Go ![]() | New ![]() | Find ![]() | Notify ![]() | Tools ![]() | Reply ![]() | ![]() |
http://www.scribd.com/johnboy_philothea |
Well put, Phil. You indeed described the wisdom traditions that I was talking about and not the theological systems, by which I meant those that get inextricably bound with any given metaphysic or, worse, its own epistemology. More often, the way I like to say it is that theology is a practical not a speculative science. Wisdom traditions combined with love are doing theology, the practical science, but they needn't be, in my view, best not be, done as comprehensive systems of everything, which necessarily employ formal arguments rather than common sensical intuitions, which are informal and don't rely on the root metaphors of metaphysics. Now, even metaphysics is fine as a probe, to help clarify our questions, but it has little use as a proof, where we imagine we have such answers. | |||
|
http://www.scribd.com/johnboy_philothea |
kilroy was here | |||
|
http://www.scribd.com/johnboy_philothea |
At some point, after clarifying the categories and terms of the practical science of our theology of nature (which is theo-ontology, a poetic venture, not an onto-theology or natural theology, a speculative philosophic venture) and perhaps constructing a glossary of sorts, Phil and I hope to segue into matters of practice vis a vis formative spirituality and the life of prayer. The next topic I wanted to treat was how the 4 senses of scripture cohere with our categories. I still haven't fully developed the compare and constrast of these hermeneutical spirals but I'll share my heuristic below to evoke others' imaginations:
Also, in our sorting out of matters re: Ken Wilber's system, in addition to the rather obvious metrics by which we might guage the efficacies of a faith's implicit (or explicit) formative spirituality, such as its fostering of Lonerganian conversions, one very salient feature might come to light in response to the question:
This concise question is dense because it is loaded with jargon that requires extensive unpacking. Perhaps we can do that after Lent and some of this will likely be unpacked when Phil shares his Wilber presentation. If you want to engage this depthfully, let me provide some pointers (maybe Phil can provide some hyperlinks when he gets more time). RE #1 - I am suggesting that complementary (albeit vague)unitary-intraobjective and unitive-intersubjective, God-concepts would be optimal. This is all explicated above in this thread. The nondual aspect of this intuition would ordinarily come last developmentally, sometimes via post-experiential reflection or perhaps a deep metaphysical intuition or otherwise even via philosophical contemplation and might be considered higher in that narrow sense. But it would be otherwise incoherent (in-principle and by definition) to suggest that such complements, whether epistemological or ontological, could somehow transcend but include each other. In Christianity, our theo-ontologies speak to God's determinate nature via general and special revelation vis a vis the Creator in relationship to creatures but maintains a respectful silence on God's essential, indeterminate nature. Buddhism remains a respectful silence regarding ontological origins, in general, but takes a great deal of metaphysical liberty regarding teleological destinies, which works out well enough, formatively, I reckon, since it allows for significant developmental impetus, personal dignity/integrity and devotional aspiration (although not as cultic, still with pronounced transformative aims). As far as Advaita, Wilber's own panentheism is a case in point that Advaita needn't present the developmental conundrums of unnuanced pantheisms and panpsychisms. Of course, Advaita also allows for prominent devotional elements on the pragmatic level. In each of these traditions, this all serves to mitigate against such obstacles as might be implicitly inferred vis a vis an improperly nuanced (or appropriated or misinterpreted) monistic stance. Of course, quietism can occur in any tradition where elements are 1) explicitly incoherent anthropologically 2) misappropriated 3) misinterpreted 4) insufficiently nuanced, albeit for very different reasons. RE #2 I believe Phil's dissertation is available for download somewhere on this or a sister site. Or at least some graphics or summaries? RE #3 Phil has much of Helminiak's schema a la Lonergan archived at Shalomplace, also. | |||
|
http://www.scribd.com/johnboy_philothea |
I will share an excerpt from recent correspondence with another friend who had blogged on heresy hunting. It's not directly related to this conversation in every way but has some common touchpoints that elucidate some relevant distinctions:
Theological formulations are very often post-experiential reflections on practices (incl liturgical and devotional celebrations) that very efficaciously have already formed us even when we cannot articulate with facility or understand with clarity those formulations, hence, we have an ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny dynamic where the creedal aspects of the faith follow the communal & cultic - not only in the formative development of the individual, but - in the history of a tradition, itself. For example, what does it mean that we have been breaking this bread? Arraj issued this challenge in Buddhist dialogue regarding whether or not post-experiential reflection on nondual realizations might speak to an intentional nonduality, which sounds very right-headed as such interpretations go, rather than, necessarily, an ontological nonduality. | |||
|
http://www.scribd.com/johnboy_philothea |
| |||
|
Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |
![]() | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|