches, or all manner of dual and nondual claims, categories and concepts. We do affirm metaphysics as a viable enterprise and say let a thousand metaphysical blossoms bloom, but let us judge them empirically, rationally and practically in the crucible of human experience by how well they foster Lonergan's conversions. Metaphysics, at this stage of humankind's journey, in our view, remains a great way to "probe" reality but not a reliable way to "prove" reality. Our deontological claims, then, should be as modest as our ontologies are tentative. However, they have been anything but modest as the general tendency among the great traditions, religious and ideological, has been, as we see it, to attempt to "prove

too much." Perhaps we reflexively recoil from Mystery and thus try to banish the vague by anxiously pursuing the specific? There is a certain irony in that it is in our encounter with the concrete and particular that we most encounter the vague and mysterious, in the depth dimension of reality and other persons, while the abstract and conceptual only provides a "seeming" escape into the clear and certain. Still, we would not deny anyone's experiences or even their own interpretation of those experiences even as we think we might properly question how much normative impetus such interpretations could and/or should exert for others in the broader community of human value-realizers. SUMMARY: AN EPISTEMOLOGICAL ARCHITECTONIC AS EXPLORATORY HEURISTIC Think of human value-realization in terms of a recursive feedback loop such that the normative mediates between the descriptive and interpretive to effect the evaluative. Each of these human valuerealizations presupposes the others. This is not a strictly truthconducive algorithm (or strong type of inference) but a fallible process that is also, maybe even moreso, truth-indicative (a much weaker form of inference). We cannot even give a complete theoretic account of how knowledge works but can attest, pragmatically, that it indeed works, slowly and falteringly but inexorably advancing such human valuerealizations as truth, beauty, goodness and unity. The categories, concepts and claims associated with each aspect of this feedback loop are communicated, unavoidably, by a mixture of dogmatic, heuristic, theoretic and semiotic terms, which we have described, respectively, as non-negotiated, still-in-negotiation, negotiated and nonnegotiable vis or vis this or that community of inquiry or value-realizers. Even if we concede our inability to reason from the given to the normative (which I do not, following Adler), we caricaturize human reasoning if we describe it strictly in terms of formal argumentation or logic. This is all just to recognize that the hermeneutical, philosophic, positivist hierarchy is not wholly a one-way street and that, while our distinctly different value-commitments for our different human endeavors do involve autonomous methodologies, no valuerealization, in and of itself, is otherwise fully autonomous but results from the fruits of this integrally-related feedback loop. They are, rather, indispensable separate motions required for any movement (as previously explicated). NONFOUNDATIONAL EPISTEMOLOGY AND NORMATIVITY There is often resistance to nonfoundational approaches because, apparently, many have a difficult time imagining how a compelling metaethic could be grounded by anything other than the epistemological building blocks of a classic foundationalism with its self-evident, a priori and apodictic access to transcendentals and absolutes. All other approaches seem to capitulate, in their view, to a radically deconstructive postmodernism with its corrupting relativistic outlook and nihilistic bent. To be moral, however, one neednâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t resolve the debates between opposing epistemological stances and come down, finally, on the side of correspondence, coherence, foundherentism, pragmatism or any other theory of truth or justification. However it is

finally determined that we are grounded and justified, there can be no denying that, due to our radical finitude and invincible fallibility, our access to putative absolutes is highly problematical. Resultantly, our approach to truth is a lot more like the strenuous climbing of an epistemic rope, which gains its strength from the intertwining of separate strands --- descriptive, evaluative, normative and interpretive ---, which makes for an ecological rationality that is inescapably fallible but slowly and inexorably progressive as each successive series of alternating hand, arm and leg value-pursuit motions effects a value-realization hoist, though not without the occasional slip or ropeburn. It is a lot less like the stacking of epistemic building blocks on a foundation of absolutes, always in jeopardy of crumbling should a bad brick be placed in the wall or, worse, should our site be discovered on shifting sands. To whichever realism we subscribe, it must be self-critical. It must also respond to critiques, which need not come from competing systems to be effective, for one cannot credibly claim that the postmodern critique was of no moment. At the same time, deconstructionism, which cannot coherently hold itself out as a system, was nothing but an epistemic thief who’s come in a philosophical backdoor, co-opting another’s tautology and turning its inconsistent concepts, categories and claims on itself like a knife found in a dwelling and placed to the occupant’s throat. This thief did not slay deontology but, admittedly, weakened it. Whatever metanarrative one employs, it would necessarily contain within it, in the interest of descriptive accuracy, the manifold and multiform shared values that emerge from our somewhat universal human condition. To the extent our evaluative posits are attributes of a universal human condition, then, even though they may be relative, which one needn’t concede, still, they would avoid much of the difficulty normally associated with such relativity by virtue of being remarkably consistent, despite their relativity. These posits thus would remain relative from a theoretic perspective but not so much so from a pragmatic perspective. When you think about it, this, and not some foundational, authoritative deontology, accounts for the resonance and shared respect we do enjoy for such as the UN Declaration on Human Rights, the US Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and such. Is it not evident that all of humankind does not share the same metaphysical conceptions, that all foundationalists don't appeal to the same foundations, and that all authoritarians don't point to the same authorities? We need to be mindful of the proportional mix of dogmatic, heuristic, theoretic and semiotic terms that are employed in any given metaphysical affirmation. It is not enough, I maintain, to issue forth with metaphysical claims that do not conflict with positivist data; rather, in our formulations and affirmations, we must keep as favorable a ratio as possible of semiotic and theoretic terms to heuristic and dogmatic terms; thus we can better avoid idle tautologies (rationalisms) that bear little resemblance and have little relevance to people's daily lives and lived experiences. FAITH Having faith, for me, has meant placing my trust, whether in this reality or that, or in Reality writ large, and then willingly living out the

consequences of this or that trust relationship. I describe my faith life, then, in terms that apply to relationships, like fidelity, loyalty, love, trust and not so much in terms that describe my stance toward various propositions or, in other words, that involve any particular fixation of belief. My faith does not ignore the empirical and logical, for that would be unfaithful, a betrayal of my trust relationship with Reality. My faith goes beyond the empirical and logical, super-reasonably you might say, to the robustly practical and relational, acting as an interpretive lens through which I evaluate descriptive and normative realities. Faith defines what I care about and shapes my responses to Reality with such a trust in and fidelity to and love of Reality as will generally allow for a steadfastness of those responses even in the face of a seeming rejection of me and my cares by Reality. Through faith I choose to relate to Reality like any other beloved of mine, going way beyond (but certainly not without) mere propositional knowledge of who or what I care about to a robustly relational dynamic marked by such a faith, hope and love as requires no justifications and makes no apologies. I can no more tell you why I love and trust Reality than I can tell you why I love my spouse and children, but I'd have to imagine that having known such love and beauty I have been rendered forever unable to fix my gaze, or place my trust, elsewhere. A MODERATE RADICAL ORTHODOXY Philosophically, in this Peircean metatechnica, the classical approaches (rational or internally coherent) mediate between the evidential approaches (empirical or externally congruent) and existential approaches (relational or subjective) to effect human valuerealizations. Theologically, in this Radical Orthodoxy, the rational (Catholic, BOTH Roman & Anglican) or presuppositional (reformed, Calvinist) mediates between the evidential (evangelical, Arminian) and existential (fideist, Lutheran, neoevanaglical) to effect human value-realizations. For an explication of these philosophical correlations with these theological categories, see Faith Has Its Reasons by Kenneth D. Boa and Robert M. Bowman, Jr. http://www.bible.org/series.php? series_id=190 wherein John Frame’s presuppositional perspectivalism inchoately articulates, in our view, our own nonfoundational perspectivalism). The reformed approach cannot truly aspire to an epistemology per se because philosophy is an autonomous methodology and it is a category error to call it “Christian.” Frame’s reformed epistemology, however, might be well situated in our own epistemological architectonic, resonating, as it explicitly does, with our own robustly integral approach, only departing from our essentially philosophical treatment by uncritically substituting presuppositional scriptural norms in place of our own Peircean normative sciences of logic, aesthetics and ethics. Frame’s move is thus theological and, ergo, philosophically illicit, although our Peircean hermeneutic precisely takes one to the threshold of the abduction of the Ens Necessarium,

thus leading into our pansemioentheist theology of nature, which values the reformed epistemology as a theology. Sure, there are those who fideistically conflate existential outlooks with evidential methodologies, who are rightfully charged with placing God in gaps, but there is no discernable increase in philosophical rigor by those who commit the inverse category error, scientistically suggesting that we must all necessarily conflate our descriptive and normative methods with our interpretive systems and then rush with them to metaphysical closure as philosophical naturalists. With Emerson, we believe that God arrives when the half-gods depart, and thus offer a re-enchanted (through and through) worldview over against any notion that either modernismâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s incessant chant of secularistic God of the gaps pejoratives, or postmodernismâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s nihilistic sensibilities, have ushered in either a philosophical naturalism, or an insidious relativism, as the default paradigm for primal reality, where our God of the ... gasp! still reigns. We question the classical patterns of dichotomous thinking, or at least suggest an overworking of same, as they necessarily divide reality into such categories as natural or supernatural, chance or necessity, existential or propositional, subjective or objective, reason or revelation, material or spiritual, nature or grace, acquired or infused, rationalist or empiricist or existentialist, evidentialist or fideist, secular or sacred, fact or value, and so on. We must discern which of these dyads are mere phenomenal distinctions and which are indeed ontological dichotomies without a default bias to either dualistic or nondualistic accounts. Instead, we affirm a holistic and integrative approach that, over against any sterile metaphysical compartmentalizations or epistemic absolutisms, and engaged by a robustly pneumatological imagination, sees creation thoroughly permeated by and wholly shot-through with the glory and splendor of our indwelling God-with-us. Our world is thus wholly, wholly holy (yes, theodicies notwithstanding). Â If, with Lonergan (and Gelpi), we believe that orthopraxis authenticates orthodoxy, then our political, economic, cultural and social metrics of success will be gauged in terms of intellectual, affective, moral, sociopolitical and religious development of our citizens, a much more holistic and expansive set of goals than can otherwise be measured by stock, bond and commodity indices, labor statistics, gross domestic products, monetary and fiscal measures, median incomes, cost and price indices and other measures of socalled wealth. For, if wealth is not that which we possess but that which possesses us (Disraeli?), we may be otherwise seriously impoverished. As contemplation attains to politics, we hope to expand later on how, in our view, Habermas improves on Rawls, how Ratzinger and Murray improve on Habermas, how Curran improves on Ratzinger and so on. For now, we must only emphasize that the political will only efficaciously mediate between the economic and the cultural to effect the social if it originates from an authentically contemplative stance, which is to suggest that, in the public square, we should not ever secularistically bracket our [religious] perspectives but should strive, rather, to semiotically translate them into whatever lingua franca is most accessible in this or that dialogical arena, which is to say with a

suitably inculturated theology, which is what we aspire to offer to the American public as grounded in a Peircean-inspired nonfoundational epistemology. Most importantly, though, it is through our vibrant communities of creed, cult and code, that such conversion will be most efficaciously effected and not through state power or market forces. Human creativity and flourishing are so much more than can be gauged by marketplace metrics and are inextricably intertwined with the Holy Spirit, the source of all creative help and all helpful creativity. May we thus engage the Spirit both consciously and competently! AFTERWARD --- NORMATIVE IMPLICATIONS: May namaste, then, become more than a greeting but a way of life, as we look always and everywhere and in everyone for the pneumatological realities we profess herein. May our inter-religious stance be more irenic as we acknowledge the Spirit in one another with true reverence, in authentic solidarity and utmost compassion. A most fundamental aspect of the unqualified affirmation of human dignity would seem to be our nurturance of the attitude that all other humans come bearing an irreplaceable gift for us, that we are to maintain a stance of receptivity toward them, open to receive what it is they offer us through, with and in the Spirit. Whether the Magi were occidental or oriental, Jesus was receptive. When John offered baptism, Jesus was receptive. When Mary anointed his feet, Jesus was receptive. When invited to dine with tax collectors and prostitutes, Jesus was receptive. A critical gaze not first turned on oneself and oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ways of looking at reality will have very little efficacy when it is otherwise habitually and arrogantly turned first on others. All of this is to observe that, beyond whatever it is that we offer to the world as our unique gift, rather than always approaching our sisters and brothers as fix-it-upper projects in need of our counsel and ministry, sometimes the Spirit may be inviting us to listen, observe and learn from them in a posture of authentic humility and from a stance of genuine affirmation of their infinite value and unique giftedness. While our encounters of the Spirit may be manifold and varied from one phenomenal experience to the next, especially when situated in one major tradition versus another, we may be saying more than we know if we attempt to describe such experiences with more ontological specificity than can be reasonably claimed metaphysically or theologically, suggesting, for example, that such experiences necessarily differ in either origin or degree even if they otherwise differ, as might be expected, in other cognitive, affective, moral, social or religious aspects. More than semantics is at stake, here. We are not merely saying the same thing using different words when we draw such distinctions as between nature and grace, natural and supernatural, existential and theological, immanent and transcendent; such explicit denotations also have strong connotative implications that might betray attitudes of epistemic hubris, pneumatological exclusivity or religious hegemony, which are clearly unwarranted once we understand that our faith outlooks are effectively evaluative. I say this because, in my view, our belief systems are otherwise, at best, normatively justified existentially after essentially attaining, minimally, an epistemic parity with other hermeneutics vis a vis our best evidential, rational and presuppositional approaches. While there are rubrics for discernment of where the Spirit is active and where humans are cooperative, they do not lend themselves to facile and cursory a priori assessments, neither

by an academic theology with its rationalistic categorizing nor by a popular fideistic piety with its supernaturalistic religiosity, predispositions that tend to divide and not unite, to arrogate and not serve, with their vain comparisons and spiritual pretensions. Indeed, we have been admonished not to be seduced by any false irenicism, insidious indifferentism or facile syncretism. And this seems fair enough --- to the extent that we are thereby trying to affirm the role of epistemic virtue in our approach to fides et ratio, in general. However, to the extent one might otherwise be suggesting that any given faith approach, in particular, is necessarily privileged and that other approaches do not enjoy epistemic parity (by virtue of their own normative justifications) vis a vis one's own given approach, that would be too strong a position to defend, philosophically? While it would be illicit to a priori claim that primal reality is inprinciple knowable (scientism) or unknowable (agnosticism), still, it is clearly too early on humankind's journey to imagine we have successfully described or explained primal reality. Clearly, we do not know where it is on our knowledge journeys that we will be methodologically thwarted or otherwise ontologically occulted, although the philosophical naturalists rush to closure with the former conclusion and urge their god of the gaps pejoratives on the fideistic mysterians, who hold out for the latter position, not altogether certain where that final gap will irreducibly present itself. Even given Godelian constraints on completeness and consistency, there is no a priori reason to believe that we may not one day be able to see the truths of the axioms we will otherwise be unable to prove. And those aspects of reality that we are unable to successfully describe and explain, we may very well be able to successfully refer to and model. I suppose that all of this is to suggest that we can aspire to the rudiments of an onto-theology, modestly extrapolating a phenomenological pneumatology from our abduction of the Ens Necessarium as it emerges from our nonfoundational perspectivalism. This move doesn't require any robustly metaphysical commitments such as to necessarian or regularistic perspectives on natural laws, which is also to say that it does not require any final epistemic determinacy or ontological specificity but can abide with the same semantical vagueness employed by the early Church Fathers, PseudoDionysius, the Neoplatonists and the Medievals like Scotus. This is to say, then, that Christianity, properly conceived, still remains in search of a metaphysic even if, epistemologically, it commits to metaphysical realism. Even the Peircean Thirdness, with its minding of matter and mattering of mind, when combined with other emergentist accounts, can be appropriated as but a fallibilistic exploratory epistemological heuristic and not a metaphysical commitment to any realist, idealist, monist or dualist categories, for example. It does not seem like this minimalist pneumatology need offend anyone's epistemic sensibilities or theological imaginations. It does seem like it could pave the way to a much more irenic engagement in interreligious dialogue. For those of us whose theological anthropologies were a tad too optimistic vis a vis our transcendental thomistic perspectives and felt the Kantian foundations of same crumbling beneath our Gospelready shoes, this pneumatological hermeneutic can reinstill an optimism even if a more chastised and modest optimism. For those who affirmed a Perennial Philosophy or even a mystical core of

organized religions, our approach can situate same philosophically. To the extent we affirm a mystical core, why should our approaches not be a lot more irenic? why could we not affirm some modicum of syncretistic sensibility? Perhaps we could legitimately engage others' perspectives less so as a foil (to understand them better while deepening our own self-understanding) but more so with the aim of looking to them for an assist? And this includes not just their theological imaginations but also their manifold and varied philosophical ruminations, all which (presumptively) glimpse some aspects of reality as led by the Spirit according to the mode of the receivers vis a vis different stages of Lonerganian conversions of individuals and their societies, cultures and institutions. Most of all, I suppose this is an invitation to come on a philosophical journey that involves less hubris but not too much humility, that engages others looking for an assist and not a foil, that does not try to prove too much, that does not immodestly claim excessive normative impetus for (what can only be) tentatively held ontological conclusions, that emphasizes what we have in common while respecting why it is we differ, that doesn't enforce our own language and categories on others' unique experiences, that doesn't smack of pneumatological exclusivity, that doesn't claim normative superiority and reinforce theological one-upmanship on other hermeneutics that truly enjoy epistemic parity with our own having been, in the final analysis, "chosen" on what are - all things being equal after other more basic empirical (evidential) and normative (rational & practical) justifications - essentially evaluative (existential) "grounds." All this considered, then, one might see very little legitimacy in any competing claims for denominational superiority within Christianity or even between the major traditions, for example, especially once considering that there are no a priori grounds for making such claims and that any a posteriori evidence would be of a sociologic nature and nothing our sciences could, presently, successfully adjudicate given the complex social and institutional realities in play (and nothing our denominations, as perennially pilgrim churches, would want to submit to given their often pervasively dysfunctional status, for example, vis a vis their successful institutionalization of Lonergan’s conversions). I guess this is to also suggest that, just because one is not religiously jingoistic does not mean she is also, then, an indifferentist. The essential teachings of Christianity certainly rely on a metaphysical realism, which is an epistemological outlook, but do not require the types of ontological specificities or metaphysical schools as many would seem to explicitly suggest or implicitly imply. It is enough to speak, phenomenologically, of our general phenomenal experiences and expectations when, for example, discoursing about deontological morality or contemplative spirituality, for the living of a good moral life and the growing of a good spiritual life do not require robustly metaphysical accounts regarding all manner of putative ontological continuities and discontinuities. At this stage of humankind’s journey, we are saying more than we can presently know if we insist on one metaphysical account or another in our interreligious dialogue or our moral deliberations. Such ontological claims are highly speculative and our derived de-ontological claims, regarding such as how we should behave or even pray, for example, should, therefore, be commensurately tentative. Any specific teachings and traditions

heavily invested in such claims, specifying, for example, all sorts of dual versus nondual realities, would necessarily be accidentals of the faith, not essentials. Clearly, some aspects of our creaturely reality, even if presently unknown, would be ontologically continuous with the Creator and univocally predicable of both creatures and Creator, otherwise questions would be left begging regarding how one reality could efficaciously effect another reality if related only by the weakest of analogies, i.e. metaphor? The East has something to say about this insight and how it leads to authentic solidarity and compassion. Clearly, the intersubjective aspect of our relationships between one another and our Creator affirm an aspect that is ontologically discontinuous? Clearly, we are then, in the broadest of phenomenological terms, quasi-autonomous and suspended in something like Bracken’s divine matrix of interrelated causes and effects, participating in a reality something like the Neo-Platonist conceptions of participation, perhaps unfolding in accord with Haught’s aesthetic teleology as per Hartshorne’s notions of nonstrict identity. The West has something to say about this insight and how it leads to authentic solidarity and compassion. It is silly to argue about which insight is the most profound or important. Which realization comes first or last likely has more to do with whether one was raised with Eastern or Western sensibilities and ways of engaging reality and much less to do with which insight is the loftiest, whether spiritually, theologically or epistemically. (And such arguments DO take place!) One practical upshot of this, below, is that I am somewhat reticent when it comes to a priori granting many distinctions full status as ontological dichotomies, while not at all denying that such distinctions might otherwise spring, quite authentically, from our collective phenomenal experiences. This is not to say that I a priori affirm or deny this or that dichotomy, dualism or nondualism; I'm only suggesting that obtaining such ontological specificity is highly problematical. More plainly, we are hesitant in applying such labels as natural and supernatural, secular and sacred, profane and holy, acquired and infused, material and spiritual, evidentialist or fideist, existential or propositional, objective or subjective, nature or grace, chance or necessity, reason or revelation, and so on. Phenomenally, of course, we simply must recognize the undeniable differences in the degrees of our realization of various relationships and values even as we prescind, ontologically, from any facile ascriptions of differences in origins vis a vis the above-listed distinctions and/or dichotomies. This applies, for example, to our relationship to the Holy Spirit. If something is lifegiving and relationship-enhancing and fosters intellectual, affective, moral, social and religious growth, my hermeneutical presupposition attributes same to a pneumatological dynamic. This is a fallibilistic default bias, an optimistic theological anthropology, always open to the possibility of being wrong. In my search for theological norms, I am led (way) beyond the magisterial, traditionalistic or authoritative teachings of Rome to a much broader normative sensibility that resonates, nonetheless, with a radical orthodoxy. Presently, my heart is with Rome (my native religion) but my head is with Canterbury. Due to my earlier immersion

in the early Fathers, Pseudo-Dionysius, the neoplatonists and medieval Franciscans (Francis, Bonaventure, Scotus) and then Merton and Rohr, my musings were discovered by others who labeled me an accidental peircean. As I further explore my theological sensibilities, it appears I am also, accidentally, radically orthodox. None of my thoughts seem to me to be novel, in the least, although my syntheses might be novel and a tad idosyncratic because, as an autodidact, I was not able to fully follow others' thoughts on their own terms but had a tendency to appropriate them and modify them to suit my own philosophical and theological agenda. I am pleased to have them engaged because they guide my life of worship, which is my life in community with humankind and the cosmos, and I value accountability to this community, whom I love with all my being. I hope this becomes a genuine assist to somewhat of a movement from 1) an ecclesiocentric exclusivism to 2) a Christological inclusivism to 3) a pneumatological inclusivism that is Christologically normed. The pneumatological inclusivism recognizes that the Spirit active in creation has gifted humankind with all that is necessary and sufficient to live a life of abundance. The 4) Christological norming, then, explicitly recognizes the otherwise implicit soteriological efficacies and incarnational realities that, when progressively appropriated into an ever more consciously competent awareness of said realities, leads the community, proleptically and eschatologically, into a life of superabundance (vis a vis value-realizations). 5) Any ecclesiocentric norming would then aspire to the most nearly perfect a) articulation of such truth through creed or dogma, b) celebration of such beauty thru cult or ritual, c) preservation of goodness through code and d) enjoyment of fellowship through communion, over against any facile syncretisms, insidious indifferentisms or false irenicisms. Of course, the Christological and ecclesiocentric elements can be bracketed for authentic dialogue, where there is so much that can be done on the pneumatological level. The epistemological aspect of this project has been abstracted into one document, which describes the essence of this epistemological architectonic as elucidated within a practical framework of formative spirituality. See document #1: Tetradic Fugues.doc The above document was mostly abstracted from document #2, which is jss_desideratum_12feb2009.doc , which further elucidates this exploratory heuristic as it might be applied, also, to philosophies of science, mind and religion, and a theology of nature. These two documents were largely abstracted from document #3, pansemioentheism.pdf , which is an assortment of notes, references and musings pertaining to this ongoing project, which describes a putative pansemioentheism, a pneumatological theology of nature. It provides a very detailed glimpse into this hermeneutic as it grew out of the autodidactic studies and meditations of a charismatic Franciscan

contemplative spirituality.

Christian Nonduality http://twitter.com/johnssylvest Bird Photos by David Joseph Sylvest johnboy@christiannonduality.com

Christian Nonduality

the Light Side of Dark Comedy NEW: Cathlimergent Internet Forum The Christian Nonduality Blog Home Radical Emergence Nonduality & the Emerging Church Emergence Happens When: To Avow & Dis-avow an Axiological Vision of the Whole Montmarte, Colorado Springs & the Kingdom Wanted: Women Warriors Maiden, Mother, Crone & Queen: archetypes & transformation East Meets West Ki, Qi, Chi, Prana & Kundalini No-Self & Nirvana elucidated by Dumoulin One: Essential Writings in Nonduality - a review Simone Weil John of the Cross Thomas Merton The True Self The Passion Hermeneutical Eclecticism & Interreligious Dialogue The Spirit Christian Nonduality more on Nonduality The Contemplative Stance Hesychasm Mysticism - properly considered Karl Rahner Wounded Innocence Rogation Days Radical Orthodoxy

re: Lebowski From the wiki: "According to screenwriter John Truby, when black comedy is used as a basis for a story's plotline, it involves a society in an unhealthy state and a main character wanting something which, for whatever reason, is not a thing that will be beneficial to himself or society. The audience should usually be able to see this for themselves, and often a supporting character within the story also sees the insanity of the situation. The main character rarely if ever learns a lesson or undergoes any significant change from the ordeal, but sometimes a relatively sane course of action is offered to them." In this genre, my favorite Coen brothers production was Oh Brother, Where Art Thou. In the same vein, we have M*A*S*H, Catch-22, Being There and Kurt Vonnegut's works. In such satire, hopefully, the discomfort provoked heightens one's awareness of "the sane course of action being offered." Perhaps one can thus glimpse the sanity, even, in the parody and satire of Lewis Black & Woody Allen? sometimes, if only in the manner in which our heightened sense of outrage & absurdity raises our sensitivity to what is indeed true, beautiful and good (e.g. like charitable interpretations of others' --- even militant , nonbelievers' --- possible woundedness, a pain which, not transformed, per Rohr, continues to be transmitted?). Â One can find good reasons --- to lighten up when it comes to dark comedy, to take the edge off the edgy, to not confuse cultural taboos with moral verities, to afflict the comfortable and not just comfort the afflicted. Despite what Kris sang, not everybody's got to have somebody to look down on, someone doing something dirty decent folks can frown on. The sane course of action is not to judge others but to discern one's own next good step. Tony deMello said: Leave others alone. Be compassionate. Bend the rules. Richard Rohr says, before speaking, ask: Is it loving? Is it true? Is it necessary? [oops][silence]

Christian Nonduality

No-Self & Nirvana elucidated by Dumoulin NEW: Cathlimergent Internet Forum

speaking of No-Self & Nirvana -

The Christian Nonduality Blog

my childhood home before and after Katrina

Home Radical Emergence Nonduality & the Emerging Church Emergence Happens When: To Avow & Dis-avow an Axiological Vision of the Whole Montmarte, Colorado Springs & the Kingdom Wanted: Women Warriors Maiden, Mother, Crone & Queen: archetypes & transformation East Meets West Ki, Qi, Chi, Prana & Kundalini No-Self & Nirvana elucidated by Dumoulin One: Essential Writings in Nonduality - a review Simone Weil John of the Cross Thomas Merton The True Self The Passion Hermeneutical Eclecticism & Interreligious Dialogue The Spirit Christian Nonduality more on Nonduality The Contemplative Stance Hesychasm Mysticism - properly considered Karl Rahner Wounded Innocence Rogation Days

An elucidation of Buddhism by Dumoulin with an assist from Peirce, Polanyi and Lonergan In my reading of Heinrich Dumoulin's Understanding Buddhism (Weatherhill, NY & Tokoyo, 1994) as translated and adapted from the German by Joseph S. O'Leary, I discovered possible resonances between my own Peircean-Nevillean inspired axiological epistemology, which opens to a Neo-Platonic, participatory ontology, and certain understandings of Buddhism as explicated by Dumoulin.

First, on the question of metaphysics, Dumoulin's observations seem to concur with those of my friend Jim Arraj, who writes: "It would probably by wrong, as well, to imagine that Zen Buddhism, or even the advaitan Vedanta is making any kind of ontological nondualist claims. Rather, they are trying to take into account a nondual experience, and sometimes their post-experience reflections can leave the impression that they are creating a nondual ontology. But they are not interested in philosophy in the Western sense, but rather, leading people to the experience, itself. The real question, which we will pursue later, is whether enlightenment is nondual in itself, or is presented in a nondual way because of the very means by which the enlightenment experience is attained. There should be no rush to judgment on the part of Christians as if they need to express Christianity in some nondual ontological fashion. This is not precisely what Zen Buddhists, and advaitan Hindus are doing.” Christianity in the Crucible of East-West Dialogue Dumoulin writes (emphasis my own): "Turning to the question of God, I shall dwell on the enigmatic silence with which the Buddha responded to metaphysical questions, and show that this can be seen as one of the several ways in which Buddhism gives witness to divine transcendence." (pg 2) He continues in the same vein:"Worldviews described as pessimistic are of three kinds: ontological, existential and theological. Pessimistic philosophies of the first kind --- nihilism or Manicheanism --- declare the being as such is empty of value and meaning, that the foundations of the universe are askew. The Buddhist diagnosis does not entail anything of this sort, for it either refrains from raising questions of metaphysical ontology, or it does so only in a soteriological context, and then answers them in a way that cannot be called pessimistic." I have conceived of epistemology in terms of four autonomous methodologies that are otherwise integrally related axiologically: descriptive, normative, interpretive and evaluative. Preliminarily, it seems that these roughly correlate to Wim Drees' definition of theology as a cosmology plus an axiology, where my descriptive and normative categories correspond to Drees' cosmological category and my interpretive and evaluative roughly correspond to his axiological. These categories also roughly correlate with the traditional categories of thelogical apologetics: evidential, rational, presuppositional (all cosmological) and existential (axiological). We need to dutifully employ such categories as these when parsing texts in interreligious dialogue in order to avoid facilely reductive interpretations of different traditions. In our realist approaches to reality, we can draw a further distinction, that between a methodological and pragmatic realism and a theoretical and metaphysical realism. Even our metaphysical realisms can be further distinguished as weak, moderate and strong, or as robustly descriptive versus vaguely referential. These realisms are primarily distinguished from a nominalism, which reduces all meaningful discourse to issues of nomenclature. Polanyi critiques nominalism by advancing his notion of a tacit dimension, which I like to describe as an ineluctably unobtrusive but utterly efficacious type of causation, such a causation as complements the efficient causation of the natural sciences with the minimalistically conceived formal and final causations of modern semiotic science. Lonergan critiques

nominalism, which he calls conceptualism, by drawing a distinction between our naming exercises, which correspond to his imperative to be intelligent, and our judging exercises, which follow his imperative to be reasonable. Peirce critiques nominalism with his category of thirdness, which recognizes the reality of law-like generalities (probabilities and necessities) beyond the mere categories of firstness (possibilities as predicates) and secondness (actualities as subjects). These are the types of distinctions that I sense are very much coming into play as we parse the text and disambiguate the concepts of Buddhism in order to properly engage them in comparative theology and contemplative dialogue. If Buddhism is not doing ontology, then what exactly is it claiming, soteriologically, when invoking such ideas as nirvana and the no-self? Dumoulin addresses both realities: He writes of nirvana: "Such reductive interpretations [of nirvana] cannot explain the language in which nirvana is evoked in radiant images of bliss, peace, security and freedom. The literal meaning of the word nirvana is extinction, but this can give a misleading impression. When the Buddha was asked about the state of the Perfected One after death, he pointed out that even in this life his state is "deep, immeasurable, unfathomable as is the great ocean. When the fire is quenched, one does not ask in which direction it has gone, east, west, north or south. This is not because the fire no longer exists, but because, as an Indian audience would have gathered, the fire has returned to a non-manifested state as latent heat. Likewise, the nirvanic state is beyond our grasp, but it is not nothingness." (pg 29) He continues regarding selfhood: "Modern Theravada Buddhism adopts no single clear stance towards the question of non-self and selfhood, and the complicated development of the Abhidharma philosophies impedes an unambiguous formulation. One both finds the denial of any kind of self, and the acceptance of a self. The position attributed to the Buddha himself rejects both nihilism (uccheda-ditthi) and substantialism (sassata-ditthi). The radical deniers of any kind of self can with difficulty avoid being found in a nihilistic position in the end, while the acceptance of a self leads easily to a substantialist metaphysics of being. The Buddha avoids both by his silence." (pg 37) My Childhood Homestead After Katrina

There is certainly a minimalist ontology of vague references, a

phenomenology, which the Buddha employs in these soteriological and pragmatic contexts. This does not, in my view, entail a denial of the self, existentially, only a deliberate prescinding from a robust description of the essential nature of the self, metaphysically. Not even a root metaphor like being can exhaust the reality of a human being, much less God. Cosmologically, or descriptively and normatively, the Buddha desists from saying more than one can know, from proving too much, from telling an untellable story. Axiologically, or interpretively and evaluatively, there is an inchoate opening to transcendence and a conditioning and prioritization of one's values as ordered toward both personal transformation and a profound compassion, which ensues from one's radical awakening to a deep solidarity with reality writ large. To wit, per Dumoulin: "The true self, as my act of existence, is trans-categorical, not graspable in concepts, ineffable. To actualize the true self, one must undergo a dying of one's ego. Such an experience of self is an experience of transcendence, an opening to absolute reality, though the transcendence is represented in an impersonal, cosmological language rather than a personal theological one." (pg 43) "This down-to-earth faith is far removed from the abstract pessimism which Westerners often associate with Buddhism. Thus the basic human experience, whereby one breaks through the bounds of the ego to open oneself to an all-embracing, protecting, and helping Power, works itself out in Buddhism in a distinctive style. Knowledge and nescience, transcendent faith and this-worldly confirmation, blend here in a rich varioety of forms." (pg. 63) "This defining ideal of Buddhism [compassion] is embodied in the Buddha, the bodhisattvas, and the Buddhist saints. The philosophical systems developed in Mahayna Buddhism were unable to provide a satisfactory philosophical illumination of this topic. Christian love, which has also found a convincing embodiment in countless lives, cannot be explained in philosophical terms either, though its foundations in divine transcendence are clear." (pg 86) Is Buddhism, then, transcending nominalist tendencies or reinforcing them? In my view, Buddhism, transcends nominalism pragmatically. First, there is a mountain, in its Peircean secondness, in actuality, in Lonergan's imperative to be attentive. Then, there is no mountain, as Lonergan's imperative to be intelligent critiques our conceptual formulations and choice of predicates as referenced in Peircean firstness or possibilities. Then, there is, once again, a mountain, pragmatically and phenomenologically, as we enjoy our second naivete' following Lonergan's imperative to be reasonable in our judgments of fact, as we affirm the Peircean thirdness in what Lonergan has called emergent probabilities. This reasonableness moves forward with the recognition that we do not have to have the essential nature of reality fleshed out in robustly metaphysical terms in order to navigate through reality realizing its manifold and multiform values, but can enjoy our value-realization pursuits with provisional closures and a contrite fallibilism. Buddhism honors Polanyi's tacit dimensionality in its affirmation of an ineffable transcendent reality. Perhaps no word better captures the Buddhist conception of our

human relationship to transcendent reality than participatory? While there can be no robust description of either the self or of transcendent reality in an unambiguous ontological language or system, both per Buddhism and my own take on metaphysics, neither can there be any doubt that the self is caught up in a universal relationality, extending beyond the empirical ego to the dimensions of the cosmos (pg 38). Dumoulin writes: "Interpreted thus [Great Self as no-self], the sense of being one with the cosmos is an acceptance of one's relative place in the total web of things." (pg 39) This participatory realization, however, does not grow out of a Buddhist cosmology, descriptively and normatively. It is, rather, an interpretive stance toward an experience, which conditions one's outlook on reality, evaluatively. Existentially and axiologically, then, one opens oneself to one's place in the web of existence and approaches reality with a radical acceptance, a deep okayness, a willingness to participate on reality's terms in order to further realize one's solidarity with the One and to express the profound compassion that necessarily ensues from this experience. Dumoulin discusses an East-West convergence of apophatic mysticism. It raises my own suspicions about a possible convergence of these participatory ontologies, both conceived vaguely:"Speaking of Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa and John Chrysostum: These great theologians provided a solid basis for the thought of PsuedoDionysius, who also drew heavily on the thought of the Neo-Platonist philosopher Proclus. Are the similarities between Eastern and Western mysticism due exclusively to a convergence on the level of spiritual experience, or was Christian negative theology prompted by an encounter with Asia? There has been much discussion of possible Indian influences on the Middle Platonic and Neo-Platonic ideas which these theologians had absorbed, particularly in connection with Plotinus's mysticism of the One. Emile Brehier spoke of the orientalism of Plotinus and of deep affinities between certain aspects of Plotinian doctrine and the Upanishads. It is hard to dismiss the belief that the stream of negative theology, preserved and expanded in Christian mystical thought down to the present time, has one of its sources in that distant encounter with a form of Indian spirituality closely related to Buddhism. Though the channels of interactions remain obscure, these early interactions between Eastern and Western spirituality are a haunting theme in the history of religions and loom in the background of the present encounter between Buddhism and Christianity." (pp. 5-6) Dumoulin closes: The Christian sees ultimate reality revealed in the personal love of God as shown in Christ, the Buddhist in the silence of the Buddha. Yet, they agree on two things: that the ultimate mystery is ineffable, and that it should be manifest to human beings. The inscription on a Chinese stone figure of the Buddha, dated 746, reads: The highest truth is without image. If there were no image at all, however, there would be no way for truth to be manifested. The highest principle is without words. But if there were not words at all, how could principle possibly be revealed?

__________________________________ our symbols reveal what they conceal & conceal what they reveal

Christian Nonduality http://twitter.com/johnssylvest Bird Photos by David Joseph Sylvest johnboy@christiannonduality.com

Christian Nonduality

NEW: Cathlimergent Internet Forum The Christian Nonduality Blog

"Awakening to beauty, truth, and goodness is to waken to the unfoldment of Divine Life within us." Thomas Keating “In philosophy classes we were told that there were three things that especially opened us to the Transcendent: the good, the true, and the beautiful.

Come join us as we again put together what was never really apart!” Richard Rohr “The philosophers are wrong, he [Scotus] argues; ordered love, not knowledge, defines and perfects human rationality. Human dignity has it foundation in rational freedom. In contrast to the philosophical, intellectualist model of human nature and destiny, the Franciscan offers and strengthens the Christian alternative, centered not merely on knowledge but on rational love. Throughout his brief career, Scotus works to put together a more overtly Christian perspective on the world, the person, and salvation that might stand up to this philosophical intellectual/speculative model and, by using the best of its resources, transcend it. The Franciscan tradition consistently defends a position wherein the fullest perfection of the human person as

Rogation Days Radical Orthodoxy Presuppositionalism vs Nihilism?

rational involves loving in the way God loves, rather than knowing in the way God knows. His position in this overall project can be best understood within Franciscan spirituality, which emphasizes the will and its attraction to beauty, love, and simplicity.”

Science

Ingham and Mechthild’s

Epistemic Virtue Pan-semioentheism: a pneumatological theology of nature Architectonic Anglican - Roman Dialogue The Ethos of Eros

The Philosophical Vision of John Duns Scotus We do well to learn from India’s very long history of reflection on God and gods, Goddess and goddesses, if we are to speak intelligently of the God in whom we believe and to whom we pray. Faith ought to be single-minded, but theology has a duty to be broad and ever more open to new learning.

Musings on Peirce

Francis X. Clooney, S.J.

Eskimo Kiss Waltz

America Blog, Teaching God at Harvard, Spring 2009

the Light Side of Dark Comedy

Blog Visits Other Online Resources Are YOU Going to Scarborough Fair? Suggested Reading Tim King's Post Christian Blog The Dylan Mass If You Are In Distress, Spiritual or Otherwise pending The Great Tradition properly conceived Postmodern Conservative Catholic Pentecostal

Fr. Richard Rohr OFM describes much of Buddhism as gifting one with “practices” and not “conclusions.” In this consideration, I’d like to open up the gift of this succinct insight and offer one interpretation of what this might mean for Christianity. The Advaita Vedanta and Bhakti schools of Hinduism, and the Mahayana school of Buddhism, are now the major (larger) schools of these great living traditions and all have prominent devotional elements. While the dualist and modified nondualist Vedantic schools are primarily associated with Bhakti thought, even the Advaitic school can be associated with devotional elements through its founder, Shankara. Even in Zen Buddhism (Mahayanan), both Chinese (Chan) and Korean (Soen) schools integrate devotional elements. What about the "reform" movement of the Japanese (Soto) school, which, by many accounts, does not so readily accommodate devotional elements? Some say this movement was rooted in the late 19th-early 20th Century Japanese nationalist tendencies, which both sought to differentiate itself from other schools in Asia and to support the country's militaristic approach. Others say the reform was a response to Zen's commercialization in Japan. Whatever the case may be, for manifold and varied historical reasons, the Japanese school lineages predominate in North America. To the extent that Japanese Zen lacks a governing body and a per se orthodoxy, unlike other Asian schools, it naturally lends itself to what would otherwise be considered heterodox adaptations, such as the emergent Christian Zen lineage. My purpose in providing this background is to dispel any facile misconception that Eastern spiritual practices writ large, even when otherwise associated with various nondualities, necessarily lack a robust relationality or are otherwise incompatible with devotional elements. This is also to suggest that Americans, who have been primarily exposed to the Soto school, may especially fall prey to caricaturizing what are in fact the largest and most predominant living traditions of the East based on what for them has otherwise been a very

narrow exposure to a "reform" element that turns out to otherwise be somewhat aberrant. I say this to affirm that, in my view, relationality is essential in all aspects of the life of the radically social animal known as Homo sapiens. I would argue that it is considered essential by most people in most all sects and denominations of the great traditions. It therefore seems likely that there is no, so to speak, “essential” Enlightenment experience for most people, neither East nor West, which is to suggest that most people, who undertake the ascetic disciplines and nondiscursive and/or apophatic meditative practices that can lead to experiences of absolute unitary being, cosmic awareness or even various energy arousals and awakenings, are already both formatively prepared and kataphatically situated in a devotional environs that is, more or less, conducive to an orderly unfolding of the psychic energies often associated with spiritual emergence such that they will not otherwise fall prey to what can be some very unsettling spiritual emergencies. This has profound implications for our inter-religious dialogue, especially as it pertains to our mutually enriching exchanges of spiritual technologies (ascetic and meditative practices), which might be a lot more adaptable (abstracted from doctrinal elements) between Eastern and Western traditions than one might first suspect, especially if only familiar with Japanese Zen as is the case with most Americans . Normatively speaking, this is to suggest that our emergent Christian Zen lineages need not feel compelled to turn away from devotional practices and may indeed want to more actively engage the many other schools of Hinduism and Buddhism precisely in search of their devotional modalities. Another problem in the West is the fact that there is an emergent pop-Advaitan and/or neo-Advaitan lineage that facilely engages Shankara's illuminative teachings while ignoring the founder's devotional practices. This can only exacerbate the misconceptions, hence misapplications, that arise from the already narrow and misguided view of the Eastern traditions. Thankfully, many Western and Christian Zen lineages do offer caveats regarding any such over-conceptualizations of Zen. At the same time, as Robert Sharf points out: "… there is a world of difference between issuing such warnings in a monastic environment where ritual and doctrinal study are de rigueur, and issuing such warnings to laypersons with little or no competence in such areas. In short, the Sanbokyodan has taken the antinomian and iconoclastic rhetoric of Zen literally, doing away with much of the disciplined ceremonial, liturgical, and intellectual culture of the monastery in favor of the single-minded emphasis on zazen and a simplified form of koan study." Sanbokyodan: Zen and the Way of the New Religions p. 427-428 Whatever the divergent ontological views of our many traditions, for the most part, in the East, there is a subtle distinction that is drawn between ultimate or absolute reality and phenomenal or practical reality, such that it is lost on many Westerners that various words/cognates, in fact, retain their conventional or pragmatic usefulness in a movement that, first, suspends our naive affirmations, then, subjects them to philosophical scrutiny and, finally, returns them back to their conventional understanding with deeper insights and with maybe a hygienic hermeneutic of suspicion. This insight and

hermeneutic does not cast suspicion with the skeptics on all matters unseen but instead invites us to go beyond (not without) our senses and reason to penetrate reality more depthfully. In Christianity, Richard of St. Victor thus informs the Franciscan tradition thru Bonaventure about the occulus carnis (eye of the senses), the occulus rationis (eye of reason), and the occulus fidei (eye of faith). This "eye of faith" is what Rohr refers to as the "third eye" and, consistent with Merton, it integrally takes us beyond our senses and reason but not without them. This conceptually maps fairly well, but not completely, over such as Jewish and Tibetan concepts of Third Eye seeing. Rohr often refers to knowledge through connaturality, which, per Maritain is knowledge through union or inclination, connaturality or congeniality, where the intellect is at play not alone, but together with affective inclinations and the dispositions of the will, and is guided and directed by them. It is not rational knowledge, knowledge through the conceptual, logical and discursive exercise of Reason. But it is really and genuinely knowledge, though obscure and perhaps incapable of giving account of itself, or of being translated into words. Rohr writes: “Contemplation is also saying how you see is what you will see, and we must clean our own lens of seeing. I call it knowing by "connaturality" (Aquinas), or knowing by affinity or kinship, it is the participative knowing by which the Indwelling Spirit in us knows God, Love, Truth, and Eternity. LIKE KNOWS LIKE, and that is very important to know. There definitely is a communion between the seer and the seen, the knower and the known Hatred cannot nor will not know God, fear cannot nor will not recognize love. Because this deep contemplative wisdom has not been taught in recent Catholic centuries, and hardly at all among Protestants, it is a great big lack and absence in our God given ability to know spiritual things spiritually, as Paul would say (1 Cor.2:13).” Clearly, then, Rohr advocates nonduality and not nondualism. The latter is a metaphysical proposition; the former is an epistemic method. In philosophy, we have recognized that methods can be successfully extricated from systems. In our East-West dialogue, we have recognized that some practices can be successfully extricated from their doctrinal contexts. Nonduality is a practice, a method, that can be successfully extricated from nondualism (as system or doctrine). In fact, it has a philosophical meaning vis a vis the false dichotomy fallacy that is quite independent of any Eastern traditions. That's the meaning employed by Rohr. Here’s a quote on the same theme from Pseudo-Dionysius: “Do thou, in the intent practice of mystic contemplation, leave behind the senses and the operations of the intellect, and all things that the senses or the intellect can perceive, and all things which are not and things which are, and strain upwards in unknowing as far as may be towards the union with Him who is above all being and knowledge. For by unceasing and absolute withdrawal from thyself and all things in purity, abandoning all and set free from all, thou wilt be borne up to the ray of the Divine Darkness that surpasses all being.” Christianity is recovering its mystical core via a neoplatonic-influenced dionysian logic. The classical emphasis has been on the dialectic between the apophatic and kataphatic, the former referring literally to what God is not, the latter an affirmation of what God is like, analogically. This has reduced all God-talk to metaphor and leaves a

question begging as to how there can be any causal efficacy between Creator and creatures with such a causal disjunction as is necessarily implied by such a weak analogy. The classical logic looks like this: 1) God is | x | is true analogically and kataphatically. 2) God is | not x | is true literally and apophatically. Dionysian logic breaks out of this dualistic dyad, going beyond it but not without it: 3) God is neither | x | nor | not x | is true unitively. This triadic perspective resolves the tension between the classical neoplatonic henosis, which refers to the dance between intersubjectivity and identity with ultimate reality, and dinonysian theosis, which refers to the growth in intimacy with ultimate reality, by affirming both an intraobjective identity between creature and Creator, in a panentheistic divine matrix of interrelated causes and effects, as well as an intersubjective intimacy between creature and Creator, the creature thus being quasi-autonomous. (auto = self) The practical upshot, then, which might be quite the essence (pun intended), of such a nondual perspective is that all may be well and that all are radically interrelated and this is true whether one is indeed an absolute monist, qualified monist, panentheist or classical theist. The theoretical rub would be ontological but all traditions, in fidelity to right speech, had better remain in search of a metaphysic at this stage on humankind's journey? For Rohr, I'd say the nondual refers mostly to an epistemic process, such as in Zen's dethroning of the conceptualizing ego in order to otherwise relate to some seeming contradictions, instead, as paradoxes, which might perdure as mystery, resolve dialectically, or even dissolve from a stepping out of an inadequate framework of logic or any other dispositions (or lack thereof) known to this paradox or another. This maps well with the broad conceptions of nonduality such as at Nonduality Salon and Wikipedia. Predominantly, though, Rohr affirms nondual thinking in an over against fashion as related to either-or thinking, i.e. false dichotomies, and as related to a failure to self-critique one's own systems and logical frameworks, as a failure, too, to affirm the rays of truth in other perspectives and traditions. It is a failure to move beyond the Law thru the Prophets to the Wisdom tradition, not to do away with them but to properly fulfill them. We can draw a distinction between Rohr's philosophical treatment or method of nonduality or nondual consciousness and the practice of contemplative prayer forms. The former is at the service of the latter, to be sure, but it is also at the service of all other value-realizations, as one should expect from a whole brain approach. Here we come full circle back to our consideration of the devotional elements that can be fruitfully employed in conjunction with any nondual approach, whether conceived from an epistemic and/or ontological stance. Rohr thus goes beyond any Mertonesque Zen-like formulations when he says that contemplation is a long, loving look at what really is. He writes: “Contemplation means returning to this deep source. Each one of us tries to find the spiritual exercise that helps us come to this

source. If reading the Bible helps you, then read the Bible. If the Eucharist helps, then celebrate the Eucharist. If praying the rosary helps, pray the rosary. If sitting in silence helps, just sit there and keep silence. But we must find a way to get to the place where everything is. We have to take this long, loving look at reality, where we don't judge and we simply receive. Of course, emptiness in and of itself isn't enough. The point of emptiness is to get ourselves out of the way so that Christ can fill us up. As soon as we're empty, there's a place for Christ, because only then are we in any sense ready to recognize and accept Christ as the totally other, who is not me.” (Simplicity revised from 1991, Crossroad Publishing 2003) In a nutshell, the general thrust of this whole brain approach is that, in order to have a relationship with your spouse in marriage, as was intended in creation, one has to approach one's spouse with more than words, logic, science, math, analytical skills and pragmatic considerations. One has to go beyond (NOT WITHOUT) these ways of knowing (Aquinas-like approach) to a knowledge that comes from love (Bonaventure's approach). One must enter a relational realm, in addition to the logical, empirical and practical realm. One must move beyond the language of math, philosophy, business & commerce, engineering and so on to learn the language of relationship, the grammar of assent, loyalty, fidelity, trust, faith, hope, love. We tend to eventually "get this" in marriage, or it dissolves (and half of all marriages do). There is reason to suspect, then, that "getting this" in our relationship with God is similarly problematical for most people. In the story of Malunkyaputta, who queried the Buddha on the fundamental nature of reality by asking whether the cosmos was eternal or not, infinite or not, whether the body and soul are the same, whether the Buddha lived on after death, and so on, the Buddha responded that Malunkyaputta was like the man who, when shot with an arrow, would not let another pull it out without first telling him who shot the arrow, how the arrow was made and so on. Thus the Buddha turns our attention to the elimination of suffering, a practical concern, and away from the speculative metaphysical concerns. This story of Malunkyaputta might thus help us to reframe some of our concerns, both regarding Buddhism, in particular, and metaphysics, in general. For example, perhaps we have wondered whether, here or there, the Buddha was ever 1) "doing" metaphysics or 2) antimetaphysical or 3) metaphysically-neutral. In fact, we might have wondered if the soteriological aspects of any of the great traditions were necessarily intertwined with any specific ontological commitments. In some sense, now, we certainly want to say that all of the great traditions are committed to both metaphysical and moral realisms. However, at the same time, we might like to think that, out of fidelity to the truth, none of our traditions would ever have us telling untellable stories, saying more than we know or proving too much. One interpretation of Malunkyaputta's story, then, might suggest that it is not that the Buddha eschewed metaphysics or was even ontologically neutral; rather, it may be that the Buddha just positively eschewed category errors. This would imply that the Buddha would neither countenance the categorical verve of yesteryear's scholastics

nor the ontological vigor of our modern fundamentalists (neither the Enlightenment fundamentalists of the scientistic cabal nor the radical religious fundamentalists, whether of Islam, Christianity, Zen or any other tradition). Thus we might come to recognize that our deontologies should be as modest as our ontologies are tentative, that we should be as epistemically determinate as we can but as indeterminate as we must, that we should be as ontologically specific as we can but as vague as we must and that our semantics should reflect the dynamical nature of both reality and our apprehension of same, which advances inexorably but fallibly. The Buddha seemed to at least inchoately anticipate this fallibilism and, in some ways, to explicitly preach and practice it. To the Buddha's point, then, regarding the no-self --- humankind, as a community of earnest inquiry, has no better grasp now than we did then of the ultimate nature of the cosmos or the soul. The Mahayanan Buddhists, and many in other traditions and schools, apparently have no problem dealing with the self in conventional, hence practical terms, whether in the temporal or celestial sphere, and have a lively devotional practice, affirming a robust inter-relationality vis a vis their pantheon of goddesses and gods, whom they worship, and all sentient beings, whom they offer karuna. They would thus seem to have no more trouble, practically speaking, in relating to "self" or "other" as a phenomenal experience than Westerners would have. Where they would have trouble is when, theoretically speaking, it comes to defining self using ontological categories, whether substantialist or process, essentialist or nominalist, in ways that would pretend to exhaustively comprehend primal reality. This, one might observe, is the type of trouble more Westerners should have. I am otherwise inclined, then, having some exposures to certain phenomenal experiences myself, not to interpret the no-self experience, ontologically, and instead associate the experience with what Jim Arraj calls the loss of the affective ego. As Arraj writes and I agree: “It would probably by wrong, as well, to imagine that Zen Buddhism, or even the advaitan Vedanta is making any kind of ontological nondualist claims. Rather, they are trying to take into account a nondual experience, and sometimes their postexperience reflections can leave the impression that they are creating a nondual ontology. But they are not interested in philosophy in the Western sense, but rather, leading people to the experience, itself. The real question, which we will pursue later, is whether enlightenment is nondual in itself, or is presented in a nondual way because of the very means by which the enlightenment experience is attained. There should be no rush to judgment on the part of Christians as if they need to express Christianity in some nondual ontological fashion. This is not precisely what Zen Buddhists, and advaitan Hindus are doing.” Christianity in the Crucible of East-West Dialogue It would be considered comical, if it were not otherwise so distressing, the way Advaitan accounts of absolute reality are manipulated in cyberforums and some popular literature, drawing the most absurd conclusions as they are misapplied to the practical considerations of our phenomenal experience, when conventional usage would otherwise indeed be the prescribed approach even for orthodox nonduality.

Arguably, even Shankara's philosophy need not be interpreted as an absolute monism, especially once taking into consideration its account of causation in phenomenal reality, which at least resembles Aristotle's vis a vis its teleological dimension, even if otherwise approaching Plato's idealist conceptions. The Advaitan ontology addresses causes and effects in sufficiently vague references and its epistemology is most notably triadic, wherein the pramana (sources of knowledge, Sanskrit) each form one part of a triputi (trio), which include the subject and object mediated by the cause or means of knowledge. There are thus inchoate traces of the ontological vagueness, epistemic indeterminacy and semantical versatility that have made their way through the West vis a vis such as the Dionysian logic of the Neoplatonists, Meister Eckhart's apophatic predications, Scotus' formal distinction, Peirce's triadic semeiotic and some postmodern criticisms. One might properly wonder if Hindu's Rita successfully refers to, even if it does not robustly describe, such regularities as Peircean Thirdness, deontological accounts of right and wrong, liturgical celebrations of ritual or other analogs, maybe even modalities, of the eternal Logos and Spirit at the mystical core of all of our traditions? Thus we might think of Hindu’s Dharma and Rita, Taoism’s Tao, Buddhism’s Dhamma, Judaism’s Torah and Christianity’s Pneuma & Logos. Toshihiko Izutsu poetically describes certain regularities that, in my view, demonstrate a tacit dimensionality that, like the Spirit, is ineluctably unobstrusive but utterly efficacious: "Listen! Do you not hear the trailing sound of the wind as it comes blowing from afar? The trees in the mountain forests begin to rustle, stir, and sway, and then all the hollows and holes of huge trees measuring a hundred arms’ lengths around begin to give forth different sounds. There are holes like noses, like mouths, like ears; some are (square) like crosspieces upon pillars; some are (round) as cups, some are like mortars. Some are like deep ponds; some are like shallow basins… However, once the raging gale has passed on, all these hollows and holes are empty and soundless. You see only the boughs swaying silently, and the tender twigs gentle moving." Sufism and Taoism, p. 368-369 Father Rohr spent five weeks, during Lent 2008, in a hermitage, in solitude. He spent this time reflecting and writing a new book, The Third Eye. On Easter Monday, he made a presentation of an outline of these thoughts. Fr. Rohr defines his conception of the Third Eye as derived from two 11th Century monks, Hugh and Richard of the Monastery of St. Victor in Paris. The flowering of this thinking in his Franciscan tradition, he tells us, took place in the 12th and 13th centuries. Although the metaphor is similar to the same concept of Hindu and Buddhist traditions, it is apparently independent of those in that there was no contact between those and this Christian conceptualization, which is talking about the eyes of 1) sense, 2) reason and 3) faith. Basically, Fr. Rohr is amplifying his teaching on contemplative living, which, in my view, continues to be heavily informed by his love of Thomas Merton. He makes frequent references to Merton, False Self and True Self and compares and contrasts them in many different ways, using many different adjectives and metaphors. Fr. Rohr likes the word “realization” and sees it as being richer than the word “experience” for he describes the robust encounter of God as a

“total body blow,” where not only head and heart are engaged but the body, too. Unfortunately, he says, we “localize knowing” and too often try to access God only in the top 3 inches of the body and only on the left side at that. This dualistic, binary or dyadic thinking, which we employ in math, science and engineering, or when we are driving a car, is of course good and necessary. It is the mind that “divides the field” into classes and categories and then applies labels through compare and contrast exercises. It is the egoic mind that is looking for control and order, but, unfortunately, also superiority. It can lead to both intellectual and spiritual laziness, however, to an egoic operating system (Cynthia Bourgeault), which views all through a lens of “How does it affect me?” The contemplative mind goes beyond the tasks of the dualistic mind to deal with concepts like love, mercy, compassion and forgiveness. It doesn’t need to “divide the field” for such tasks. The contemplative mind is practicing heaven in that it sees the Divine image as being “equally distributed” and present in all others. We see that presence, honor it and know it. The contemplative mind starts each moment with “yes.” It is vulnerable before the moment, opening “heart space.” It is present to people and does not put them in a box. So, in our primary level encounter with others, we do not prejudge. At the secondary and tertiary level, a “no” may be absolutely necessary. Once you know you can say “yes,” then it is important to be able to say “no,” when appropriate. Rohr makes clear, in his words, that we “include previous categories” and “retain what we learn in early stages.” Our goal, in his words, is to master both dualistic and nondualistic thinking. This matches my interpretation of the different perspectives engaged in the East, both the absolute and phenomenal. We must go beyond (not without) that part of our tradition that was informed mostly by Greek logic in order to be more open to paradox and mystery. Rohr described some of the early apophatic and nondual elements of the Christian tradition, especially in the first three centuries with the Desert Mothers and Fathers, especially in the Orthodox and eastern Christian churches, and describing John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila as the last supernovae. The apophatic and unknowing tradition has not been constant. For 400 years after these Carmelites there has been no real tradition. He credits Merton with almost single-handedly retrieving authentic contemplative teaching that has not been taught for almost 500 years. This type of mysticism, he, like Merton says, is available to all but it takes a type of humility to “let go of our control tower.” We and others are living tabernacles, even given the contrary evidence. That God dwells in us is the foundation of human dignity. Fr. Rohr discusses the Gift of Tongues in this contemplative vein and notes that when it died out, prayer-based beads emerged. He went on to discuss prayer beads in other traditions. Fr. Rohr notes that the East and West differ in that more emphasis is placed on discipline, practice and asceticism in the East, while, in the West, we emphasize surrender and trust. Bith East and West have elements of all of these approaches, of course. Our Christian path is more one of letting go and yielding of self. He believes that most of us, a very high percentage, have enjoyed unitive moments, but that there was no one there to say “that’s it.” He thinks that it would be useful to retrieve our contemplative tradition because we apparently need some degree of discipline or practice to

keep seeing and trusting our unitive moments, our union, our communion. The Spirit will thus teach us all things and re-mind you that you are in union with God, that you are select; you are chosen; you are beloved. We need to learn how to live in communion, now, for that is what we’ll enjoy in heaven. Fr. Rohr then describes practices that open up this contemplative mind: silence, stillness, solitude, patience about needing to know everything, poetry, art, body movement, music, humility and redemptive listening. He describes how we need to stand back and compassionately and calmly observe reality, without initial regard for how it affects us, but to see persons and events nakedly, seeing our drama almost as if it wasn’t us. If we cannot thus detach, then we are over-identified. Whenever we’re defensive, it is usually our false self. What characterizes an addict is typically all or nothing thinking. We do not hate the False Self. We must simply see it. It is not our “bad” self, just not our “true” self. We need to better learn to hold together opposites and contradictions. A modern retrieval of our ancient practices of contemplative seeing can foster this type of non-judging awareness. Rohr says that a master of nondual thinking needs to also be a master of dualistic thinking. The Catholic tradition has great wisdom in retaining icon and art and symbols and music. The primary teachers of this approach to God and others and all of reality are great love and great suffering. Our primary paths have been suffering and prayer. When head and heart and body are all connected, that is prayer. This, says Fr. Rohr, is not esoteric teaching. Everybody has the Holy Spirit! What appears to be the new theme emerging from Fr. Rohr’s latest thought is that of supplementing and complementing our traditional approach to belief-based religion with more practice-based religion. In particular, he sees great wisdom in retrieving those practices which have been lost or deemphasized that we can better cultivate a contemplative outlook. In prayer, we are like “tuning forks” that come in to God’s presence and seek to abide inside of a resonance with God. We need to set aside whatever blocks our reception, especially a lack of love or lack of forgiveness. And we need to embrace the gifts of the East, which, as Rohr properly recognizes, are “practices” and not “conclusions.” I see the Buddha smiling. May namaste, then, become more than a greeting but a way of life, as we look always and everywhere and in everyone for the pneumatological realities we profess herein. May our inter-religious stance be more irenic as we acknowledge the Spirit in one another with true reverence, in authentic solidarity and utmost compassion. A most fundamental aspect of the unqualified affirmation of human dignity would seem to be our nurturance of the attitude that all other humans come bearing an irreplaceable gift for us, that we are to maintain a stance of receptivity toward them, open to receive what it is they offer us through, with and in the Spirit. Whether the Magi were occidental or oriental, Jesus was receptive. When John offered baptism, Jesus was receptive. When Mary anointed his feet, Jesus was receptive. When invited to dine with tax collectors and prostitutes, Jesus was receptive. A critical gaze not first turned on oneself and one’s ways of looking at reality will have very little efficacy when it is otherwise habitually and arrogantly turned first on others. All of this is to observe that, beyond

whatever it is that we offer to the world as our unique gift, rather than always approaching our sisters and brothers as fix-it-upper projects in need of our counsel and ministry, sometimes the Spirit may be inviting us to listen, observe and learn from them in a posture of authentic humility and from a stance of genuine affirmation of their infinite value and unique giftedness. While our encounters of the Spirit may be manifold and varied from one phenomenal experience to the next, especially when situated in one major tradition versus another, we may be saying more than we know if we attempt to describe such experiences with more ontological specificity than can be reasonably claimed metaphysically or theologically, suggesting, for example, that such experiences necessarily differ in either origin or degree even if they otherwise differ, as might be expected, in other cognitive, affective, moral, social or religious aspects. More than semantics is at stake, here. We are not merely saying the same thing using different words when we draw such distinctions as between nature and grace, natural and supernatural, acquired and infused, existential and theological, immanent and transcendent; such explicit denotations also have strong connotative implications that might betray attitudes of epistemic hubris, pneumatological exclusivity or religious hegemony, which are clearly unwarranted once we understand that our faith outlooks are effectively evaluative. I say this because, in my view, our belief systems are otherwise, at best, normatively justified existentially after essentially attaining, minimally, an epistemic parity with other hermeneutics vis a vis our best evidential, rational and presuppositional approaches. While there are rubrics for discernment of where the Spirit is active and where humans are cooperative, they do not lend themselves to facile and cursory a priori assessments, neither by an academic theology with its rationalistic categorizing nor by a popular fideistic piety with its supernaturalistic religiosity, predispositions that tend to divide and not unite, to arrogate and not serve, with their vain comparisons and spiritual pretensions. Â "It is a serious thing, to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship, or else a horror and a corruption such as you now meet, if at all, only in a nightmare. All day long we are, in some degree, helping each other to one or other of these destinations. It is in the light of these overwhelming possibilities, it is with the awe and the circumspection proper to them, that we should conduct all our dealings with one another, all friendships, all loves, all play, all politics. There are no 'ordinary' people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilizations -- these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub and exploit -- immortal horrors or everlasting splendours. This does not mean that we are to be perpetually solemn. We must play. But our merriment must be of that kind (and it is, in fact, the merriest kind) which exists between people who have, from the outset, taken each other seriously â&#x20AC;&#x201C; no flippancy, no superiority, no presumption. And our charity must be a real and costly love, with deep feeling for the sins in spite of which we love the sinner -- no mere tolerance or indulgence which parodies love as

flippancy parodies merriment." C.S. Lewis __The Weight of Glory__ .

Christian Nonduality http://twitter.com/johnssylvest Bird Photos by David Joseph Sylvest johnboy@christiannonduality.com

Christian Nonduality

Emergence Happens When: NEW: Cathlimergent Internet Forum The Christian Nonduality Blog Home Radical Emergence Nonduality & the Emerging Church Emergence Happens When: To Avow & Dis-avow an Axiological Vision of the Whole Montmarte, Colorado Springs & the Kingdom Wanted: Women Warriors Maiden, Mother, Crone & Queen: archetypes & transformation

An archive of Tweets ♫♪♬♪♫♪♬♪♫ from twitter

East Meets West Ki, Qi, Chi, Prana & Kundalini No-Self & Nirvana elucidated by Dumoulin One: Essential Writings in Nonduality - a review Simone Weil John of the Cross Thomas Merton The True Self The Passion Hermeneutical Eclecticism & Interreligious Dialogue The Spirit Christian Nonduality more on Nonduality The Contemplative Stance Hesychasm Mysticism - properly considered Karl Rahner Wounded Innocence Rogation Days Radical Orthodoxy

Emergence Happens: when people are robustly self-critical, privilege the marginalized, can see beauty in ugly realities & are inclusive. Emergence Happens: when prophets are robustly self-critical, othodoxically, vis a vis their articulation of truth. Emergence Happens: when priests celebrate the beauty in ugly realities, orthopathically, vis a vis crux probat omnia. Emergence Happens: when kings privilege the marginalized, orthopraxically, vis a vis the preservation of goodness. Emergence Happens: when communities are inclusive in enjoying fellowship vis a vis orthocommunio. Emergent conversation is not elusive; beyond mere dialogue, it's metadiscourse, thus inherently vague/indeterminate, not specific. The essence of Emergent Meta-Discourse is the healthy negotiation & transcendence of dysfunctionally established boundaries & defenses. A preoccupation w/boundary establishment & defense reveals a sick identity structure for religious institutions focused on who's in/out. There can be healthy establishment & defense of boundaries (radical orthodoxy) in religious institutions that nurture self-criticality. Boundary establishment, defense, negotiation & transcendence integrally presuppose each other w/in healthy institutions. Dogma decays into dogmatism, ritual to ritualism, code to legalism and community to institutionalism w/ dysfunctional boundaries.

Presuppositionalism vs Nihilism? Science

When boundary dynamism is dysfunctional, conditions do not favor emergent realities.

Epistemic Virtue

Emergence introduces unpredictable novelty; it's epistemically & ontologically open.

Pan-semioentheism: a pneumatological theology of nature

The emergentist paradigm is only a heuristic device, placeholder for ideas, even in biosemiotics.

Architectonic Anglican - Roman Dialogue The Ethos of Eros Musings on Peirce Eskimo Kiss Waltz the Light Side of Dark Comedy Blog Visits Other Online Resources Are YOU Going to Scarborough Fair? Suggested Reading

Borrowing fr Peirce's semiotic: normative mediates between descriptive & interpretive to effect evaluative. Orthopathos mediates between orthodoxy & orthopraxy to effect orthocommunio. Boundary negotiation mediates between establishment & defense to effect transcendence. When boundaries are negotiated, are they authentic? suitably normed? do they foster robust transformation? Boundaries negotiated w/o various ortho-norms are ontologically open, indeed; false transcendence & quasi-liturgical emerge. Â

http://twitter.com/johnssylvest

Tim King's Post Christian Blog The Dylan Mass

If You Are In Distress, Spiritual or Otherwise pending The Great Tradition properly conceived Postmodern Conservative Catholic Pentecostal

Christian Nonduality http://twitter.com/johnssylvest Bird Photos by David Joseph Sylvest johnboy@christiannonduality.com

Christian Nonduality

Ki, Qi, Chi, Prana & Kundalini NEW: Cathlimergent Internet Forum The Christian Nonduality Blog Home Radical Emergence Nonduality & the Emerging Church Emergence Happens When: To Avow & Dis-avow an Axiological Vision of the Whole Montmarte, Colorado Springs & the Kingdom Wanted: Women Warriors Maiden, Mother, Crone & Queen: archetypes & transformation East Meets West Ki, Qi, Chi, Prana & Kundalini No-Self & Nirvana elucidated by Dumoulin One: Essential Writings in Nonduality - a review Simone Weil John of the Cross

Rather than treat these so-called energies, specifically, for there is much written elsewhere, let me raise another issue from a wider perspective. Much of the thrust of the epistemological approach advocated throughout this website has been directed at the need to prescind from robustly metaphysical accounts of reality to more vaguely phenomenological perspectives, precisely to avoid saying more than we know, to refrain from telling untellable stories --- or, quite simply, to avoid certain dogmatisms and gnosticisms (as well as a host of other insidious -isms or epistemic vices).

Presuppositionalism vs Nihilism? Science

should be no a priori dismissal of their efficacies, especially when legitimate research remains underway due to the global ubiquity of this or that technology; such a dismissal would, itself, be gnostic!

Epistemic Virtue Pan-semioentheism: a pneumatological theology of nature Architectonic Anglican - Roman Dialogue The Ethos of Eros Musings on Peirce Eskimo Kiss Waltz the Light Side of Dark Comedy Blog Visits Other Online Resources Are YOU Going to Scarborough Fair? Suggested Reading Tim King's Post Christian Blog The Dylan Mass If You Are In Distress, Spiritual or Otherwise pending The Great Tradition properly conceived Postmodern Conservative Catholic Pentecostal

In any case, practitioners should be more clear, in their employment of related terminology, like chakras and ki and kundalini, that these words are being employed as general concepts corresponding to real life experiences (various constellations of experiences and symptoms in association with specific practices that recur in noticable patterns that merit investigation) of millions of people that are to best be understood as vague phenomena, which are still being researched by science, and not rather as specific terms, which are heavily invested in gnostic metaphysics. Such a distinction is easy enough to make and quite valid. References to energy paradigms should not be taken literally but claims regarding these patterns of experience deserve to be taken seriously. Gosh knows, Christianity's had its own problems with gnostic metaphysics, for example, interpreting life, gender and sexual realities in rationalistic categories little resembling, and thus not well corresponding to, the lived experiences of the faithful. Some of its teachers would do well to take their own counsel and guidelines (http://www.usccb.org/dpp/Evaluation_Guidelines_finaltext_200903.pdf). All of our deontologies should be as modest as our ontologies are tentative, both East and West. And, if one's ontology is not tentative, then, one is way out in front of science, themselves.

To be more clear in the practical implications of my view: a redacted excerpt from recent (April 2009) correspondence with a friend who's a Reiki practitioner: The way I like to approach this is to say that we can appropriate reiki, like so many other wonderful spiritual technologies of the East, as a practice, as an exercise, as a ritual. This is true of other meditative practices, yogic exercises and so on, all of which are being actively researched by the NIH-CAM precisely because of the efficacies reported by MILLIONS. Science does not have to fully understand what is going on with, for example, acupuncture, in order for it to be efficacious. Gosh knows, this is true for most psychoactive pharmaceuticals where we can only speculate about the precise mechanisms of action. So, my position is to continue to prayerfully minister and practice all of these time-honored Eastern technologies and to situate them within one's Christian worldview while refraining from characterizing them in precise physical and/or metaphysical terms. We do not need to know HOW something works in order to discover THAT it works. It is enough to say that science does not fully understand; we do not need to offer any physical or metaphysical hypotheses along with our treatments; only our loving intentionality. When I speak of kundalini or reiki (both of which I have experienced), I consider them realities yet to be explained. I have experienced phenomena associated with certain "practices." I don't feel a need to label these metaphysically even as I cannot account for them scientifically. So, I actually agree with the bishops that it would be gnostic or superstitious to make definitive metaphysical assertions about the putative reality of chakras, life forces or subtle energies. I adamantly disagree and am saddened that they do not avail themselves of such distinctions as I've proposed, whereby we can successfully abstract spiritual

technologies -- useful rituals, devotionals, practices and exercises - from their classical metaphysical accounts and enjoy the many efficacies that flow therefrom, as attested by you and so many other people of large intelligence and profound goodwill and actual experience, which they ignored.

Christian Nonduality http://twitter.com/johnssylvest Bird Photos by David Joseph Sylvest johnboy@christiannonduality.com

Christian Nonduality

Epistemic Virtue NEW: Cathlimergent Internet Forum The Christian Nonduality Blog Home Radical Emergence Nonduality & the Emerging Church Emergence Happens When: To Avow & Dis-avow an Axiological Vision of the Whole Montmarte, Colorado Springs & the Kingdom Wanted: Women Warriors Maiden, Mother, Crone & Queen: archetypes & transformation East Meets West Ki, Qi, Chi, Prana & Kundalini

I have gathered different views from diverse sources, below, some pertaining to revealed and natural

No-Self & Nirvana elucidated by Dumoulin

theology, some addressing faith and reason, others speaking to the reality of contemplation, all integrally

One: Essential Writings in Nonduality - a review

and holistically conceived. What these authors say about one dyad, in my view, can justifiably be said

Simone Weil

about the others. I have gathered these materials in support of a notion I may choose to defend one day,

John of the Cross Thomas Merton The True Self The Passion Hermeneutical Eclecticism & Interreligious Dialogue

which is that contemplation, broadly conceived, is the highest form of epistemic virtue and, as such, is the illuminative beacon that might best guide both mystic and scientist in their encounter with reality,

The Spirit

proximate and ultimate. As for any distinctions between natural and theological virtue, acquired/active and

Christian Nonduality

passive contemplation, that is not treated here.

more on Nonduality The Contemplative Stance

1) Natural religion and positive religion, we have argued, do not exist except in a relationship of mutual

Hesychasm

dependence. Consequently, both are legitimately alleged in the service of

Mysticism - properly considered

mutual critique, lest both cease

Karl Rahner

to be religion and lest both end up distorting true humanity.

Rogation Days

Do natural religion and positive religion have equal standing in the relationship? In other words, is the

Radical Orthodoxy

relationship between the two symmetrical? Or are they related

Wounded Innocence

Presuppositionalism vs Nihilism?

asymmetrically--- that is to say, by way of a

Science

hierarchical relationship?

Epistemic Virtue

... any hierarchy occurs, not between two separable elements, but

Pan-semioentheism: a pneumatological theology of nature

between two distinguishable moments

that are related to each other by way of mutual interpenetration. The attribution of hierarchical superiority

Architectonic Anglican - Roman Dialogue

to one, therefore, does not entail the attribution of a separate existence to it.

The Ethos of Eros

F.J. van Beeck, __God Encountered__ pp 108-09

Musings on Peirce Eskimo Kiss Waltz the Light Side of Dark Comedy

2) ... even though theology, as instanced by Aquinas and Rahner, has traditionally opened the systematic

Blog Visits

exposition of the Christian faith by an analysis of natural religious knowledge, this has never served to

Other Online Resources

deny that the Christian faith is epistemologically prior.

Are YOU Going to Scarborough Fair?

F.J. van Beeck, __God Encountered__ pp 139

3) Augustine examines numerous vestigia trinitatis, or, structures in the human mind that parallel the divine

Trinity. Viewed in this way, the treatise's epistemological claim is that because we are like God, we can come to knowledge of God by looking at ourselves. There are numerous objections counting against this reading, however. One immediate reason to reject this interpretation of the vestigia's function is that Augustine explicitly

denies one can extrapolate from the natural world to God. ... ... Second, he is aware of the difficulties inherent in extrapolation from creation to God, because of the profound difference between the Uncreated and the created. A.N. Williams, "Contemplation," __Knowing the Triune God__ edited by Buckley & Yeago, pg. 122 The vestigia, then, are a tool for penetrating belief and grasping it yet more fully, not a means for

establishing the contents of faith independently of, or prior to, Scripture. pg 123 Here we see the distinctiveness of Augustine's epistemology: to know God certainly entails mastery of

information, but it also entails personal contact. pg. 130 The inseparability of knowledge and love in the De Trinitate testifies to Augustine's holistic anthropology:

there is no possibility of the true engagement of one human faculty with God in the absence of the

engagement of the whole person. pg. 130 His point is not so much that human beings resemble God --- as we have seen, he is as acutely aware of the

ontological divide as any other Christian thinker --- but that what is inseparable in God must also be inseparable in us. The vestigia provide not a lesson in anthropology or natural theology, but in

epistemology. Specifically, they make the claim that the knowledge and love of God are as inseparable as

the persons of the Trinity. ... A second way of asserting the unity of knowledge and love is to point to the

unity of human nature itself ... pp. 134-5 ... the status of contemplation in Augustine's thought is ambiguous, seeming to belong exclusively neither

to activity nor to product. ... No more does contemplation belong exclusively either to the intellect or to the

will. pg. 138 ... implicitly, it also states a relation between spheres of Christian life that have in our time been sundered from one another. Because personal apprehension of God must include both knowledge and love,

Augustine's epistemology indicates that we cannot separate theology from spirituality as we have done

increasingly since the Enlightenment. pg. 143 Contemplation is neither the statement of a set of postulates discovered by the assiduous effort of the

human mind, nor some sort of doctrinally denuded reverie. pg. 144 The contemplative character of theology points to not only a disciplinary, but an existential unity. Just as the contemplation that is theology cannot be separated from the contemplation that is prayer, so an authentically Christian existence consists in a unity, in virtue of which this life is inseparably wedded to the next. pg. 147 4) At this point I touch upon complex issues in metaphysics and epistemology about the relationship between the lives we lead and the beliefs we hold. As Bruce Marshall suggests, our thinking about the

relations between "teaching" and "practice" is interwoven in complex ways with our convictions about

the triune God who creates us and saves us in Word and Spirit. That is, "[o]nly the Spirit whom Jesus sends from the Father can teach us to recognize in the narratively identified Jesus the Father's own icon, and to

interpret and assess all of our beliefs accordingly." And the "school in which the Spirit teaches us these

hard won skills" is the Church. But the schooling is not just schooling in such teachings or beliefs (e.g.,

from catechism classes at home and in local congregations to college,

university and seminary seminars). It is such schooling only as we learn to engage "in a rich and distinctive array of practices and attitudes,

including worship and prayer in the name of the triune God, and love of neighbor after the pattern of Christ." James J. Buckley, "The Wounded Body," __Knowing the Triune God__ edited by Buckley & Yeago, pg. 221 5) And because the intellectualism that James deplored has done at least as much damage in theology and

in philosophy, we can wholeheartedly welcome his insistence that reality is richer than reflection; that it

is not by pure reason alone that we can take our bearings and find our way (quite apart from the fact that

reason is never as pure, as devoid of passion and particular interest, as its advocates suppose it to be); that quality of feeling is no less important to our well- being than quality of argument ...

Nicholas Lash, _Easter in Ordinary__, pg 86 It is these disjunctive contrasts and, with their aid, the confining of the territory of the personal to the realm of the individual, private feeling and emotion, which renders the Jamesian account at once so seductive and so dangerous. The situation is not lacking in tragic irony. By calling us back from the death-dealing rigidity of institutional order, and from the divisiveness of intellectual debate, to some primordial realm of pure experience in which the individual may "apprehend" himself to "stand in relation" to that "continuum of consciousness" of which we each form part, James sought to secure firm foundations for religious truth, prospects for progress, and a basis for social harmony. And yet, the foundations turn out to be nothing firmer than the fragile optimism of an excited ego entertaining dubious hypotheses concerning the paranormal. pg. 88 ... a context in which the account given of what it is to be in relation to God was not locked into feeling at the expense of thought, or into private individual states of mind at the expense of public behavior and

intersubjective patterns of thought and inquiry. It would, finally, be a context in which --- if the

distortions of intellectualism (in James' sense) are to be avoided --- the heart is known to be no less

important for the attainment of truth than the head, and in which the test

bed of truth is acknowledged

to be experience. pg. 105 ... it is when such distinctions are hardened into dichotomies that the trouble starts: for when did you last

find yourself simply "feeling," without the slightest play or engagement of the mind, or simply

"thinking," without the slightest interest, excitement or distaste? pg. 134 If, for von Hugel, the essence of the scientific method is to be found ( as we shall see) in the submission of all claims whatsoever to empirical testing, then the "essence of Christianity" is, for him, to be found in the

revelation of "personality" and in the fostering and production of "persons." ... ... Christian experience, on this account, is experience of participation in what we might call a school for the production of persons.

pg. 148 Reacting rather sharply to what he calls my "unremitting attack on positive analogy," Brown appeals to Wittgenstein's remark that, logically "positive and negative descriptions are on the same level" with negative propositions presupposing positive ones and vice versa. ... ... I accept the warning that the way of negation is misused if it serves, in practice, to furnish us with just the kind of information about God the

possibility of which it in principle denies. This is not, however, the moral that he himself draws from this warning. "Precisely because negatives are so often simply disguised positives," he says, " the only really 'disciplined way of unknowing' is to admit that one can say nothing at all." pg. 233 It follows that we have, as Christians, no ultimate explanations; that there are, for us, no final solutions. The Christian, says Rahner, "has less 'ultimate' answers which he could throw off with a 'now the matter's clear' than anyone else." And when he say that "all human knowing ... is enfolded in an incomprehensibility

which forms an image of the divine incomprehensibility where God reveals himself as the one without a name," he means, I think, that it is in living in "holy insecurity," in openness to each other and

all truth, not as possessors or centers of the world, that we become, in some measure, the "image of the imageless one." pg. 240 God is not, of course, an object in space and time nor is he, for that matter, an object "outside" of space and time (whatever that would mean). Nevertheless, if God is not a figment

of our imagination, if it is truly "in relation" to his incomprehensible mystery that we, and all things, exist and have their being, then, in our

worship of God, our address to God, we may (and do) make mention of him. Except, therefore, on a purely expressivist account of our use of the term, such mention as we make of God in worship has cognitive

implications: it entails the conviction that there is something that we can truly say "about" God. In

other words, even if the "nature" of God is unknown to us, because we cannot understand God, cannot grasp him in concept or image, cannot render his mystery comprehensible, we may perhaps, nevertheless,

in relation to him, living in his presence and responding to his address, successfully refer to God, make

true mention of him. ... It therefore follows, from this distinction between reference and description, that

not all questions concerning the possibility of true speech about God are questions concerning the possibility of offering true descriptions of God. pg. 257 And although such a view is very ancient, for the "notion of regulae fidei goes back to the earliest Christian

centuries," the novel element in Lindbeck's proposal is that on his view the regulative function "becomes the only job that doctrines do in their role as church teachings." ... Lonergan's work in this area has been

criticized for handling the historical evidence to woodenly and schematically, and, according to Avery Dulles, Lindbeck's theory of doctrines "unduly minimizes [their] cognitive and expressive import." The legitimacy of these criticisms can be accepted without (as it seems to me) undermining the central contention that the primary function of Christian doctrine is regulative rather than descriptive. pg. 260

It is time to go back to the beginning and to consider, once again, how we might move beyond or "transcend" autonomy without taking flight into either feeling or thought. The suggestion is that we can

do so through conversion, through the awakening of basic trust, the actualization of "relation," the

occurrence of community. ... ... In all relationship, all friendship, all community, there is an element of

risk, because the grammar of relationship is trust rather than control, vulnerability rather than

domination. ... .... the second difference does not lie between fact and feeling, or between word and idea,

but rather between "address" and "presence," clarification and community. pg. 281

Autodidact and polymath, von Hugel, for all his erudition, was not a specialist in any one particular academic discipline. Everything that came his way was grist to his mill, and it seems likely that his tendency to lumber, like some unchained beast, across the neatly cordoned gardens of academic specialization, partly accounts for the neglect from which he has suffered ..." pg. 143 [talking about johnboy here? ouch!] 6) There is no reason in principle ... to think that nonfoundationalist philosophy could not prove helpful in illuminating Catholic commitments on any number of issues, especially the proper relationship between faith and reason. John E. Thiel, _Senses of Tradition_, pg. 121 7) Janet Soskice makes the point well: "To be a realist about the referent is to be a fallibilist about

knowledge of the referent ... So the theist may be mistaken in his beliefs about the source and cause of all

... for fixing a referent does not on this account guarantee that the referent meets a particular description." Christopher Mooney, _Theology and Scientific Knowledge_, pg. 17 "Rational argument in theology," says Ian Barbour, "is not a single sequence of ideas, like a chain that is as weak as its weakest link. Instead, it is woven of many strands, like a cable many times stronger than its strongest strand." pg. 17 Here we have a source of knowledge that readily acknowledges the theological implications of both a weak and strong anthropic principle, whatever its value for science. What we must be clear about is that these theological implications have not one but two epistemological lines --lines that are distinct in principle, with radically different sources, subject matter and modes of inquiry. Hence there is no question of casting disparate data into a single mode, either deducing a divine creative and salvific action in Jesus Christ from the anthropic arguments of science or finding in Christian revelation information about the physical structure and specific history of the world. ... ... There is an apt analogy here: these data are like two meridians on the sphere of the Christian mind. Because Christians believe God to be the source of each, the two can be examined critically at the equator for signs of both

their present consonance and their possible future convergence at some pole of common vision. pg 63 ... whatever science can tell us about the structure and behavior of matter in the universe is of immense importance for theology, insofar as it provides insight into how God has actually been acting creatively in the realms of mater and energy. Christian revelation by itself says nothing about these specific realms, yet whatever science discovers about them, provisional though it may be, belongs to the totality of human knowledge within which Christian faith must be lived. This is why the full anthropic principle in its two versions can have such illuminative power as a methodological tool for Christian scientists and theologians. On the meridian of science, the principle says not only that the emergence of intelligent life on earth depended on all the finetuning extending back to the Big Bang; it also suggests that the fact of intelligence in the universe actually requires that all of these delicately balanced laws of nature be exactly as they are. The principle as a scientific principle thus provides data otherwise lacking on the meridian of theology, where Christians believe they already know about God's design of the cosmos for human life, but have no idea how God has actually gone about this designing process. While neither meridian's data depend upon those of the other, the thoughtful Christian can obviously draw insight into reality from both. ... ... The thoughtful scientist, on the other hand, might possibly as a scientist do the same. For if there was in fact a Big Bang, as is generally accepted in science today, then this looks a lot like the act of a creator such as the one Christians (and others) have always believed in; or, minimally, it is not incompatible with this belief. pg 64 8) It is not just a matter of observation, but of realization. It is not something abstract and general, but

concrete and particular. It is a personal grasp of the existential meaning and value of reality. Thomas

Merton, __The Inner Experience__, pg 60 Contemplation does not back away from reality or evade it. It sees through superficial being and goes beyond it. This implies a full acceptance of things as they are and a sane evaluation of them. The

"darkness" of the contemplative night is not a rejection of created things. On the contrary, the

contemplative in some way finds and discovers things as they really are, and enjoys them in a higher way

when he rises above contacts with them that are merely sensual and superficial. ... The neurotic, on the other hand, cannot accept reality as it is. He withdraws into himself and, if he sees things at all, sees only that aspect of them which he can bear to see, and no other. Or at least he tries to. pg 111 9) This is why Merton tells us over and over again that contemplation is a state of heightened consciousness. "Contemplation," he writes, "is the highest expression of man's intellectual and spiritual

life. It is life itself, fully awake, fully awake, fully active, full aware that it is alive." One is reminded of

Evelyn Underhill's words: "Only the mystic can be called a whole man, since in others half the powers of

the self always sleep." William Shannon, __Something of a Rebel__, pg. 78 10) According to John Cassian, liturgical prayer bursts forth in a wordless and ineffable elevation of the mind and heart which he calls "fiery prayer"--- oratio ignita. Here the "mind is illumined by the infusion of

heavenly light, not making use of any human forms of speech but with all the powers gathered together in

unity it pours itself forth copiously and cries out to God in a manner beyond expression, saying so much in

a brief moment that the mind cannot relate it afterward with ease or even go over it again after returning to itself. Thomas Merton, __Contemplative Prayer__, pg. 47 11) I accepted the Cogito ergo sum with less reserve than I should have, although I might have had enough

sense to realize that any proof of what is self-evident must necessarily be illusory. If there are no selfevident first principles, as a foundation for reasoning to conclusions that are not immediately apparent, how can you construct any kind of philosophy? If you have to prove even the basic axioms of your metaphysics, you will never have a metaphysics, because you will never have any strict proof of anything, for your first proof will involve you in an infinite regress, proving that you are proving what you are proving and so on, into the exterior darkness where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth. [johnboy notes that Merton exhibits a little cartesian anxiety here, which does not impress nonfoundationalists.]

Thomas Merton, __The Seven StoreyMountain__, pg.84 12) First of all, the contemplative life demands detachment from the senses, but it is not a complete

rejection of sense experience. It rises above the level of reasoning; yet reasoning plays an essential part in the interior ascesis without which we cannot safely travel the path of mysticism. Mystical prayer rises above the natural operation of the intelligence, yet it is always essentially intelligent. Ultimately, the highest function of the human spirit is the work of the supernaturally transformed intelligence, in the beatific vision of God. Nevertheless, the will plays an integral part in al contemplation since there is, in fact, no contemplation without love. Love is both the starting point of contemplation and its fruition. ... ... Furthermore, contemplation presupposes ascetic action. By this interrelation of the work of intelligence, will, and the rest of our being, contemplation immolates our entire self to God. Thomas Merton, __The Ascent to Truth__, pg. 13 Therefore, it must be made quite clear that traditional Christian mysticism, although it is certainly not intellectualistic in the same sense as the mystical philosophy of Plato and his followers, is nevertheless neither antirational nor anti-intellectualistic. ... ... The Church does not seek to sanctify men by

destroying their humanity, but by elevating it, with all its faculties and gifts, to the supreme perfection

which the Greek Fathers called "deification." pg. 16 Fearing that domestic peace is no longer possible, faith barricades itself in the attic, and leaves the rest of the house to reason. Actually, faith and reason are meant to get along happily together. pg.33 ... secular philosophers seem unable to make up their minds whether or not there are such things as law of contradiction or of causality, although they live in the midst of scientific developments that bear witness to both these fundamental principles of thought. ... ... Not that they don't have brilliant or well-trained minds, but in their approach to ultimate metaphysical problems their minds are all but paralyzed by a philosophical equipment that is worse than ineffectual: it leaves them in doubt as to the nature of being, of truth, and even sometimes of their own existence. ... ... On that level, we are not dealing with faith, but with the rational preambles to faith. pg. 37

... ... faith has, for its material object, truths which are so profound and which so far exceed our intelligence that they are called --- and in the highest sense--- mysteries. It is quite obvious that these truths are not easy to understand and that they present tremendous intellectual difficulty. However, it is not at all true to say that the mysteries of faith are unintelligible or that their intelligibility does not matter. pg. 42 We receive enlightenment only in proportion as we give ourselves more and more completely to God by humble submission and love. We do not first see, then act; we act, then see. ... ... And that is why the

man who waits to see clearly, before he will believe, never starts on the journey. pg. 48 ... ... St. John of the Cross regarded the First Commandment as a summary of the entire ascetical and mystical life, up to and including Transforming Union. He tells us in fact that his works are simply an explanation of what is contained in the commandment to "love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy strength." He writes: "For herein man is commanded to employ all his faculties and desires and operations and affections of his soul in God so the ability and strength of his soul may

serve for no more than this." pg. 55 To sum up: our abstract considerations of false mysticism have shown us that all false mysticism misconceives the proper roles of knowledge and love in contemplation, as well as the essence of

contemplation itself. pg. 72 It is not so much the presence of concepts in the mind that interferes with the "obscure" mystical illumination of the soul, as the desire to reach God through concepts. There is therefore no question of

rejecting all conceptual knowledge of God but of ceasing to rely only on concepts as a proximate

means of union with Him. pg. 89 According to this false view the phenomenal world, the body with its senses, language, concepts, logic,

the reasoning mind, the will that is moved by love --- all must be silenced and rejected. ..... ... The kind

of asceticism that literally seeks to destroy what is human in man in order to reduce the spirit to an innate element that is purely divine is founded on a grave metaphysical error. The gravity of that error ought to be immediately apparent from the very fact that man's spiritual and

psychological health depends on the

right order and balance of his whole being --- body and soul. pg. 109 The passage from philosophical understanding to faith is marked by a gift of ourselves to God. The moment of transition is the moment of sacrifice. The passage from faith to that spiritual understanding which is called contemplation is also a moment of immolation. It is the direct consequence of a more complete and radical gift of ourselves to God. pg. 116 In other words, grace does not destroy nature, but elevates it and consecrates it to God. Men do not

becomes saints by ceasing to be men. ... ... Reason must serve us in our struggle for perfection. But it does not fight under its own standard. Reason alone is not our captain. It is enlisted in the service of faith. ... ... The great paradox of St. John of the Cross is that his asceticism of night cannot possibly be practiced

without the light of reason. It is by the light of reason that we keep on traveling through the night of

faith. pg. 155 St. John of the Cross aims at nothing more or less, in his asceticism, than the right ordering of man's whole being ... ... "The soul that is perfect is wholly love ... all its actions are love, and it employs all its

faculties and possessions in loving." pg. 157 Let me explain in a way that ought to be acceptable even to those who secretly lament the fact that they do not have infinite stomachs, in order to devour all the fried chicken in the universe. You cannot gain the possession of all the being and all the goodness contained in all the food in the world by grimly sitting down to the task of eating everything in sight. Despite the ambitions of Gargantua, our bodies are not equipped for this feat. ... ... Nevertheless, all the reality that exists, and all the goodness of everything that exists and is good, can be spiritually tasted and enjoyed in a single metaphysical intuition of being and goodness as such. The clean, intellectual delight of such an experience makes all of the inebriation procured by wine look like a hangover. pg. 197 The true fulfillment of reason as a faculty is found when it can embrace the truth simply and without labor in the light of a single intuition. pg. 204 We have seen that in the natural order our knowledge proceeds from the intuitive grasp of a few selfevident first principles, through a process of discursive reasoning on the

evidence of sense experience, to conclusions in which the mind rests, once again, in intuition. It is the same in the order of faith. When we begin, the first principles of our belief are apt to be vague and cold to us, because we cannot see below their surface. ... ... Now, as Aristotle somewhere says, when a man is learning to play a harp he has to think of every movement he makes. He is conscious of the distinct effort to find each proper note and to strike the right string. But when he is a proficient player, he no longer is aware of what he is doing with his fingers. His mind is not concerned with each separate movement to be made. His hands move easily over the strings as though by instinct, and the mind of the musician is no longer concentrated on technical details but loses itself in the enjoyment of the music he is drawing from the instrument. In the same way, when we have

learned how to meditate, the truths of God present themselves spontaneously to our minds.We do not always have to work them out by discourse; we need only to enjoy them in the deep and satisfying gaze of intuition. pg. 208 The function of discretion in the beginnings of mystical prayer is to discover the true way that lies between extremes. Reason guided by faith must be on the alert and give the will sufficient light to reject

either impulses to overactivity or tendencies to sloth. pg. 229 Saint John is chiefly talking about what is to be done at the time of prayer. The activity he requires of the soul must be elicited by the understanding and will together. It is very simple. It has three stages or "moments." pg. 237 The function of the intelligence is to guarantee the purity of faith, hope and charity, not by much reasoning and subtlety but by the constant ascetical discernment between the illusions of subjectivism and the true light which comes from God. pg. 246 St. Thomas himself is there to prove that there is no reason why God should not pour out His purest graces of mystical prayer even upon a professor, just as St. Teresa remains a monument to the truth that God can raise you to ecstasy while you are trying to fry eggs. pg. 285 John of St. Thomas is one of those speculative theologians who cannot reach the average educated man except through a mediator who is willing to translate his thought into ordinary terms. The issues which

concern such theologians are generally matters of such minute detail that this work of mediation is scarcely ever worth while. pg. 334 [another statement re: johnboy? ouch!] The good order of the soul with which we are concerned here is not simply an ethical or moral perfection. St. John of the Cross is not considering merely the level of perfection on which men refrain from cheating each other in business, go to Mass on Sundays, give alms now and then to the poor, and lend their lawnmower to the people next door without even cursing under their breath. pg. 163 But the very fact that all conversions do not have this experiential element and that, indeed, many conversions are hardheaded and "cold," lends weight to the thomistic argument which distinguishes bare faith from faith illumined by the Gifts. And I may add, parenthetically, that the convert whose faith is emotionally "cold" and is not inflamed with an element of quasimystical experience is not therefore less virtuous or less pleasing in the sight of God. It may, in fact, require great charity to allow oneself to be

led, in spite of temperamental or hereditary disinclination, by force of rational demonstration alone, to an unemotional acceptance of the faith. pg. 212 13) If we do not try to be perfect in what we write, perhaps it is because we are not writing for God after all. In any case it is depressing that those who serve God and love him sometimes write so badly, when those who do not believe in Him take pains to write so well. I am not talking about grammar and syntax, but about having something to say and saying it in sentences that are not half dead. St. Paul and St. Ignatius Martyr did not bother about grammar but they certainly knew how to write. Imperfection is the penalty of rushing into print. And people who rush into print do so not because they really have anything to say, but because they think it is important for something by them to be in print. The fact that your subject may be very important in itself does not necessarily mean that what you have written about it is important. A bad

book about the love of God remains a bad book ... [another statement re: johnboy? ouch!] Thomas Merton, __The Sign of Jonas__, pg. 59 14) In the last book to come to us from the hand of Raissa Maritain, her commentary on the Lord's Prayer,

we read the following passage, concerning those who barely obtain their daily bread, and are deprived of most of the advantages of a decent life on earth by the injustice and thoughtlessness of the privileged: "If there were fewer wars, less thirst to dominate and exploit others, less national egoism, less egoism of class and caste, if man were more concerned for his brother, and really wanted to collect together, for the good of the human race, all the resources which science places at his disposal especially today, there would be on earth fewer populations deprived of their necessary sustenance, there would be fewer children who die or are incurably weakened by undernourishment." ... ... She goes on to ask what obstacles man has placed in the way of the Gospel that this should be so. It is unfortunately true that those who have complacently imagined themselves blessed by God have in fact done more than others to frustrate his will. Thomas Merton, __Contemplative Prayer, pg. 113 Want a person to laugh? Cannot order them to laugh. Must tell them a joke. Want a person to love? Cannot order them to love you. Must give them a hug (or chocolates or roses or time and space). Want to lead a person to Ultimate Reality? Must tell them a story and tell them a joke and give them a hug. What you write implies, properly, that the hermeneutical is unconditional. Oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s commitment to the virtues of faith, hope and love are not derived from and do not depend on any findings in the practical, empirical or rational realms. That is why they are called faith, hope and love and not, rather, science, logic and pragmatics. And, yes, a TOE must include the hermeneutical. A TOE must include the rational, empirical and practical as well as the smell of apple pie. So, the Big TOE will have data, charts, graphs, diagrams ... and, necessarily will include .... stories. It is not fully constructed in a manner that lends itself solely to logical proof, empirical demonstration or practical experience ... but it would partially include those things ... along with a story ... that included jokes and tear-jerkers. Thatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s why it is called a metanarrative and not just a metaphysics. So, it will include some elements that can be proven, some that

can be demonstrated, some that can be experienced ... ... all of which can be, more or less, KNOWN with varying degrees of confidence ... a confident assurance in things hoped for and a conviction of things not seen. Along with a fundamental trust in uncertain reality. So, let me tell you this story ... from this book that addresses all of these levels --- empirical, rational, practical and hermenutical, although we call it literal-historical, allegorical-creedal, moral and anagogical: In the beginning was the Word ... Here is a man who was born in an obscure village, the child of a peasant woman. He grew up in another village. He worked in a carpenter shop until He was thirty. Then for three years He was an itinerant preacher. He never owned a home. He never wrote a book. He never held an office. He never had a family. He never went to college. He never put His foot inside a big city. He never traveled two hundred miles from the place He was born. He never did one of the things that usually accompany greatness. He had no credentials but Himself... While still a young man, the tide of popular opinion turned against him. His friends ran away. One of them denied Him. He was turned over to His enemies. He went through the mockery of a trial. He was nailed upon a cross between two thieves. While He was dying His executioners gambled for the only piece of property He had on earth - His coat. When He was dead, He was laid in a borrowed grave through the pity of a friend. Nineteen, make that twenty, long centuries have come and gone, and today He is a centerpiece of the human race and leader of the column of progress. I am far within the mark when I say that all the armies that ever marched, all the navies that were ever built; all the parliaments that ever sat and

all the kings that ever reigned, put together, have not affected the life of man upon this earth as powerfully as has that one solitary life.

Christian Nonduality http://twitter.com/johnssylvest Bird Photos by David Joseph Sylvest johnboy@christiannonduality.com

Contemplation as the Epistemic Virtue As we examine the relationships between faith and reason, between the evaluative and descriptive, between revealed theology and natural theology, between love and the conceptual, between praxis and theory, there are some very strong analogies between these distinguishable moments in human knowledge. Although faith may be privileged over reason, and the evaluative may be epistemologically prior to the descriptive, and the philosophic regulative of the positivistic, especially in a nonfoundationalist philosophy, such epistemic dyads, however otherwise asymmetrical, are best conceived in a relationship of mutual dependence, related to each other by way of mutual interpenetration. I have gathered different views from diverse sources, below, some pertaining to revealed and natural theology, some addressing faith and reason, others speaking to the reality of contemplation, all integrally and holistically conceived. What these authors say about one dyad, in my view, can justifiably be said about the others. I have gathered these materials in support of a notion I may choose to defend one day, which is that contemplation, broadly conceived, is the highest form of epistemic virtue and, as such, is the illuminative beacon that might best guide both mystic and scientist in their encounter with reality, proximate and ultimate. As for any distinctions between natural and theological virtue, acquired/active and passive contemplation, that is not treated here. 1) Natural religion and positive religion, we have argued, do not exist except in a relationship of mutual dependence. Consequently, both are legitimately alleged in the service of mutual critique, lest both cease to be religion and lest both end up distorting true humanity. Do natural religion and positive religion have equal standing in the relationship? In other words, is the relationship between the two symmetrical? Or are they related asymmetrically--- that is to say, by way of a hierarchical relationship? ... any hierarchy occurs, not between two separable elements, but between two distinguishable moments that are related to each other by way of mutual interpenetration. The attribution of hierarchical superiority to one, therefore, does not entail the attribution of a separate existence to it. F.J. van Beeck, __God Encountered__ pp 108-09 2) ... even though theology, as instanced by Aquinas and Rahner, has traditionally opened the systematic exposition of the Christian faith by an analysis of natural religious knowledge, this has never served to deny that the Christian faith is epistemologically prior. F.J. van Beeck, __God Encountered__ pp 139 3) Augustine examines numerous vestigia trinitatis, or, structures in the human mind that parallel the divine Trinity. Viewed in this way, the treatise's epistemological claim is that because we are like God, we can come to knowledge of God by looking at ourselves. There are numerous objections counting against this reading, however. One immediate reason to reject this interpretation of the vestigia's function is that Augustine explicitly denies one can extrapolate from the natural world to God. ... ... Second, he is aware of the difficulties inherent in extrapolation from creation to God, because of the profound difference between the Uncreated and the created. A.N. Williams, "Contemplation," __Knowing the Triune God__ edited by Buckley & Yeago, pg. 122 The vestigia, then, are a tool for penetrating belief and grasping it yet more fully, not a means for establishing the contents of faith independently of, or prior to, Scripture. pg 123 Here we see the distinctiveness of Augustine's epistemology: to know God certainly entails mastery of information, but it also entails personal contact. pg. 130 The inseparability of knowledge and love in the De Trinitate testifies to Augustine's holistic anthropology: there is no possibility of the true engagement of one human faculty with God in the absence of the engagement of the whole person. pg. 130 His point is not so much that human beings resemble God --- as we have seen, he is as acutely aware of the ontological divide as any other Christian thinker --- but that what is inseparable in God must also be inseparable in us. The vestigia provide not a lesson in anthropology or natural theology, but in epistemology. Specifically, they make the claim that the knowledge and love of God are as inseparable as the persons of the Trinity. ... A second way of asserting the unity of knowledge and love is to point to the unity of human nature itself ... pp. 134-5 ... the status of contemplation in Augustine's thought is ambiguous, seeming to belong exclusively neither to activity nor to product. ... No more does contemplation belong exclusively either to the intellect or to the will. pg. 138 ... implicitly, it also states a relation between spheres of Christian life that have in our time been sundered from one another. Because personal apprehension of God must include both knowledge and love, Augustine's epistemology indicates that we cannot separate theology from spirituality as we have done increasingly since the Enlightenment. pg. 143 Contemplation is neither the statement of a set of postulates discovered by the assiduous effort of the human mind, nor some sort of doctrinally denuded reverie. pg. 144 The contemplative character of theology points to not only a disciplinary, but an existential unity. Just as the contemplation that is theology cannot be separated from the contemplation that is prayer, so an authentically Christian existence consists in a unity, in virtue of which this life is inseparably wedded to the next. pg. 147 4) At this point I touch upon complex issues in metaphysics and epistemology about the relationship between the lives we lead and the beliefs we hold. As Bruce Marshall suggests, our thinking about the relations between "teaching" and "practice" is interwoven in complex ways with our convictions about the triune God

who creates us and saves us in Word and Spirit. That is, "[o]nly the Spirit whom Jesus sends from the Father can teach us to recognize in the narratively identified Jesus the Father's own icon, and to interpret and assess all of our beliefs accordingly." And the "school in which the Spirit teaches us these hard won skills" is the Church. But the schooling is not just schooling in such teachings or beliefs (e.g., from catechism classes at home and in local congregations to college, university and seminary seminars). It is such schooling only as we learn to engage "in a rich and distinctive array of practices and attitudes, including worship and prayer in the name of the triune God, and love of neighbor after the pattern of Christ." James J. Buckley, "The Wounded Body," __Knowing the Triune God__ edited by Buckley & Yeago, pg. 221 5) And because the intellectualism that James deplored has done at least as much damage in theology and in philosophy, we can wholeheartedly welcome his insistence that reality is richer than reflection; that it is not by pure reason alone that we can take our bearings and find our way (quite apart from the fact that reason is never as pure, as devoid of passion and particular interest, as its advocates suppose it to be); that quality of feeling is no less important to our well- being than quality of argument ... Nicholas Lash, _Easter in Ordinary__, pg 86 It is these disjunctive contrasts and, with their aid, the confining of the territory of the personal to the realm of the individual, private feeling and emotion, which renders the Jamesian account at once so seductive and so dangerous. The situation is not lacking in tragic irony. By calling us back from the death-dealing rigidity of institutional order, and from the divisiveness of intellectual debate, to some primordial realm of pure experience in which the individual may "apprehend" himself to "stand in relation" to that "continuum of consciousness" of which we each form part, James sought to secure firm foundations for religious truth, prospects for progress, and a basis for social harmony. And yet, the foundations turn out to be nothing firmer than the fragile optimism of an excited ego entertaining dubious hypotheses concerning the paranormal. pg. 88 ... a context in which the account given of what it is to be in relation to God was not locked into feeling at the expense of thought, or into private individual states of mind at the expense of public behavior and intersubjective patterns of thought and inquiry. It would, finally, be a context in which --- if the distortions of intellectualism (in James' sense) are to be avoided --- the heart is known to be no less important for the attainment of truth than the head, and in which the test bed of truth is acknowledged to be experience. pg. 105 ... it is when such distinctions are hardened into dichotomies that the trouble starts: for when did you last find yourself simply "feeling," without the slightest play or engagement of the mind, or simply "thinking," without the slightest interest, excitement or distaste? pg. 134 If, for von Hugel, the essence of the scientific method is to be found ( as we shall see) in the submission of all claims whatsoever to empirical testing, then the "essence of Christianity" is, for him, to be found in the revelation of "personality" and in the fostering and production of "persons." ... ... Christian experience, on this account, is experience of participation in what we might call a school for the production of persons. pg. 148 Reacting rather sharply to what he calls my "unremitting attack on positive analogy," Brown appeals to Wittgenstein's remark that, logically "positive and negative descriptions are on the same level" with negative propositions presupposing positive ones and vice versa. ... ... I accept the warning that the way of negation is misused if it serves, in practice, to furnish us with just the kind of information about God the possibility of which it in principle denies. This is not, however, the moral that he himself draws from this warning. "Precisely because negatives are so often simply disguised positives," he says, " the only really 'disciplined way of unknowing' is to admit that one can say nothing at all." pg. 233 It follows that we have, as Christians, no ultimate explanations; that there are, for us, no final solutions. The Christian, says Rahner, "has less 'ultimate' answers which he could throw off with a 'now the matter's clear' than anyone else." And when he say that "all human knowing ... is enfolded in an incomprehensibility which forms an image of the divine incomprehensibility where God reveals himself as the one without a name," he means, I think, that it is in living in "holy insecurity," in openness to each other and all truth, not as possessors or centers of the world, that we become, in some measure, the "image of the imageless one." pg. 240 God is not, of course, an object in space and time nor is he, for that matter, an object "outside" of space and time (whatever that would mean). Nevertheless, if God is not a figment of our imagination, if it is truly "in relation" to his incomprehensible mystery that we, and all things, exist and have their being, then, in our worship of God, our address to God, we may (and do) make mention of him. Except, therefore, on a purely expressivist account of our use of the term, such mention as we make of God in worship has cognitive implications: it entails the conviction that there is something that we can truly say "about" God. In other words, even if the "nature" of God is unknown to us, because we cannot understand God, cannot grasp him in concept or image, cannot render his mystery comprehensible, we may perhaps, nevertheless, in relation to him, living in his presence and responding to his address, successfully refer to God, make true mention of him. ... It therefore follows, from this distinction between reference and description, that not all questions concerning the possibility of true speech about God are questions concerning the possibility of offering true descriptions of God. pg. 257 And although such a view is very ancient, for the "notion of regulae fidei goes back to the earliest Christian centuries," the novel element in Lindbeck's proposal is that on his view the regulative function "becomes the only job that doctrines do in their role as church teachings." ... Lonergan's work in this area has been criticized for handling the historical evidence to woodenly and schematically, and, according to Avery Dulles, Lindbeck's theory of doctrines "unduly minimizes [their] cognitive and expressive import." The legitimacy of these criticisms can be accepted without (as it seems to me) undermining the central contention that the primary function of Christian doctrine is regulative rather than descriptive. pg. 260 It is time to go back to the beginning and to consider, once again, how we might move beyond or "transcend" autonomy without taking flight into either feeling or thought. The suggestion is that we can do so through conversion, through the awakening of basic trust, the actualization of "relation," the occurrence of community. ... ... In all relationship, all friendship, all community, there is an element of risk, because the grammar of relationship is trust rather than control, vulnerability rather than domination. ... .... the second difference does not lie between fact and feeling, or between word and idea, but rather between "address" and "presence," clarification and community. pg. 281 Autodidact and polymath, von Hugel, for all his erudition, was not a specialist in any one particular academic discipline. Everything that came his way was grist to his mill, and it seems likely that his tendency to lumber, like some unchained beast, across the neatly cordoned gardens of academic specialization, partly accounts for the neglect from which he has suffered ..." pg. 143 [talking about johnboy here? ouch!] Â Â 6) There is no reason in principle ... to think that nonfoundationalist philosophy could not prove helpful in illuminating Catholic commitments on any number of issues, especially the proper relationship between faith and reason.

John E. Thiel, _Senses of Tradition_, pg. 121 7) Janet Soskice makes the point well: "To be a realist about the referent is to be a fallibilist about knowledge of the referent ... So the theist may be mistaken in his beliefs about the source and cause of all ... for fixing a referent does not on this account guarantee that the referent meets a particular description." Christopher Mooney, _Theology and Scientific Knowledge_, pg. 17 "Rational argument in theology," says Ian Barbour, "is not a single sequence of ideas, like a chain that is as weak as its weakest link. Instead, it is woven of many strands, like a cable many times stronger than its strongest strand." pg. 17 Here we have a source of knowledge that readily acknowledges the theological implications of both a weak and strong anthropic principle, whatever its value for science. What we must be clear about is that these theological implications have not one but two epistemological lines --- lines that are distinct in principle, with radically different sources, subject matter and modes of inquiry. Hence there is no question of casting disparate data into a single mode, either deducing a divine creative and salvific action in Jesus Christ from the anthropic arguments of science or finding in Christian revelation information about the physical structure and specific history of the world. ... ... There is an apt analogy here: these data are like two meridians on the sphere of the Christian mind. Because Christians believe God to be the source of each, the two can be examined critically at the equator for signs of both their present consonance and their possible future convergence at some pole of common vision. pg 63 ... whatever science can tell us about the structure and behavior of matter in the universe is of immense importance for theology, insofar as it provides insight into how God has actually been acting creatively in the realms of mater and energy. Christian revelation by itself says nothing about these specific realms, yet whatever science discovers about them, provisional though it may be, belongs to the totality of human knowledge within which Christian faith must be lived. This is why the full anthropic principle in its two versions can have such illuminative power as a methodological tool for Christian scientists and theologians. On the meridian of science, the principle says not only that the emergence of intelligent life on earth depended on all the finetuning extending back to the Big Bang; it also suggests that the fact of intelligence in the universe actually requires that all of these delicately balanced laws of nature be exactly as they are. The principle as a scientific principle thus provides data otherwise lacking on the meridian of theology, where Christians believe they already know about God's design of the cosmos for human life, but have no idea how God has actually gone about this designing process. While neither meridian's data depend upon those of the other, the thoughtful Christian can obviously draw insight into reality from both. ... ... The thoughtful scientist, on the other hand, might possibly as a scientist do the same. For if there was in fact a Big Bang, as is generally accepted in science today, then this looks a lot like the act of a creator such as the one Christians (and others) have always believed in; or, minimally, it is not incompatible with this belief. pg 64 8) It is not just a matter of observation, but of realization. It is not something abstract and general, but concrete and particular. It is a personal grasp of the existential meaning and value of reality. Thomas Merton, __The Inner Experience__, pg 60 Contemplation does not back away from reality or evade it. It sees through superficial being and goes beyond it. This implies a full acceptance of things as they are and a sane evaluation of them. The "darkness" of the contemplative night is not a rejection of created things. On the contrary, the contemplative in some way finds and discovers things as they really are, and enjoys them in a higher way when he rises above contacts with them that are merely sensual and superficial. ... The neurotic, on the other hand, cannot accept reality as it is. He withdraws into himself and, if he sees things at all, sees only that aspect of them which he can bear to see, and no other. Or at least he tries to. pg 111 9) This is why Merton tells us over and over again that contemplation is a state of heightened consciousness. "Contemplation," he writes, "is the highest expression of man's intellectual and spiritual life. It is life itself, fully awake, fully awake, fully active, full aware that it is alive." One is reminded of Evelyn Underhill's words: "Only the mystic can be called a whole man, since in others half the powers of the self always sleep." William Shannon, __Something of a Rebel__, pg. 78 10) According to John Cassian, liturgical prayer bursts forth in a wordless and ineffable elevation of the mind and heart which he calls "fiery prayer"--- oratio ignita. Here the "mind is illumined by the infusion of heavenly light, not making use of any human forms of speech but with all the powers gathered together in unity it pours itself forth copiously and cries out to God in a manner beyond expression, saying so much in a brief moment that the mind cannot relate it afterward with ease or even go over it again after returning to itself. Thomas Merton, __Contemplative Prayer__, pg. 47 11) I accepted the Cogito ergo sum with less reserve than I should have, although I might have had enough sense to realize that any proof of what is self-evident must necessarily be illusory. If there are no self-evident first principles, as a foundation for reasoning to conclusions that are not immediately apparent, how can you construct any kind of philosophy? If you have to prove even the basic axioms of your metaphysics, you will never have a metaphysics, because you will never have any strict proof of anything, for your first proof will involve you in an infinite regress, proving that you are proving what you are proving and so on, into the exterior darkness where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth. [johnboy notes that Merton exhibits a little cartesian anxiety here, which does not impress nonfoundationalists.] Thomas Merton, __The Seven Storey Mountain__, pg.84 12) First of all, the contemplative life demands detachment from the senses, but it is not a complete rejection of sense experience. It rises above the level of reasoning; yet reasoning plays an essential part in the interior ascesis without which we cannot safely travel the path of mysticism. Mystical prayer rises above the natural operation of the intelligence, yet it is always essentially intelligent. Ultimately, the highest function of the human spirit is the work of the supernaturally transformed intelligence, in the beatific vision of God. Nevertheless, the will plays an integral part in al contemplation since there is, in fact, no contemplation without love. Love is both the starting point of contemplation and its fruition. ... ... Furthermore, contemplation presupposes ascetic action. By this interrelation of the work of intelligence, will, and the rest of our being, contemplation immolates our entire self to God. Thomas Merton, __The Ascent to Truth__, pg. 13 Therefore, it must be made quite clear that traditional Christian mysticism, although it is certainly not intellectualistic in the same sense as the mystical philosophy of Plato and his followers, is nevertheless neither antirational nor anti-intellectualistic. ... ... The Church does not seek to sanctify men by destroying their humanity, but by elevating it, with all its faculties and gifts, to the supreme perfection which the Greek Fathers called "deification." pg. 16

Fearing that domestic peace is no longer possible, faith barricades itself in the attic, and leaves the rest of the house to reason. Actually, faith and reason are meant to get along happily together. pg.33 ... secular philosophers seem unable to make up their minds whether or not there are such things as law of contradiction or of causality, although they live in the midst of scientific developments that bear witness to both these fundamental principles of thought. ... ... Not that they don't have brilliant or well-trained minds, but in their approach to ultimate metaphysical problems their minds are all but paralyzed by a philosophical equipment that is worse than ineffectual: it leaves them in doubt as to the nature of being, of truth, and even sometimes of their own existence. ... ... On that level, we are not dealing with faith, but with the rational preambles to faith. pg. 37 ... ... faith has, for its material object, truths which are so profound and which so far exceed our intelligence that they are called --- and in the highest sense--- mysteries. It is quite obvious that these truths are not easy to understand and that they present tremendous intellectual difficulty. However, it is not at all true to say that the mysteries of faith are unintelligible or that their intelligibility does not matter. pg. 42 We receive enlightenment only in proportion as we give ourselves more and more completely to God by humble submission and love. We do not first see, then act; we act, then see. ... ... And that is why the man who waits to see clearly, before he will believe, never starts on the journey. pg. 48 ... ... St. John of the Cross regarded the First Commandment as a summary of the entire ascetical and mystical life, up to and including Transforming Union. He tells us in fact that his works are simply an explanation of what is contained in the commandment to "love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy strength." He writes: "For herein man is commanded to employ all his faculties and desires and operations and affections of his soul in God so the ability and strength of his soul may serve for no more than this." pg. 55 To sum up: our abstract considerations of false mysticism have shown us that all false mysticism misconceives the proper roles of knowledge and love in contemplation, as well as the essence of contemplation itself. pg. 72 It is not so much the presence of concepts in the mind that interferes with the "obscure" mystical illumination of the soul, as the desire to reach God through concepts. There is therefore no question of rejecting all conceptual knowledge of God but of ceasing to rely only on concepts as a proximate means of union with Him. pg. 89 According to this false view the phenomenal world, the body with its senses, language, concepts, logic, the reasoning mind, the will that is moved by love --all must be silenced and rejected. ... ... The kind of asceticism that literally seeks to destroy what is human in man in order to reduce the spirit to an innate element that is purely divine is founded on a grave metaphysical error. The gravity of that error ought to be immediately apparent from the very fact that man's spiritual and psychological health depends on the right order and balance of his whole being --- body and soul. pg. 109 The passage from philosophical understanding to faith is marked by a gift of ourselves to God. The moment of transition is the moment of sacrifice. The passage from faith to that spiritual understanding which is called contemplation is also a moment of immolation. It is the direct consequence of a more complete and radical gift of ourselves to God. pg. 116 In other words, grace does not destroy nature, but elevates it and consecrates it to God. Men do not becomes saints by ceasing to be men. ... ... Reason must serve us in our struggle for perfection. But it does not fight under its own standard. Reason alone is not our captain. It is enlisted in the service of faith. ... ... The great paradox of St. John of the Cross is that his asceticism of night cannot possibly be practiced without the light of reason. It is by the light of reason that we keep on traveling through the night of faith. pg. 155 St. John of the Cross aims at nothing more or less, in his asceticism, than the right ordering of man's whole being ... ... "The soul that is perfect is wholly love ... all its actions are love, and it employs all its faculties and possessions in loving." pg. 157 Let me explain in a way that ought to be acceptable even to those who secretly lament the fact that they do not have infinite stomachs, in order to devour all the fried chicken in the universe. You cannot gain the possession of all the being and all the goodness contained in all the food in the world by grimly sitting down to the task of eating everything in sight. Despite the ambitions of Gargantua, our bodies are not equipped for this feat. ... ... Nevertheless, all the reality that exists, and all the goodness of everything that exists and is good, can be spiritually tasted and enjoyed in a single metaphysical intuition of being and goodness as such. The clean, intellectual delight of such an experience makes all of the inebriation procured by wine look like a hangover. pg. 197 The true fulfillment of reason as a faculty is found when it can embrace the truth simply and without labor in the light of a single intuition. pg. 204 We have seen that in the natural order our knowledge proceeds from the intuitive grasp of a few self-evident first principles, through a process of discursive reasoning on the evidence of sense experience, to conclusions in which the mind rests, once again, in intuition. It is the same in the order of faith. When we begin, the first principles of our belief are apt to be vague and cold to us, because we cannot see below their surface. ... ... Now, as Aristotle somewhere says, when a man is learning to play a harp he has to think of every movement he makes. He is conscious of the distinct effort to find each proper note and to strike the right string. But when he is a proficient player, he no longer is aware of what he is doing with his fingers. His mind is not concerned with each separate movement to be made. His hands move easily over the strings as though by instinct, and the mind of the musician is no longer concentrated on technical details but loses itself in the enjoyment of the music he is drawing from the instrument. In the same way, when we have learned how to meditate, the truths of God present themselves spontaneously to our minds. We do not always have to work them out by discourse; we need only to enjoy them in the deep and satisfying gaze of intuition. pg. 208 The function of discretion in the beginnings of mystical prayer is to discover the true way that lies between extremes. Reason guided by faith must be on the alert and give the will sufficient light to reject either impulses to overactivity or tendencies to sloth. pg. 229 Saint John is chiefly talking about what is to be done at the time of prayer. The activity he requires of the soul must be elicited by the understanding and will together. It is very simple. It has three stages or "moments." pg. 237 The function of the intelligence is to guarantee the purity of faith, hope and charity, not by much reasoning and subtlety but by the constant ascetical discernment between the illusions of subjectivism and the true light which comes from God. pg. 246 St. Thomas himself is there to prove that there is no reason why God should not pour out His purest graces of mystical prayer even upon a professor, just as St. Teresa remains a monument to the truth that God can raise you to ecstasy while you are trying to fry eggs. pg. 285 John of St. Thomas is one of those speculative theologians who cannot reach the average educated man except through a mediator who is willing to translate his thought into ordinary terms. The issues which concern such theologians are generally matters of such minute detail that this work of mediation is scarcely ever worth while. pg. 334 [another statement re: johnboy? ouch!]

The good order of the soul with which we are concerned here is not simply an ethical or moral perfection. St. John of the Cross is not considering merely the level of perfection on which men refrain from cheating each other in business, go to Mass on Sundays, give alms now and then to the poor, and lend their lawnmower to the people next door without even cursing under their breath. pg. 163 But the very fact that all conversions do not have this experiential element and that, indeed, many conversions are hardheaded and "cold," lends weight to the thomistic argument which distinguishes bare faith from faith illumined by the Gifts. And I may add, parenthetically, that the convert whose faith is emotionally "cold" and is not inflamed with an element of quasi-mystical experience is not therefore less virtuous or less pleasing in the sight of God. It may, in fact, require great charity to allow oneself to be led, in spite of temperamental or hereditary disinclination, by force of rational demonstration alone, to an unemotional acceptance of the faith. pg. 212 13) If we do not try to be perfect in what we write, perhaps it is because we are not writing for God after all. In any case it is depressing that those who serve God and love him sometimes write so badly, when those who do not believe in Him take pains to write so well. I am not talking about grammar and syntax, but about having something to say and saying it in sentences that are not half dead. St. Paul and St. Ignatius Martyr did not bother about grammar but they certainly knew how to write. Imperfection is the penalty of rushing into print. And people who rush into print do so not because they really have anything to say, but because they think it is important for something by them to be in print. The fact that your subject may be very important in itself does not necessarily mean that what you have written about it is important. A bad book about the love of God remains a bad book ... [another statement re: johnboy? ouch!] Thomas Merton, __The Sign of Jonas__, pg. 59 14) In the last book to come to us from the hand of Raissa Maritain, her commentary on the Lord's Prayer, we read the following passage, concerning those who barely obtain their daily bread, and are deprived of most of the advantages of a decent life on earth by the injustice and thoughtlessness of the privileged: "If there were fewer wars, less thirst to dominate and exploit others, less national egoism, less egoism of class and caste, if man were more concerned for his brother, and really wanted to collect together, for the good of the human race, all the resources which science places at his disposal especially today, there would be on earth fewer populations deprived of their necessary sustenance, there would be fewer children who die or are incurably weakened by undernourishment." ... ... She goes on to ask what obstacles man has placed in the way of the Gospel that this should be so. It is unfortunately true that those who have complacently imagined themselves blessed by God have in fact done more than others to frustrate his will. Thomas Merton, __Contemplative Prayer, pg. 113

Humans journey through life in pursuit of truth, beauty, goodness and unity. We realize these values through ongoing conversions, respectively, intellectual, affective, moral and social (Cf. Lonergan's thought). Our churches institutionalize these values, respectively, through, creed, cult, code and community. As Catholics, we look for guidance in our value-realization strategies in the light of scripture, tradition, magisterium-sensus fidelium, reason (e.g. philosophy) and experience (e.g. biological & behavioral sciences, individual testimonies). In the old days, both our social justice and sexual morality teachings relied on approaches based in classicism, natural law and legalism. Nowadays, our social justice theory employs three new methodologies, respectively, historical consciousness, personalism and relationality-responsibility (Cf. Curran's thought). Modern Catholic social justice teachings enjoy widespread credibility due to these updated methodologies, which are eminently transparent to human reason. There is, however, no such thing as modern Catholic teaching in sexual morality. Neither are there any such things as credibility and transparency regarding same, neither among the faithful nor in secular society. On the surface, there are value-realization strategies available under the old methodologies that could impart hope to all on many diverse issues pertaining both to gender and to sexual behaviors. For starters, we could more broadly conceive the definitions of such values as procreativity and complementarity, such that they are not so physicalistic, realizing that there are manifold other ways to celebrate being created co-creators and to realize unitive values. We could draw a distinction between generative functions and life issues (Cf. Haring's thought) and then establish a parvity of value for sexual moral objects, such that masturbation would not be as serious as murder, for example. We could draw a distinction between our essentialistic idealizations and their very problematical existential realizations and thus cut homosexuals some "pastoral sensitivity slack" as was done with married couples vis a vis the rhythm method. The problem is, however, that there needs to be a wholesale paradigm shift from the old methodologies to the new, wherein some old terms and definitions and logics will receive new vitality while others will be revealed as meaningless, incommensurable and incoherent. (It is beyond my present scope to suggest which terms and logics will suffer or enjoy which fate, but I have my sneaking suspicions regarding “intrinsic disorder.”) Accordingly, as we look for guidance in our value-realization strategies pertaining to gender and sexual behavior, employing a much more robust historical consciousness, personalism and relationality-responsibility model, I want to know why anyone should turn solely (or even first and foremost) to scripture, tradition and the magisterium? Especially regarding moral realities, then, which are transparent to human reason, we must also turn to that aspect of the teaching office known as the sensus fidelium, and also must turn to reason (e.g. philosophy) and to experience (e.g. biological & behavioral sciences, individual testimonies). If we fail to make these moves and take these turns, we are failing to be either catholic or Catholic. Also, our arguments will lack normative impetus in the Public Square, where we need more than “the Bible tells me so” or the Koran, as the case may be, to urge legislative remedies on the body politic.

Discipline, Doctrine or Dogma? the Roman-Anglican CATHOLIC Dialogue I like to think of liberal and conservative, progressive and traditionalist, in terms of charisms, something analogous to pilgrims and settlers. And there is room for the via media, the middle path, something analogous to bridge-builders, which might be the loneliest and most difficult for, as Richard Rohr observes, they get walked on by folks coming from both directions. Unfortunately, too much of what we see is nowadays is better described in terms of maximalism, minimalism and a/historicism. I'll unpack those terms below. Too many so-called progressives consider essential and core teachings as accidental and peripheral; too many so-called traditionalists consider accidental and peripheral teachings as essential and core. In essentials, unity; in accidentals, diversity; in all things, charity. (attributed to Augustine)

Ormond Rush writes, in Determining Catholic Orthodoxy: Monologue or Dialogue (PACIFICA 12 (JUNE 1999): "The patristic scholar Rowan Williams speaks of 'orthodoxy as always lying in the future'". (see http://tinyurl.com/2p5q7w for the article) Rush continues: Mathematicians talk of an asymptotic line that continually approaches a given curve but does not meet it at a finite distance. Somewhat like those two lines, ressourcement and aggiornamento never meet; the meeting point always lies ahead of the church as it moves forward in history. Orthodoxy, in that sense, lies always in the future. Christian truth is eschatological truth. The church must continually wait on the Holy Spirit to lead it to the fullness of truth. Ressourcement and aggiornamento will only finally meet at that point when history ends at the fullness of time. “For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known.” (1 Cor 13:12) To unpack this meaning further, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ressourcement In that Pacifica article, Rush draws distinctions between: 1) revelation as propositional, where faith is primarily assent and revelation as personalist, where faith is the response of the whole person in loving self-surrender to God; 2) verbal orthodoxy and lived orthopraxy; 3) the Christological and pneumatological; 4) hierarchical ecclesiology and communio ecclesiology; and 5) monologic notion of authority evoking passive obedience and dialogic notion of authority evoking active obedience. Rush then describes the extremes of on one hand, 1) dogmatic maximalism, where all beliefs are given equal weight; 2) magisterial maximalism, where the ecclesial magisterium, alone, has access to the Holy Spirit; 3) dogmatic ahistoricism, where God's meaning and will are fixed and clear to be seen; and, on the other hand, 1) dogmatic minimalism, where all dogmatic statements are equally unimportant; 2) magisterial minimalism, where communal guidance in interpretation is superfluous; 3) dogmatic historicism, with an unmitigated relativist position regarding human knowledge. Rush finally describes and commends a VIA MEDIA between the positions. He notes that the church does not call the faithful that we may believe in dogma, doctrine and disciplines but, rather, to belief in God. He describes how statements vary in relationship to the foundation of faith vis a vis a Hierarchy of Truth and thus have different weight: to be believed as divinely revealed; to be held as definitively proposed; or as nondefinitively taught and requiring obsequium religiosum (see discussion below re: obsequium). The faithful reception of revelation requires interplay between the different "witnesses" of revelation: scripture, tradition, magisterium, sensus fidelium, theological scholarship, including reason (philosophy) and experience (biological & behavioral sciences, personal testimonies, etc). Rush thus asks: "How does the Holy Spirit guarantee orthodox traditioning of the Gospel? According to Dei Verbum, 'the help of the Holy Spirit' is manifested in the activity of three distinguishable yet overlapping groups of witnesses to the Gospel: the magisterium, the whole people of God, and theologians. The Holy Spirit guides each group of witnesses in different ways and to different degrees; but no one alone has possession of the Spirit of Truth." Rush further asks: "The determination of orthodoxy needs to address questions concerning the issue of consensus in each of these three authorities. What constitutes a consensus among theologians and how is it to be ascertained? What constitutes a consensus among the one billion Catholics throughout the world and how is it to be ascertained? What constitutes a collegial consensus among the bishops of the world with the pope, and how is that consensus to be ascertained?" As for obsequium religiosum, from http://www.womenpriests.org/teaching/orsy3_2.asp where it is written: "Accordingly, the duty to offer obsequium may bind to respect, or to submission—or to any other attitude between the two." "When the council spoke of religious obsequium it meant an attitude toward the church which is rooted in the virtue of religion, the love of God and the love of his church. This attitude in every concrete case will be in need of further specification, which could be 'respect', or could be 'submission,' depending on the progress the church has made in clarifying its own beliefs. ... [W]e can speak of obsequium fidei (one with the believing church holding firm to a doctrine) ... [or] an obsequium religiosum (one with the searching church, working for clarification)." Thus, on matters of dogma, I give obsequium fidei, and unqualified assent (or submission); this includes the creeds, the sacraments, the approach to scripture. On matters of moral doctrine and church discipline, I give my deference (or respect), even as I dissent, out of loyalty, on many issues: married priests, women's ordination, eucharistic sharing, obligatory confession, various moral teachings re: so-called gravely, intrinsic disorders of human sexuality; artificial contraception, etc.

Discipline, Doctrine & Dogma I once strongly considered converting from Roman to Anglican Catholic, likely agonizing as much as Newman, who converted in the opposite direction. How many times have progressive Roman Catholics been sarcastically urged to go ahead and convert by various fundamentalistic traditionalists since our

beliefs were "not in keeping with the faith?" After all, while there has never been an infallible papal pronouncement to which I could not give my wholehearted assent, I otherwise do adamantly disagree with many hierarchical positions such as regarding a married priesthood, women priests, obligatory confession, eucharistic sharing, divorce and remarriage, artificial contraception, various so-called grave & intrinsic moral disorders of human sexuality or any indubitable and a priori definitions employed vis a vis human personhood and theological anthropology. At times, I truly have wondered if I belonged to Rome or Canterbury, and I suspect many of you have, too, and, perhaps, still do? My short answer is: You're already home; take a look around ... In other words, for example, take a look, below, at some excerpts from the September 2007 report of the International Anglican - Roman Catholic Commission for Unity and Mission: Growing Together in Unity and Mission: Building on 40 years of Anglican - Roman Catholic Dialogue. Does anyone see any differences in essential dogma? Are some of you not rather surprised at the extent of agreement, especially given the nature of same? Are our differences not rather located in such accidentals as matters of church discipline or in such moral teachings where Catholics can exercise legitimate choices in their moral decision-making? (To be sure, there has been a creeping infallibility in such differences but there have never been infallible pronouncements regarding same.) "As we shall see, reputable theologians defend positions on moral issues contrary to the official teaching of the Roman magisterium. If Catholics have the right to follow such options, they must have the right to know that the options exist. It is wrong to attempt to conceal such knowledge from Catholics. It is wrong to present the official teachings, in Rahner's words, as though there were no doubt whatever about their definitive correctness and as though further discussion about the matter by Catholic theologians would be inappropriate....To deprive Catholics of the knowledge of legitimate choices in their moral decision-making, to insist that moral issues are closed when actually they are still open, is itself immoral." See: “Probabilism: The Right to Know of Moral Options”, which is the third chapter of __Why You Can Disagree and Remain a Faithful Catholic__ and available online at http://www.saintjohnsabbey.org/kaufman/chapter3.html For those who have neither the time nor inclination for a long post, you can safely consider the above as an executive summary. My conclusion is that we belong neither to Rome nor Canterbury, but to the Perfector and Finisher of our faith. And I'm going to submit to ever-ongoing finishing by blooming where I was planted among my family, friends and co-religionists, enjoying the very special communion between our Anglican, Roman and Orthodox traditions, the special fellowship of all my Christian sisters and brothers, and the general fellowship of all persons of goodwill. Respectfully, JB I gathered these excerpts together to highlight and summarize the report but recognize these affirmations should not be taken out of context. So, I made this url where the entire document can be accessed: http://tinyurl.com/35p69h to foster the wide study of these agreed statements. Below is my heavily redacted summary. In reflecting on our faith together it is vital that all bishops ensure that the Agreed Statements of ARCIC are widely studied in both Communions. The constitutive elements of ecclesial communion include: one faith, one baptism, the one Eucharist, acceptance of basic moral values, a ministry of oversight entrusted to the episcopate with collegial and primatial dimensions, and the episcopal ministry of a universal primate as the visible focus of unity. God desires the visible unity of all Christian people and that such unity is itself part of our witness. Through this theological dialogue over forty years Anglicans and Roman Catholics have grown closer together and have come to see that what they hold in common is far greater than those things in which they differ. In liturgical celebrations, we regularly make the same trinitarian profession of faith in the form of the Apostles’ Creed or the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. In approaching Scripture, the Christian faithful draw upon the rich diversity of methods of reading and interpretation used throughout the Church’s history (e.g. historical-critical, exegetical, typological, spiritual, sociological, canonical). These methods, which all have value, have been developed in many different contexts of the Church’s life, which need to be recalled and respected. The Anglican Communion and the Catholic Church recognise the baptism each confers. Anglicans and Catholics agree that the full participation in the Eucharist, together with Baptism and Confirmation, completes the sacramental process of Christian initiation. We agree that the Eucharist is the memorial (anamnesis) of the crucified and risen Christ, of the entire work of reconciliation God has accomplished in him. Anglicans and Catholics believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. While Christ is present and active in a variety of ways in the entire eucharistic celebration, so that his presence is not limited to the consecrated elements, the bread and wine are not empty signs: Christ’s body and blood become really present and are really given in these elements. We agree that the Eucharist is the “meal of the Kingdom”, in which the Church gives thanks for all the signs of the coming Kingdom. We agree that those who are ordained have responsibility for the ministry of Word and Sacrament. Roman Catholics and Anglicans share this agreement concerning the ministry of the whole people of God, the distinctive ministry of the ordained, the threefold ordering of the ministry, its apostolic origins, character and succession, and the ministry of oversight. Anglicans and Roman Catholics agree that councils can be recognised as authoritative when they express the common faith and mind of the Church, consonant with Scripture and the Apostolic Tradition.

Primacy and collegiality are complementary dimensions of episcope, exercised within the life of the whole Church. (Anglicans recognise the ministry of the Archbishop of Canterbury in precisely this way.) The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the ministry of the Bishop of Rome as universal primate is in accordance with Christ’s will for the Church and an essential element for maintaining it in unity and truth. Anglicans rejected the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome as universal primate in the sixteenth century. Today, however, some Anglicans are beginning to see the potential value of a ministry of universal primacy, which would be exercised by the Bishop of Rome, as a sign and focus of unity within a re-united Church. Anglicans and Roman Catholics both believe in the indefectibility of the Church, that the Holy Spirit leads the Church into all truth. Both Anglicans and Catholics acknowledge that private confession before a priest is a means of grace and an effective declaration of the forgiveness of Christ in response to repentance. Throughout its history the Church has sought to be faithful in following Christ’s command to heal, and this has inspired countless acts of ministry in medical and hospital care. Alongside this physical ministry, both traditions have continued to exercise the sacramental ministry of anointing. Anglicans and Roman Catholics share similar ways of moral reasoning. Both Communions speak of marriage as a covenant and a vocation to holiness and see it in the order of creation as both sign and reality of God’s faithful love. All generations of Anglicans and Roman Catholics have called the Virgin Mary ‘blessed’. Anglicans and Roman Catholics agree that it is impossible to be faithful to Scripture without giving due attention to the person of Mary. Genuine faith is more than assent: it is expressed in action. Given our mutual recognition of one another’s baptism, a number of practical initiatives are possible. Local churches may consider developing joint programmes for the formation of families when they present children for baptism, as well as preparing common catechetical resources for use in baptismal and confirmation preparation and in Sunday Schools. Given the significant extent of our common understanding of the Eucharist, and the central importance of the Eucharist to our faith, we encourage attendance at each other’s Eucharists, respecting the different disciplines of our churches. We also encourage more frequent joint non-eucharistic worship, including celebrations of faith, pilgrimages, processions of witness (e.g. on Good Friday), and shared public liturgies on significant occasions. We encourage those who pray the daily office to explore how celebrating daily prayer together can reinforce their common mission. We welcome the growing Anglican custom of including in the prayers of the faithful a prayer for the Pope, and we invite Roman Catholics to pray regularly in public for the Archbishop of Canterbury and the leaders of the Anglican Communion. We note the close similarities of Anglican and Roman Catholic lectionaries which make it possible to foster joint bible study groups based upon the Sunday lectionary. There are numerous theological resources that can be shared, including professional staff, libraries, and formation and study programmes for clergy and laity. Wherever possible, ordained and lay observers can be invited to attend each other’s synodical and collegial gatherings and conferences. Anglicans and Roman Catholics share a rich heritage regarding the place of religious orders in ecclesial life. There are religious communities in both of our Communions that trace their origins to the same founders (e.g. Benedictines and Franciscans). We encourage the continuation and strengthening of relations between Anglican and Catholic religious orders, and acknowledge the particular witness of monastic communities with an ecumenical vocation. There are many areas where pastoral and spiritual care can be shared. We acknowledge the benefit derived from many instances of spiritual direction given and received by Anglicans to Catholics and Catholics to Anglicans. We recommend joint training where possible for lay ministries (e.g. catechists, lectors, readers, teachers, evangelists). We commend the sharing of the talents and resources of lay ministers, particularly between local Anglican and Roman Catholic parishes. We note the potential for music ministries to enrich our relations and to strengthen the Church’s outreach to the wider society, especially young people. We encourage joint participation in evangelism, developing specific strategies to engage with those who have yet to hear and respond to the Gospel. We invite our churches to consider the development of joint Anglican/Roman Catholic church schools, shared teacher training programmes and contemporary religious education curricula for use in our schools. END OF EXCERPTS regarding stated agreements Below are excerpts recognizing DIVERGENCES regarding: 1) papal and teaching authority 2) the recognition and validity of Anglican Orders and ministries 3) ordination of women 4) eucharistic sharing 5) obligatory confession 6) divorce and remarriage 7) the precise moment a human person is formed 8) methods of birth control 9) homosexual activity and 10) human sexuality. Thanks, JB BEGIN EXCERPTS regarding stated disagreements: While already we can affirm together that universal primacy, as a visible focus of unity, is “a gift to be shared”, able to be “offered and received even before our Churches are in full communion”, nevertheless serious questions remain for Anglicans regarding the nature and jurisdictional consequences of universal primacy.

There are further divergences in the way in which teaching authority in the life of the Church is exercised and the authentic tradition is discerned. In his Apostolic Letter on Anglican Orders, Apostolicae Curae (1896), Pope Leo XIII ruled against the validity of Anglican Orders. The question of validity remains a fundamental obstacle to the recognition of Anglican ministries by the Catholic Church. In the light of the agreements on the Eucharist and ministry set out both in the ARCIC statements and in the official responses of both Communions, there is evidence that we have a common intention in ordination and in the celebration of the Eucharist. This awareness would have to be part of any fresh evaluation of Anglican Orders. Anglicans and Roman Catholics hold that there is an inextricable link between Eucharist and Ministry. Without recognition and reconciliation of ministries, therefore, it is not possible to realise the full impact of our common understanding of the Eucharist. The twentieth century saw much discussion across the whole Christian family on the question of the ordination of women. The Roman Catholic Church points to the unbroken tradition of the Church in not ordaining women. Indeed, Pope John Paul II expressed the conviction that “the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women”. After careful reflection and debate, a growing number of Anglican Churches have proceeded to ordain women to the presbyterate and some also to the episcopate. Churches of the Anglican Communion and the Roman Catholic Church therefore have different disciplines for eucharistic sharing. The Catholic Church does not permit the Catholic faithful to receive the Eucharist from, nor Catholic clergy to concelebrate with, those whose ministry has not been officially recognised by the Catholic Church. Anglican provinces regularly admit to communion baptised believers who are communicant members from other Christian communities. Despite our common moral foundations, serious disagreements on specific issues exist, some of which have emerged in the long period of our separation. Anglicans and Catholics have a different practice in respect of private confession. “The Reformers’ emphasis on the direct access of the sinner to the forgiving and sustaining Word of God led Anglicans to reject the view that private confession before a priest was obligatory, although they continued to maintain that it was a wholesome means of grace, and made provision for it in the Book of Common Prayer for those with an unquiet and sorely troubled conscience.” Anglicans express this discipline in the short formula ‘all may, none must, some should’. Whilst both Communions recognise that marriage is for life, both have also had to recognise the failure of many marriages in reality. For Roman Catholics, it is not possible however to dissolve the marriage bond once sacramentally constituted because of its indissoluble character, as it signifies the covenantal relationship of Christ with the Church. On certain grounds, however, the Catholic Church recognises that a true marriage was never contracted and a declaration of nullity may be granted by the proper authorities. Anglicans have been willing to recognise divorce following the breakdown of a marriage, and in recent years, some Anglican Churches have set forth circumstances in which they are prepared to allow partners from an earlier marriage to enter into another marriage. Anglicans and Roman Catholics share the same fundamental teaching concerning the mystery of human life and the sanctity of the human person, but they differ in the way in which they develop and apply this fundamental moral teaching. Anglicans have no agreed teaching concerning the precise moment from which the new human life developing in the womb is to be given the full protection due to a human person. Roman Catholic teaching is that the human embryo must be treated as a human person from the moment of conception and rejects all direct abortion. Anglicans and Roman Catholics agree that there are situations when a couple would be morally justified in avoiding bringing children into being. They are not agreed on the method by which the responsibility of parents is exercised. Catholic teaching holds that homosexual activity is intrinsically disordered and always objectively wrong. Strong tensions have surfaced within the Anglican Communion because of serious challenges from within some Provinces to the traditional teaching on human sexuality which was expressed in Resolution 1.10 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference. In the discussions on human sexuality within the Anglican Communion, and between it and the Catholic Church, stand anthropological and biblical hermeneutical questions which need to be addressed. END OF EXCERPTS regarding stated disagreements, some of which seem rather incoherent once considering certain of the agreements (for example, not recognizing Anglican Orders and ministries! Gimme a break!!!).

So, with the above caveats in mind, practically speaking, below are some criteria I have gathered for a fallibilistic attempt at a Theory of Everything: 1) Looking for an explanation in common sensical terms of causation is not unreasonable. 2) Looking around at the whole of reality and wondering who, what, when, where, how and why re: any given part of it or re: reality as a whole is a meaningful pursuit.

3) Almost everyone comes up with an abduction of God (or per CSP, an argument, by which he simply means a god hypothesis) or some other-named primal cause of it all.

4) Some use a substance approach, describing all of reality in those thomistic-aristotelian terms like form, substance, esse, essence and with nuances like analogy of being. It doesn't have explanatory adequacy in terms of leading to a universally compelling proof through formal argument in tandem with empirical experience because, by the time we have suitably predicated a god-concept, the dissimilarities and discontinuities between God and creature so far outnumber the similarities that a causal disjunction paradox is introduced. How can a Cause so unrelated to other causes and not at all explicable in intelligible terms vis a vis other causes really, effectively, efficaciously truly effect anything. Also, substance approaches are too essentialistic, as they were classically conceived, iow, too static. This has been addressed with substance-process approaches but these still suffer the causal disjunct.

5) Some describe reality dynamically interms of process and fall into nominalism, violating our common sense experience of reality as truly representative of real meaning. They account for process and dynamics but do not account for content that is communicated. These explanations, especially if materialist or idealist monisms also tend to fall into an infinte regress of causes. The only way to stop them is with some type of ontological discontinuity, which introduces the old causal disjunct.

6) Some, seeing this conundrum, with the causal disjuncts and essentialisms of substance approaches and the infinite regressions and nominalism of process approaches, and with the a prioristic context in which they are grounded, prescind from such metaphysics or ontologies to a semiotic approach which then avoids nominalism by providing both a dynamic process and content (meaning) and which avoids essentialism by being dynamic. It also avoids a causal disjunction since all of reality is not framed up in terms of substance and being but rather in semiotic and modal terms, such as sign, interpreter, syntax, symbol, such as possible, actual, necessary and probable. To prescind from these other metaphysical perspectives does solve a host of problems and does eliminate many mutual occlusivities and unintelligibilities and paradoxes, but it still levaes the question begging as to the origin of things like chance,