Shalom Place Community Shalom Place Discussion Groups General Discussion Forums Christian Spirituality Issues The Analogical (Sacramental) ImaginationGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| The Analogical (Sacramental) Imagination | Login/Join |
A brief intro from Andy Greeley: Also, there is this schema: Some comparative literature courses seize upon this distinction in studying Catholic authors. Greeley did a sociological analysis re: Catholics and the Fine Arts. Whether one affirms or denies the analogical imagination when it comes to God-talk will largely influence whether one even believes that natural theology is a valid philosophical enterprise, or that the natural law is a valid moral theological reality. It can also determine one's approach to doing liturgy. So, the analogical imagination can influence the way we do logic, when talking about God in natural theology, the way we do aesthetics, whether in literature or the fine arts or liturgy, and the way we do ethics, for instance in moral theology vis a vis natural law interpretations. It is pervasive in its influence. And so is the dialectical imagination. In the Christian Unitarian and in the Transcendentalist movements of the early 19th Century, there seemed to be an affirmation of natural theology that sprang from their reaction to the Reformed Tradition, starting with Calvin, although there are good arguments that the tradition as a whole did not totally reject natural theology, only certain ways of doing it. See if you resonate with Emerson, below: What does the analogical imagination mean to Spirituality? How do we bring together the dialectical and analogical imagination, for they are not really set over against each other but are to be nurtured in a creative tension, deeply analogous to kataphasis and apophasis (see this thread for a contextual definition) and also this one ). Maria R. Lichtmann touches upon this tension in Gerard Manley Hopkins: A Contemplative Hero: Very interestingly, Lichtmann draws a distinction between the contemplative experience and the mystical experience, noting that Hopkins was not a mystic but rather only a contemplative: I thought that might make for an interesting sidebar inasmuch as we have considered, before, how Jim Arraj draws on Maritain to distinguish between the nondual experience and mystical contemplation, using sanjuanist teaching as normative. But my point here is to describe this Seeing of God in All Things. Even then, however dualistic, Hopkins' contemplation leads to the nondiscursive, even non-affective moment: So, whether one is a mystic, by anyone's definition, or a thoroughgoing contemplative, by any norm, we are all called to use our analogical imagination to see God in all things, in creation, in society ... as the Dameans sang of Psalm 46: Pause awhile, pause awhile, in the humdrum of the city and beyond the cloister wall, in the early morning and when shadows start to fall. See creation bending to the Maker of it all and all you have to do is pause awhile. Of course, there is pausing and then there is pausing; we can pause from duality or nonduality; we can pause from activity; we can pause from discursive thought; we can pause from understanding, affection and imagination; we can even pause from the application of our wills. With Ignatius we can pray: Take, Lord, receive, all my liberty, my memory, understanding, my entire will. Give me only your Love and your Grace; that's enough for me. And that's the best starting point. Whether our various faculties are then quieted, actively or passively, becomes the work of the Spirit, for all prayer is initiated by God. If we do not move into contemplation or even if we do, we can know with Thomas Merton that, without knowing where we have come from or where we are going, whether we are pleasing God or not, the desire to please Him, indeed, truly pleases Him. So all are invited to surrender our faculties, including even our dualistic consciousness, and we can dispose ourselves to receive the gift of deeper prayer through proper asceticism. Being a member of Shalomplace is a great place to start. Whether the gift of contemplation comes or not, the desire for a deeper prayer relationship has indeed pleased God. (And, as we pray in the old litany, make us as holy as you would but let us not seek to be more holy, Lord, than you desire  ). So far, He's left me with my foibles.  pax, jb | |||
|
It would seem, JB, that on some level, the dialectical conception of God is put in place to protect God (or rather, our concept of him) from some of the truly horrible things that happen down here on Earth. It might be hard to imagine a benevolent god otherwise. The other side of the coin is that some truly marvelous things happen down here on Earth. Are y'all saying that you Catholics tend to look on the bright side of life? | ||||
|
Very perceptive. On two fronts. First, the dialectical imagination teaches us that God transcends all concepts, hence, we never cognitively grasp God's essence but only perceive His attributes, analogically. So, importantly, it qualifies any conceptualizing about God, so to speak protecting the concept and how we go about predicating our God-concept. Also, there is what we call the theodicy issue re: how a good God can allow so much suffering. Most Rev. Edward J. Slattery addressed that in this link: Yes, Monty Python is a prophet, beloved of George Harrison and much appreciated by jb pax, jb | ||||
|
I doubt anything could be as tiring or pointless (as least if I did it) than to go through all the "If there is a god, then why�" And I've pretty much come to the conclusion that the Greeks and Romans might have glimpsed some truth in their portrayal of god as a prankster. Me being of similar makeup, I can't really hold it too much against him. (Him, sorry. Put that bolt down, please.) The mischievously ingenious quantum physics, as well as the bellybutton, are proof of this. But those seven bolded words above can slip right by if you're not looking. But in those words is a universe of potential happiness and potential heartache. Suffering can indeed open us to God (or soften are hearts and make us more compassionate), or suffering can help turn us into real, genuine, Grade-A SOB's. That's one way to look at it, but I've never been at all satisfied with that explanation. It's much too convenient, like a surprise character showing up at the end of a mystery novel as the killer. Neither the "down here" God or the "up there" God entirely makes sense. Even mixing them together in some way doesn't seem all that satisfactory to me. An aloof God, by any reasonable speculation, would seem to be an uncaring God. A God who's down here and can be seen in everything, if only indirectly, requires such an indirect view at times (given events like the Holocaust) as to make us think that we'd perhaps be better off sticking with the aloof option. And the final nail in the coffin on the side of the prosecution is that requiring these two explanations, or either one, or a mix, seems to do no better than random chance at explaining our condition here on earth. The only think that makes sense to me, keeping in mind that I don't necessarily have all that much sense, is to see God as each of us; in each of us; in all things. And rather than sitting on a throne somewhere -- either on a level above, below, or somewhere in between � I see Him as a propelling force of some kind�sort of like an undiscovered force in physics. I'm sure I've just broken some fundamental Johnboysian metaphysical rule, but this universe is surely going somewhere, and given the evolution of both stars into galaxies and atoms into human beings, there is a propelling force of some kind, straining and groaning to bring us to some kind of end. But I don't think God is yet complete in his infinity. I think we're all still traveling together on that road and human beings are an integral part in that we can choose love over hate, mercy over barbarity. My theory is no doubt, of course, heresy, and I apologize in advance. | ||||
|
mary ellen's big brother I can tell which direction I am moving in, and it is likely that I will move closer into fellowship with the analogically inclined. Dialectical thinking runs way back with me, and has caused me untold grief and sorrow. I did not know what I was doing to myself and blaming on God  This was never intendedby the Present and Loving One. Maybe I'll help others to see... caritas mm <*))))>< | ||||
|
Your approach is much like that of some process theologians, who don't view our finitude and sinfulness as a result of some terrible breach with God in the past by our ancestors but, rather, as a result of an unfinished work still in progress with us as co-creators of some sort. This involves some self-emptying by God, what they call kenosis, and a suffering, therefore, even on God's part. What you have, then, is the question Lee and Lorelei struggled with: chance or necessity, random or systematic, order or chaos, pattern or paradox? The answer that is proposed is that we have both. The pattern, necessity, systematics and order provide those boundary conditions that befuddle Stephen Hawking re: black holes --- and the question turns from Why is there something rather than nothing? to Why is there something rather than something else? --- and it is this Primal Telos propelling us toward the Omega Point of Teilhard de Chardin. The paradox, chance, randomness and chaos comprise that interval of human freedom, whereby God steps back and gives us a roll of the dice (having loaded them a tad). The introduction of this freedom, which we experience in our finitude, as our being a part of the Whole, yields what we experience as evil, whether from our failure to cooperate willfully (sinfully) or from simple mistakes (trial and error). Yes, the whole creation is in one HUGE labor pain, giving birth to ............................... Now, the most blunt answer to the theodicy issue re: suffering is that, in the whole vast scheme of things, when we'll have been there bright shining as the sun, for ten thousand years, our limited time on earth is relatively SO MINUSCULE that, however horrendous the suffering and the enormity of the pain, it actually won't be perceived as much at all. It is, to put it cruelly, not much ... for it cannot even register on the balances that will weigh our eternal glory. Rationalization? Maybe. However, if you place it in the context of your own well-formed process theology, it fits? No heresy vis a vis the jboysian metaphysic. Congratulations on your well-articulated Bradwellian Natural Theology! Very analogical to boot! pax, truly jb | ||||
|
There are two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle. Now, THAT is an analogical imagination! It belonged to Albert Einstein. pax, jb | ||||
|
I can tell which direction I am moving in, and it is likely that I will move closer into fellowship with the analogically inclined. Dialectical thinking runs way back with me, and has caused me untold grief and sorrow. That's an interesting point, MM. If there *is* a God, and God is good, then it seems reasonable to conclude that the better our understanding of Him, the more peace it will bring. I don't think JB is arguing for one over the other, so I won't put words into his mouth. But it's quite possible we could come to at least a bit of grief if we put too much capital into either one or the other because surely our experience here on earth, at least as far as I can see, does not provide an air-tight case for either dialectical or analogical, and so one must throw in a rational and heavy dose of faith as sort of the alchemy that brings both together or creates some new third understanding. | ||||
|
That's a truly marvelous way of summing it all up, JB. And you will understand that I approach much of this without taking into account such things as revealed truths or the Bible. That's not to discount either but rather to play at is as if I'd just woken up yesterday and were sleuthing around trying to divine just exactly what in creation is going on Well, actually it doesn't fit from a sort of Buddhist perspective where the present moment is supreme, if you know what I mean. It does fit if one considers the universe a work-in-progress where one might have to put up with a few inconveniences, as if the landlord were making some improvements and you had to put up with the sound of nail pounding, the smell of paint, and sawdust everywhere. | ||||
|
Right, Brad, the trick is not to overemphasize one or the other. Faith and reason are partnered. The dialectical and analogical are nurtured in creative tension and, as with some other polar realities, needn't be collapsed or synthesized but held, rather, complementarily. This doesn't mean that some processes aren't dialectical in the sense that a thesis and antithesis produce a synthesis. Neither does it mean that there aren't some dichotomies that are true. Some things held in opposition are to be nurtured in their tension. Other things are to be synthesized. Still others require dichotomization. I suppose that is why we have the normative sciences of logic, aesthetics and ethics and their corresponding theological virtues of faith, hope and love --- to help us figure these things out! pax, jb | ||||
|
Brad, I have this list of attributes in my workbook, A Gentle Path Through the Twelve Steps by Patrick Carnes P.H.D. : PUNISHING judgemental strict negative rigid cruel arbitrary ACCEPTING caring trustable loving purposeful compassionate predictable NONINVOLVED distant indifferent uncaring nonattentive absent disengaged NONEXISTENT hoax unreal nonexistent fanciful imaginary joke The words are all jumbled up on the previous page, and in this exercise you circle the words you associate with your higher power concept. On the next page they are listed as above. About a year ago I literally wept with joy that after much therapy from the 12 step programs I was finally reaching the words in the ACCEPTING category. My experience of my father led me to think of God in the PUNISHING and NONINVOLVED framework. I'm so greatful, since this is helping me to understand not only myself, but many others as I try to pass this awareness on to them.  caritas, michael <*))))>< | ||||
|
When I first read that, MM, I was thinking, "Wait! You�re throwing out my best traits!" But then I realized you were referring to how we view God. I must confess, if I�m being honest, that the first few things that come off the top of my head are "mysterious, indifferent, dangerous, unpredictable and uncommunicative." And that�s not to say that I�m P.O.�d at God or anything. It�s just that I�m the type of person who needs to be informed concretely and unambiguously about what�s going on. I don�t mind a little road construction outside my bedroom window, even if I think the highway might better have been built somewhere else, as long as I know who�s building the road, why it�s being built, and when they will be finished. | ||||
|
In Catholicism, we draw a distinction between natural theology and revealed theology. This is the same distinction you have drawn. Natural theology, it is taught, is much like the natural law. In natural theology, human reason can attain to certain truths about God without the benefit of divine revelation. So, too, it is taught that human reason can attain to moral truth without the benefit of divine revelation. In the end, there will be no contradictions between the conclusions of natural theology and revealed theology (or, for that matter, the morals learned from the natural law or revealed theology). I once thought that natural theology could get us to a knowledge of God that was kind of a theocentric least common denominator, maybe the God of the Abrahamic traditions, of Greek philosophy, of Hindu thought, of indigenous religions, etc especially if one followed the normative sciences of logic, aesthetics and ethics using such wisdom as from the Buddha, for instance, as the Middle Path, which resonates with the Catholic both/and, or the coincidentia oppositorum (coincidence of opposites). IOW, the only way to attain to the knowledge of the New Testament, which is to say of the Incarnation, would be through revealed theology. However, once I got exposed to the process thought of Whitehead and Hartshorne, and of Jack Haught and Joe Bracken, following in their tradition, and of the work of Teilhard deChardin, it became more and more clear to me that, following even the thought of the medieval Franciscan John Duns Scotus, the Incarnation was, so to speak, in the cards from the get go. IOW, one can reason, in my view, from a process theological approach, taking into account the analogical information we gather from quantum theory and evolution and complexity theory and emergentist accounts, musing over the roles of both chance and necessity, order and chaos, pattern and paradox, to a panentheistic perspective, which nurtures the creative tension between an immanent and transcendent Creator, which definitionally includes, at least, an inchoate incarnational theology. Continue your sleuthing. It is what natural theologians do, even those who are explicitly believers in a revealed theology, who bracket their beliefs when doing natural theology allowing the normative sciences of logic, aesthetics and ethics to mediate between their phenomenology (including all they observe through science) and their metaphysics (including all of their cosmological and ontological speculations, about the origin of the universe and the nature of its stuff/being). You'll note, for instance, the role aesthetics plays in math and physics, such as in the search for symmetry. This corresponds to the virtue of hope, which is a theological virtue. A logic informed by a hope for symmetry corresponds to the virtue of faith, which keeps you faithful to the search itself. Even, then, without a fully formed faith or hope, that most people persist in love and "do ethics" ... is telling. The Buddhist perspective of the NOW corresponds to an atemporal, which is to say, eternal moment, where metaphors like scales and weights and balances collapse, where paradox and theodicy dissolve. So, if the present moment isn't taken as a point on a continuum as distinguished from a little bit of time but is held as the fullness of time, an eschatalogical or "end-time" perspective, then suffering is, in a sense, an illusion. This is not to say that, in another real sense, it is anything but an illusion. This is all very reminiscent of what Merton means by moving through an existential crisis, the Cross, to come out on the other end with the conclusion that: Well, that was nothing. It is dialectical, which is good, also. The Christian doesn't believe that everything one fears won't happen but rather that everything that happens is, ultimately, nothing to fear. pax, jb | ||||
|
We work so well together as a team at explaining things, if only because of the useful idiot factor. We�re like Abbott and Costello. I�ll concede that you�re Abbott. That�s a great analogy regarding aesthetics. Is it possible to sum this up in maybe a couple thousand words? Maybe you don�t want to shift topics like we do so readily and willingly at Heathen.net. I would understand.I can�t say that I understand that concept any better now, even though you�ve put it into better words. I guess one has to experience it. I, of course, meant that life might not be like a bank account where interest accrues according to our good transactional deeds until there is a vast and splendid retirement fund upon which to draw. Life, from a Buddhist perspective (and depending on how truthful to Buddhism one views reincarnation), is more a slot machine where you put your money, pull the lever, and then recognize just how marvelous it is whether you get three cherries or three lemons. | ||||
|
Well, I guess that is the perennial project everyone has been working on for millenia. We feel split off from the Divine and there is no rest until we are getting back to it.(no rest 4 the wicked) Then, getting hung up on our particular method(s) we find that those we have constructed stand in our way. I have a persistent but undisciplined approach, and as soon as I get "hung up" on one (which I tell everyone in my life about ad nauseum,) I reach for another. There is the Cartesian split to be healed, which I'm sure jb can wax eloquent about... and please do Carl Jung's critique of Christianity speaks of obstacles the church places in the way of the experience they claim to facilitate. They only take you part of the way and keep you dependent. Psychologists have critiqued 12 steps for the same reason, and some therapists are guilty of same. I believe there must be something to this since Jesus was very cross with the Pharisees for doing this. Has the church been discouraging meditation for the last four or five centuries, and if so, why? Also, am I too hung up on my method, whether it be Lectio, Meditatio, Contemplatio, confession, evangelism, or my particular brand of Yoga that I tend to lose sight of my original goal-the Source? caritas, michael, <*))))>< | ||||
|
Codependency ain�t just a river in Egypt. I didn�t always, but do now, separate the institutions from the fallible human beings who man (or woman) the posts. I wouldn�t throw out the U.S. Constitution because it once allowed slavery or because Bill Clinton was elected president. There�s been no shortage of talk about possible systemic problems in the Catholic Church that possibly led to certain abuses. And certainly the very nature of the enterprise of instructing people morally requires, or should require, the highest of standards. But in the end, as long as people are free to discuss any perceived shortcomings, and to enact, within reason, suitable reforms, then you�re good to go. One sensed that the Catholic Church has some built-in inertia to cushion itself somewhat from the passions of the day. That�s not unlike the U.S. Constitution. This does have its drawbacks though.Not having grown up a Catholic I�m not likely to be able to do much more than spout stereotypes; some true, some not true. But Catholicism is such a large organization, if you will, with so many different "departments" and types that it�s going to be tough to give any overall conclusions other than that authority of any kind must be tempered by a good deal of wisdom and humility. | ||||
|
re: Carl Jung's critique of Christianity speaks of obstacles the church places in the way of the experience they claim to facilitate. Transcending those obstacles is quite often something that must be accomplished by the individual believer as Church and not at all by the institutional Church, which is only doing its sacramental job. That's my Greek version. Here is my vulgate translation: The Finger, as sacrament, can conceal what it reveals, which is The Moon. To the extent that something that conceals God could be considered an obstacle, then, in a manner of speaking, all sacraments and sacramentals are obstacles. To the extent that an obstacle can reveal God, then, stumbling blocks can become stepping stones. Now, this is not to mischaracterize Jung's critique, which is valid, only to put a little johnboysian spin on the Rock that some builders continue to reject. I'm sure Jung was, instead, talking about those whom Jesus would cast into the sea with a millstone hung around their necks for misleading the little ones! pax, jb | ||||
|
re: Life, from a Buddhist perspective (and depending on how truthful to Buddhism one views reincarnation), is more a slot machine where you put your money, pull the lever, and then recognize just how marvelous it is whether you get three cherries or three lemons. Sounds compatible with a Christian theodicy. pax, jb | ||||
|
re: However, once I got exposed to the process thought of Whitehead and Hartshorne, and of Jack Haught and Joe Bracken, following in their tradition, and of the work of Teilhard deChardin, it became more and more clear to me that, following even the thought of the medieval Franciscan John Duns Scotus, the Incarnation was, so to speak, in the cards from the get go This is only to say that the process approach seems to suggest a God that is both immanent and transcendent, God in process, not yet complete in His Infinity, to use your words. If God thus participates in the Great Unfolding, this stresses His immanence, His partaking of our reality (even as we don't participate fully in His). Now, how exactly He partakes of our reality, as some propelling agent or as yet undiscovered force, would remain difficult to discern, but it is an incarnational concept. Relative to the revealed Reality of Jesus, which is fully developed in revealed theology, this cosmic force or propelling telos would be an inchoate concept, which is to say not well developed. IOW, a natural theologian, working on a desert island with no access to revealed theology, could come to the conclusion that Primal Ground and Primal Telos, Primal Origin and Primal Destiny/Goal, are somehow participating in the process of Alpha moving toward Omega, that what is Primal and transcendent is also Present in this reality, immanently, as part plus parcel. Then, upon being rescued by a cruise ship, the theologian finds a Gideon Bible in his cabin suite and suddenly exclaims: AHA! This Christ they speak of! That's Him! And He's COSMIC!!!!!!!! Well, Clarence, whatdaya know about that! Who'da thunk it? [Well, no one. It required revelation. But you were getting warmer!] stay tuned, Auntie M may be explicating matters for Lorelei and Lee, having seen the napkins they had scribbled on earlier pax, jb | ||||
|
re: We work so well together as a team at explaining things, if only because of the useful idiot factor. We�re like Abbott and Costello. I�ll concede that you�re Abbott. Thus said faith to reason the dialectical to the analogical the apophatic to the kataphatic the Unity to the Diversity placing no premium on the role of Abbot over against Costello pax, Monty | ||||
|
JB, once again, wonderfully said. You seem to have a good grasp of dualism, which is not to be confused with being two-faced. No subtle criticism was intended. It was simply a joke that was too good to pass up. | ||||
|
I'm behind on this one, trying to work ahead on a number of projects before we go on vacation. Skimming through, it seems to be a good, substantive discussion. | ||||
|
Okay, and I guess one can see a common thread running through many of the world's religions in this regard. Allow me to coarsely un-nuance Christianity and say that it orients itself more hierarchically, as in "only through Jesus can we be saved". While not denying that we are all God's children and what this means about who we are, there are other orientations that see us all as divine in some respect. That makes sense to me. Is Jesus the Prime Divine, the One incarnation, or is he more an example of what moves in us all? Is it just an orientation, workable and true as it is in one respect, but also true in other respects (such as Hinduism, for example)? | ||||
|
That is the dillemma I have been grappling with myself for some time, rather intensely and to the point of large headaches and deep anguish. What I come down to when I read the RED letters on the white pages is that Jesus really said these things, and his religion seem to include exclusivity, Adam & Eve, Lucifer and hell. The 17th chapter of John's gospel is quite heavy veritas, fundamichael | ||||
|
That is the dillemma I have been grappling with myself for some time, rather intensely and to the point of large headaches and deep anguish. Let�s tease out the stereotypical "If you don�t believe exactly what I believe then you�re going to hell." I have not encountered that here (but fair enough if I do � it might be completely true). One can join any religion, cause or movement in order to try to feel better than somebody else. But surely that would be missing the point. Christianity is surely meant as a salvation, not a condemnation. But there�s no getting past the rather major point of Jesus. It apparently leaves very little "wiggle" room. But I say that if one looks at this in the context of one pure facet of a very lovely diamond then it is completely true. Not partially true with reservations, but completely true. Surely none of us is in any position to possess all truths. And one can kind of roll that diamond around in their fingers and admire the sparkle of so many facets or one can stop fidgeting and settle into admiring just one; staring deeply at, through and beyond it. You might even notice someone looking from the other side. My advice, MM, is that you can live anywhere or you can live nowhere. Some people can live somewhere by living nowhere but that�s still somewhere. If one can set aside arrogance and bring forth humility then the somewhere of Christianity is as good a place as any to live � perhaps better. | ||||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Shalom Place Community Shalom Place Discussion Groups General Discussion Forums Christian Spirituality Issues The Analogical (Sacramental) Imagination