Shalom Place Community Shalom Place Discussion Groups General Discussion Forums Christian Spirituality Issues No intuition, no metaphysician.Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| No intuition, no metaphysician. | Login/Join |
Where does intuition come in to play in religious belief? Maritain distinguished between types of knowledge and degrees of abstraction. The scientific method comprises what he calls perinoetic knowledge. Natural philosophy comprises dianoetic knowledge, which looks through things to their nature, their essence. Reasoning by analogy is called ananoetic knowledge and can be distinguished from the logical inference of science. The first degree of abstraction involves this dianoetic approach concerning an object's essence, its properties. The second degree of abstraction leaves aside sensible qualities and natures of matter, as in mathematics. The third degree of abstraction concerns objects that are independent of matter, as in metaphysics. It is important to recognize that Maritain is discussing degrees of knowledge and not rather different knowldeges. These distinctions are drawn only because the natures of various objects differ giving rise to differences in our manners of both grasping them and demonstrating our grasps. Natural philosophy (especially its epistemology) thus presupposes science while metaphysics has priority over epistemology. At bottom, then, it is the nature of the object to be known that dictates the structure of knowledge and the methods of the various sciences. What, then, are we to make of the object God? By definition, God is not an object Whose nature can be known. Philosophy and metaphysics can demonstrate the reasonableness of various inferences that comprise the different God hypotheses, but, as with certain effects of material or immaterial created objects whose causes may be veiled, whether temporarily due to some epistemic gap or methodological constraint or permanently occulted due to systematic constraints, only ananoetic knowledge of the coherence of the divine attributes is available in natural theology, which is to say we can only know what God is like or not like, analogically. So, we can know from philosophy and metaphysics that God exists and what His attributes are even if we cannot, in principle, know God's essential nature. Where does intuition come in to play in religious belief? Above we discussed the degrees of rational knowledge. Maritain sets forth degrees of suprarational knowledge : 1) One way of knowing God is by use of our abstract intuition , which provided us with other pre-philosophical presuppositions that could not be rationally demonstrated but which we could be certain of from experience and common sense. 2) Maritain speaks of another non-conscious knowledge of God, which he locates in what he calls the first act of human freedom. To keep this simple, this is the first time we choose the good for the sake of the good (and, to me, it sounds like an axiological or moral proof of God akin to that of C.S. Lewis in some respects). 3) But he also speaks of the ways of the practical intellect, which involve our moral and aesthetic sensibilities and is thus broader than this first act of human freedom. 4) Maritain also explores yet another nonconceptual knowledge of God, a connatural knowledge. He was exploring the relationship between reason and intuition, much like we are, when he formulated his beliefs regarding the different types of nonconceptual knowledge, incapable of giving account of itself, or of being translated into words. It cannot be described any better than by Jim Arraj: 5) And finally, also from Maritain, via Jim Arraj, we have The Intuition of Being 6) The last suprarational knowledge of God comes through divine revelation. Intuition is no small potatoes. No side dish. It's definitely an entree ... an entry to the life of reason and of faith.  | |||
|
Below is my monthly token nod to metaphysics, this time on: Intuition and Paradox Main Entry: par�a�dox Pronunciation: 'par-&-"d�ks Function: noun Etymology: Latin paradoxum, from Greek paradoxon, from neuter of paradoxos contrary to expectation, from para- + dokein to think, seem -- more at DECENT 1 : a tenet contrary to received opinion 2 a : a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true b : a self-contradictory statement that at first seems true c : an argument that apparently derives self-contradictory conclusions by valid deduction from acceptable premises 3 : one that possesses seemingly contradictory qualities or phases I thought it would make for a fruitful reflection to juxtapose some ideas re: paradox since our experience of paradox is so closely interrealted to our experience of common sense and since common sense plays such an integral role in intuition and things that seem self-evident or immediately apprehensible. Paradoxes can be categorized in different ways: 1) Veridical 2) Falsidical 3) Antinomial 4) Conditional A veridical paradox defies common sense but is true, an unintuitive result of correct logical reasoning. A falsidical paradox defies common sense but is not true, the fault in reasoning being more or less subtle. Antinomies include paradoxes that show flaws in accepted reasoning, axioms, or definitions. Conditional paradoxes are paradoxes only if certain special assumptions are made, assumptions that could be false or incomplete. Kurt G�del's incompleteness theorem is the formalization of a paradox: Any sufficiently complex, consistent logical framework cannot be self-dependent' - i.e., it must rely on intuition (or some external confirmation of certain propositions, specifically, one that proves internal consistency). Where does one begin with the paradox of existence? Can intuition help? Peter Suber wrote an interesting essay The Problem of Beginning and it certainly touches on our pre-philosophical presuppositions, many of which are nonconceptual and not rationally demonstrable. How do we justify our use of reason versus intuition from the very beginning in our approach to any given mystery, paradox or intractable problem? Suber inventories what we do and list the advanatges and sacrifices of each. We: 1.1 Justify the beginning 1.2 Begin with metaphilosophy 2 Leave the beginning unjustified 3 Begin with a truth which needs no proof 3.1 Begin with the self-evident 3.2 Begin with faith 4 Accept a circular beginning 4.1 Begin with a self-justifying principle 4.2 Justify the beginning by the middle or end 4.3 Identify the beginning with the end; prove the beginning by proving the end 5 Begin anywhere 5.1 Regress to the logical beginning from wherever one starts 5.2 Render coherent what you find 5.3 Reject ideal of certainty, insist on corrigibility 6.1 Begin with the presuppositionless 6.2 Begin with something negative 7 Begin with error, not truth 8 Begin with something non-cognitive, not knowledge 9 Begin with the idea of the first cause 10 Begin with realities, not the ideas of realities 11 Don't begin 12 Reject the problem Why this way? Why that? Answers to the questions start the cycle over again. Hence the aphorism: you can model the rules but you cannot explain them. The confidence we have in the various beginnings will largely be informed by how narrowly or broadly we conceive humankind's epistemic capacities, validating or invalidating, emphasizing or deemphasizing, our possible ways of knowing reality, making it intelligible even while not comprehensible. Maritain's perspective, a critical realism grounded in our senses, open to perinoetic, dianoetic and ananoetic knowledge and the degrees of abstraction (science, philosophy, math, metaphysics, theology) corresponding to the essential natures of the objects we encounter in reality, strikes a good balance between those who either too broadly or too narrowly conceive our epistemic capacities, sacrificing internal coherence and logical consistency. His degrees of suprarational knowledge and affirmation of different levels of human intuition resonate with the experience of the Shalomplace Bloglodytes! For starters, it occurs to me that the items in Suber's inventory are not mutually exclusive but, taken together, themselves, reflect the epistemological holism of Maritain's approach, avoiding the epistemological hubris and excessive epistemological humility I have often lamented. Catholic theological and philosophical scholarship has taken many of the approaches, with certain qualifications and sufficient nuance, that Suber has listed. For anyone who wishes to champion intuition, I recommend the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Jacques Maritain (1882-1973), French philosopher and political thinker, was one of the principal exponents of Thomism in the twentieth century and an influential interpreter of the thought of St Thomas Aquinas. Trust your intuition, but cultivate it first. pax, jb Those who agree with me may not be right, but I admire their astuteness. | ||||
|
From Battle to Dance: A Writer�s Experience with Ego | ||||
|
Jesus Is Human and Divine Temporal and Eternal. Eternal Word and Palestinian Jew Brother and Lord Crucified and Risen One Alpha and Omega. Jesus is the Concrete Universal. + + + + + + Everyone who wishes to be a disciple of Jesus must be a coincidentia oppositorum. + The reconciliation of opposites. + Such is the Paradox of the Incarnation. Every person must find his or her Paradox to be a disciple of Jesus. + + + + + + And The Hermit? The hermit must Live alone to live with everyone Be silent in order to speak Shut doors to open the door Flee in order to embrace Listen in order to proclaim Be solitary to combat loneliniess Alone to resist individualism Say "Yes" by saying "No" Forget in order to remember. + + + + + + Lawrence S. Cunningham Dept. of Theology University of Notre Dame ============================================= What's YOUR paradox? | ||||
|
Here is Merton's Paradox: I keep recycling the Zen Clown article because it speaks to me from many perspectives. I cite it here to help any reader of this post to formulate their own paradox. What's YOUR paradox? This could make for a fruitful exercise for directees. pax, jb | ||||
|
Here's a paradox of the Shalomplace Bloglodytes: The greatest spiritual teachers in Zen Buddhism were those who took themselves least seriously. When they met each other, they would roll with laughter at the idea that they were supposed to be holy and worthy of reverence-having somehow mastered the infinite in their teachings. They drew pictures of each other with fat stomachs and scowling faces, dressed in tattered clothes, playing in the dirt with children. They gave titles to each other, such as "Great Bag of Rice" or "Snowflake on a Hot Oven." Wang-hsia, a Zen master and artist in the eighth century, did half of his painting when he was drunk and would even dip his head into the ink well and paint with his hair. | ||||
|
I keep recycling the Zen Clown article because it speaks to me from many perspectives. As well you should. I emailed that to my brother (who is not up to speed on the kind of stuff that we discuss) and he really liked it. | ||||
|
The Christian Problem by John A. Sanford
How are our opposites and paradoxes mirrored in the Gospel? Their reconciliation? | ||||
|
JB asked: What's YOUR paradox? From The Zen Clown: �that the one (himself) who does so little (living in the woods south of Louisville for twenty-seven years of his life) is able to accomplish so much. My paradox is that I do so little and I *still* accomplish so little. [Meaning, there seems to be a "sweetness" to those paradoxes you listed but it seems paradoxical that I'm not a beneficiary of such a paradox. And while this itself may be a paradox I still don't think I'm getting any spiritual juice from it.] They gave titles to each other, such as "Great Bag of Rice" or "Snowflake on a Hot Oven." Wang-hsia, a Zen master and artist in the eighth century, did half of his painting when he was drunk and would even dip his head into the ink well and paint with his hair Perfect. Now I may insult you and you have no recourse but to think that I assume you are worthy enough to be insulted. Johnboy, you are a very decent person. [How could I *be* so insulting?]  | ||||
|
Fall in Bedford Falls George detained by Feds for fraud George lassos lawyer | ||||
|
How are our opposites and paradoxes mirrored in the Gospel? Their reconciliation? They're all over the place, but when attention awakens in the True Self (i.e., Christ), the mind takes a back seat to direct seeing and immersion in the present moment. Then there are no paradoxes which grab one's attention; the mind becomes a servant of the enlightened consciousness, which has not interest in reconciling opposites. Opposites are there, but they do not disturb the mind or draw it out of its rest. If this sounds profound and esoteric, it's not, which is why those Zen masters laughed so much when they met each other. It's naught be our ordinary, everyday mind--our basic human consciousness--simply accepting the way things are and moving in concert with the creative grace bestowed by the Creator in each moment. One can exercise the mind to reflect on what is known; perhaps this movement comes of itself. But what the mind grasps is always "second-hand knowledge," a re-cognition of what was known more simply and directly. Listen to this master and see if this makes sense: A monk from the city of Sendai in northern Japan asked Master Bankei: What kind of preparation must we undergo to enable us to conform with the primary mind? Bankei: There is no "primary mind" apart from what is seeking the answer to that question right now. The primary mind, detached from thought, has a perfect clarity that is directly conversant with all things. I found this most helpful at one time in my life when I kept bothering myself out of this kind of clarity by wanting to "understand" in terms of abstract conceptualization. Then the knock-out punch: (our conditioning, upbringing) . . . leads to a strong self-partiality, which is the source of all your illusions and evil acts. If this self-partiality ceases to exist, illusion doesn't occur. That place of nonoccurrences is where you reside when you live in the Unborn. The "Unborn," here, being enlightenment. There is in all of us an inner place of "nonoccurrences"--silence, stillness, clarity: sort of like a witness to our lives, observing our lives behind all that goes on. That see-er is always there; it's not something we create or build up with our minds. In fact, It's even the means by which we are aware of anything or know anything. This consciousness just Is, and we are not separate from it. When we wake up in that silence, stillness and clarity, the mind and emotions begin to take their true place in our spirits, not as masters, but as servants. Opposites are seen as just part of the way things are. I'm sure Jesus knew all this, and that this kind of awareness rather than metaphysical speculation formed the basis for his teaching. | ||||
|
Phil, that was VERY good. Muchas gracias. My favorite Gospel paradox, btw, is the Paschal Mystery. It naturally follows that, when we are dealing with the conceptionless, the nonconceptual, the unprovable, the presuppositionless ... we are in the realm of the ineffable. As we proceed from direct experience and immediate apprehension there is a leap to the abstract, to the conceptual. Our unconscious and undifferentiated sensing, feeling and thinking functions, experienced in their bubbling up into consciousness as intuition, are bursting bubbles that leave no conceptual trace for the winds of their conscious counterparts to blow around. This is, indeed, the ordinary, everyday mind. This mind, through common sense, presupposes the intelligibility of reality and its own intelligence(s), as well as the existence of other minds. Whatever our derived belief system or worldview, to ask of this mind: Why those particular presuppositions (and others) is to send it into, on one hand, an infinite loop error of circular reasoning, otoh, an infinite regress of undecidability, not unrelated to the halting problem and Godel's theorems. This meta-philosophical perspective comprises a formal argument for why the see-er cannot gain clarity about its see-ing by trying to understand see-ing in terms of abstract conceptualizations, our see-ing not being something we create or build up with our minds. We are not just talking about a Creator, therefore, when we say that we believe in order to understand! We temper this approach, however, which would otherwise amount to the unmitigated fideism of Barth & Kierkegaard, with such a metaphysics, epistemology and natural theology that comprise the thomistic method set forth by Maritain, which establishes whatever we can certify by reason as a preamble to what we can know from revelation. Through all of our epistemological endeavors, there remains only one knowledge of reality, whatever degrees we might distinguish in our rational and suprarational approaches, wherever we might turn our attention. We can take Maritain's degrees of rational and suprarational knowledge and try to match them up with Suber's inventory below. Metaphysics and philosophical contemplation would be equated with justifications, metaphilosophy, self-evident or self-justifying principles, corrigibility and coherence, negative and apophatic predications, first cause ideas, etc Out of the unconscious come mystical contemplation, mysticism of the self (natural mysticism) and the intuition of being. Philosophical contemplation is more fruitful when accompanied by a well-cultivated intuition of being, Maritain says: I will not try and describe what escapes any restraint and is beyond any word.. nor to lead someone where access is given only in pure solitude of soul. He writes: Mystical contemplation would begin with faith, with realities so to speak, not the ideas of the realities. A natural mysticism or mysticism of the self is presuppositionless and begins with the noncognitive . This seems to best correspond to the dynamism that Phil was describing above and can dialogue with the experience of enlightenment, cultivating a simple, direct awareness, a seeing prior to conceptualization (or, maybe in Lonergan's terms, after sensation & perception but before abstraction and judgment?). At bottom, however it is we experience awareness of reality, there is only one knowledge, differing in degrees as proper to the nature of its different objects, and our intuition suggests that there are no veridical contradictions, this notwithstanding the existence of different types of paradox (whether veridical, falsidical, antinomial, conditional or otherwise). There is no peril in one's loss of interest in reconciling opposites [even if] opposites are there ... and there is no reason to allow the existence of opposites to disturb the mind or draw it out of its rest. We can taste and see these truths, even if not able to prove or justify them. In fact, whatever our route to awareness, experience is the threshold that must be crossed by all see-ers and seekers. We would not be seeking if we had not already found truth, beauty and goodness, however they may have presented. We thus exercise the mind to reflect on what has been made known and how it is we may have grasped truth, beauty and goodness and how it is we have been grasped by Truth, Beauty and Goodness. We can thus better cultivate these modes of awareness and prepare to receive the many gifts of contemplation. Thus it is that, if ascetical theology is the finger, we can be sure it is pointing at the moon, eclipsed even. pax, jb Suber's inventory - for reference to above discussion 1.1 Justify the beginning 1.2 Begin with metaphilosophy 2 Leave the beginning unjustified 3 Begin with a truth which needs no proof 3.1 Begin with the self-evident 3.2 Begin with faith 4 Accept a circular beginning 4.1 Begin with a self-justifying principle 4.2 Justify the beginning by the middle or end 4.3 Identify the beginning with the end; prove the beginning by proving the end 5 Begin anywhere 5.1 Regress to the logical beginning from wherever one starts 5.2 Render coherent what you find 5.3 Reject ideal of certainty, insist on corrigibility 6.1 Begin with the presuppositionless 6.2 Begin with something negative 7 Begin with error, not truth 8 Begin with something non-cognitive, not knowledge 9 Begin with the idea of the first cause 10 Begin with realities, not the ideas of realities 11 Don't begin 12 Reject the problem | ||||
|
Mortificatio corresponds to the death of childhood innocence and a glimpse ahead at the Philosopher's Stone, the reconciler of opposites. It is served through the humiliating process of facing defeat, frustration of desire, tragedy, suffering, torture and death. What the glimpse at the Philosopher's Stone revealed to me was that there is a Reconciler of Opposites and that it is not me. This is the intuition (not a concept that can be proved) that the principle of noncontradiction universally holds even as we acknowledge that certain paradoxes, not all, remain, in principle, irresolute from our vantage. | ||||
|
My Paradox Take, Lord, receive ... all my liberty my memory understanding my entire will Transform my understanding with faith Transform my memory with hope Transform my will with love For it is faith that turns knowledge into wisdom hope that turns memory into awareness love that turns willfulness into willingness cosmic wisdom appears as earthly folly cosmic awareness appears unaware of contradiction cosmic love appears utterly forsaken in sublime paradox, though, the unseen & ineffable birth visions & truths anamnesis births the now compassion ministers its consolation to the minister Thus intuition marries reason eternal betrothes temporal self-emptying kenosis is wed to utter fullness Thus fully invoking only because we have been convoked fully humanized only by our theosis fully divinized only by Another's incarnation Taste and see the wisdom, awareness and love nowhere if not now here Taste and see the truth beauty and goodness of the Lord | ||||
|
I'm sure Jesus knew all this, and that this kind of awareness rather than metaphysical speculation formed the basis for his teaching. Our quest for the grail of comprehensive knowledge is folly and unholy. Our quest for wisdom is itself wisdom. This quest, itself, is the grail. This journey, itself, is the destination. From a Christological perspective, it is an intriguing exercise to consider the formative spirituality of Jesus, who was like us in all things but sin, who grew physically, emotionally, intellectually, socially, who grew in wisdom, age and grace. From a Jungian perspective, Jesus would have then experienced individuation processes. From Maritain's perspective Jesus would have experienced all of the degrees of both rational and suprarational knowledge. At some stage, certainly, he had a fully cultivated intuition of being and an intense and profound philosophical contemplation, as well as a deeply meditative prayer life. As Jesus grew, such concepts and abstractions, such as may have inspired His staying behind in the Temple to dialogue, such as fired His analogical imagination and informed His natural theology (the foundations for His parables of the Kingdom and His allegories of Our Father), formed perhaps the most dazzling and brilliant constellation ever to light up the firmament of the expansive human mind and imagination. Certainly, Jesus' Soul took Him on a formative journey that was far more intense than any we could ever aspire to but I'm sure He journeyed nonetheless to that point where the firmament of His mind, at the dawning of His own mystical experience of passive contemplation, was illuminated by the most luminous and numinous of all supernovae of Supernatural Love, positively dimming the twinkling constellations of concepts, images and analogies, however bright they may have ever appeared previously. There is also another psychospiritual dynamism, the mysticism of the self, or a natural mysticism, that more directly speaks to the type of awareness Phil spoke of above, a leaving behind of concepts to experience the soul's existence with all of existence and this shared thatness eventually leading to an experience of a participation with Self-Subsisting Existence. This is the then there is no mountain experience of nonduality, which participates in pure consciousness and direct awareness before re-cognizing then there is. This third part of the triad, then there is , does not mark the return to first there is a mountain , because there ain't no going back but is a way of perceiving essences with existence no longer in the background but always in the foreground, the thatness of every whatness shouting out at you in your interior stillness and quietude that, before cultivated, rendered this the voice of existence a mere whisper drowned out by the cacophony of concepts and essences. Like the degrees of rational knowledge, which includes intuition, philosophical and metaphysical contemplation, these degrees of suprarational knowledge, gifted from the depths of the spiritual unconscious, which includes the intuition of being, mystical contemplation and natural mysticism (mysticism of the self), form a interpenetrating matrix of awareness, all closely interrelated, intimately connected and mutually enriching (to borrow liberally, as I have done throughout, from the Arrajian vocabulary and approach). Maritain spoke of Jesus as having 1) a natural ego consciousness 2) a natural infraconscious (unconscious) 3) a natural supraconscious (spiritual unconscious) and 4) a supernatural supraconscious (divinized spiritual unconscious). So, regarding the first aspect of Jesus consciousness, Emile Mersch writes: As far as His empirical consciousness is concerned, therefore, we can conceive that a real progress could have been made in the explicit formulation of the knowledge He had in His soul, and that His questions and expressions of astonishment corresponded to a very natural advance in His knowledge. From Jesus' natural unconscious would spring ordinary intuition, feeding the philosophical and metaphysical contemplation of his ordinary consciousness. From Jesus' natural spiritual unconscious we might suspect an intensified natural mysticism and nondual awareness nurtured by a profound intuition of being. When it comes to Jesus' experience of mystical contemplation, His divinized unconscious (supernatural supraconscious) communicated with His natural spiritual unconscious (natural supraconscious), such that Maritain writes: All of this has practical implications for our own contemplative journey. Jesus is not just our exemplar for the journey, though we can seen from the speculation regarding His own formative spirituality that He is indeed that, but is also, through His Spirit, the Perfector and Finisher of our journey, perfecting and finishing both our rational and suprarational degrees of knowledge of reality and of Ultimate Reality. Through His divinized spiritual unconscious, His experience of mystical contemplation in His natural spiritual unconscious allowed Him to commune in awareness of His place in the Trinity. Through the gift of the Holy Spirit, our ego consciousness, our infraconscious and our supraconscious can be transformed into a dwelling for the Most High. When Jesus began His teaching, I'd suspect the basis of His teaching was formed by an awareness that sprung, holistically, from that interpenetrating matrix of contemplations, all remaining closely interrelated, intimately connected and mutually enriching, all neither radically apophatic nor kataphatic, none set over against another as mutually exclusive even if, when segueing from one awareness to another, there would sometimes be temporary mutual occlusivity. What is interesting is how even the "enlightened" Jesus, the fully individuated Jesus, the spiritually mature Jesus, indeed did not discourse on the resolution of paradoxes, even when prompted or pressed. When asked why this or why that? , He did not give explicitly theological or essentialistic or philosophical or metaphysical answers. He turned every question into a relationship-oriented inquiry, solving it by prescribing right-relationships, human and Divine. Think of theodicy issues that were posed to Him Why did this tower fall on so and so? Why was this person ill or crippled?. He didn't give an answer to why we suffer but suffered with us. His response is always relational and not legalistic or essentialistic other than to advocate first things first, Love being first. Full circle back to how we begin? How do we ground our degrees of knowledge, both rational and suprarational? Duns Scotus began with love. Love prepares the way for faith, which in turn prepares the way for knowledge. Or, Mother Teresa: The fruit of SILENCE is Prayer. The fruit of PRAYER is Faith. The fruit of FAITH is Love. The fruit of LOVE is Service. The fruit of SERVICE is Peace. So, who is correct? Does faith lead to knowledge or to love? Linda Ronstadt & Aaron Neville: I love you and that's all I know. Love, Peace, Faith jb | ||||
|
Our quest for the grail of comprehensive knowledge is folly and unholy. Our quest for wisdom is itself wisdom. This quest, itself, is the grail. This journey, itself, is the destination. - then some masterful reflection by JB on the consciousness of Jesus: -------- JB, how would you describe wisdom? I rather think of it as a sharing to some extent in the divine's own perspective, which enables one to see the true worth of something and its relation to other things. The latter can include conceptualization, for that's bound to be how the mind integrates wisdom, but I would distinguish this kind of conceptualization from the kind that strives to define, classify, and fit things together in some kind of grand philosophical "system." Even when this is done in the context of Christian philosophy and theology, it might be naught but an extension of what Jack Haught (in reference to science's addiction to empiricism) called an "epistemology of control". This is not meant to take a cheap shot at systematic theology, only to acknowledge that (in my view, of course), it can lose its focus in wisdom. Any thoughts on this? | ||||
|
It is sophia to chop wood, carry water, mindfully. It is sapienta to chop wood, carry water, mindfully and with great love. Substitute for chop wood, carry water: Systematize theology, meditate on Zen koans or cook breakfast. With sophia, we get along quite well but with sapienta we can move along quickly and unhindered. Dear Tertullian, I do have a longer answer. You ask: What has Athens to do with Jerusalem? Merton has drawn the following distinctions: immanent and transcendent, apophatic and kataphatic, existential and theological, natural and supernatural, impersonal and personal. Rahner has drawn a distinction between the supernatural existential and the Divine Communication. We draw distinctions, too, between the God of the Philosophers, the Unknown God of the Greeks that St. Paul spoke of, the God of natural theology, and the God of revealed theology, beginning with Yahweh in the Old Testament and culminating with Jesus and the Holy Spirit in the New Testament. In that same spirit, then, let me propose to draw a distinction between Athens and Jerusalem, between the Greek Sophia and the Latin Sapienta. In the spirit of Maritain, too, let me suggest that we draw such distinctions with the aim of uniting and not separating. Sapienta, then, would be Sophia perfected by the Holy Spirit both as a gift of the Spirit, for our sanctification, and also as a charism, for the whole Church. In Fides et Ratio , JPII writes: The light of human reason, which knows what path to take, is, to me, Sophia. The search for the path within the horizon of faith is, to me, Sapienta. JPII continues: Sophia might entail humanity�s shared struggle to arrive at truth, while Sapienta proclaims the certitudes arrived at through faith. We might look, again, at Merton, where Sophia and Sapienta were married: This Natura naturans and mysterious Unity and Integrity , to me, may very well be the Sophia of nondual awareness, cultivated in the intuition of being as gifted from the spiritual unconscious (supraconscious) and enriching our conscious philosophical and metaphysical contemplation. It may be gifted from that natural mysticism (mysticism of the self) that springs from the supraconscious in those given over to certain asceticisms and spiritual disciplines. It may be associated with what the East describes as enlightenment. Merton continues: In the Christ awakening and unity of love and touch of the Spirit , then, we have Sapienta, the immanent and natural and existential Sophia, perfected in the transcendent and supernatural and theological Sapienta. Sophia is an invisible fecundity, a dimmed light, a meek namelessness, a silence, a gentleness ... ... Sapienta cries out in the streets. As the apophatic and kataphatic are mutually enriching and nourishing, perhaps we see in Merton the dance on the liminal threshold of Sophia with Sapienta. We can look to Teresa of Avila for the same dynamism in the words of Paul VI: As Paul VI continues, we perhaps can best discern the distinguishing characteristic between Sophia and Sapienta: At bottom, then, it is love that turns into wisdom. The nondual awareness of Sophia must penetrate through esse or existence to Ipsum Esse Subsistens or Self-Subsisting Existence, from the experience of impersonal, immanent being to the experience of personal, transcendent being, in a relationship of Love, which, itself, gifts Sapienta. As we draw distinctions between Sophia and Sapienta (which is just my own mnemonic; I'm sure it has no traction among the theologians), we know they are NOT separate paths. Systematic theology and Mystical/Ascetical theology are but one path, along with all human cognition and intuition, along with philosophical and metaphysical contemplation, along with the intuition of being, mysticism of self and mystical contemplation, along with all of the elements of Maritain's epistemology in its degrees of knowledge and of abstraction. Thusly, the enterprise of conceptualization that integrates the true worth of something and its relation to other things and the enterprise of conceptualization that strives to define, classify, and fit things together in some kind of grand philosophical "system." also comprise but one path (one taken, for instance, by Bonaventure, Aquinas, Duns Scotus, Ockham). No, I do not at all believe that it is in any particular act of the intellect or any particular enterprise of the intellect that we can locate the proper distinction between sophia and sapienta, between natural wisdom and supernatural wisdom. An epistemology of control, as evidenced in scientism , has its counterpart in fideism, which attempts to control humankind's epistemological enterprises, too. Scientism blindly embraces empiricism while fideism confuses epistemology and ontology, both amounting to an epsitemological hubris or hegemony. What, then, is Wisdom? It is when any act or enterprise of human intelligence(s) [cognitive intelligence, emotional intelligence, kinesthetic intelligence, musical intelligence, mathematical intelligence, linguistic intelligence, spatial intelligence, logical intelligence, interpersonal intelligence, intrapersonal intelligence] is animated by willingness and not rather willfulness, is energized by love, which is a matter of the will. It is not mere mindfulness or awareness that transforms sophia into sapienta but a matter of the will that elevates our minds and hearts to God. Wisdom is the perfection of knowledge showing itself in action, a principle soliciting man's will , is personified, and her nature, attributes, and operation are no less than Divine, is represented as immanent with the "Holy Spirit [this litany taken from New Advent]. These seem to speak of the sapienta aspect of wisdom. Full circle back to paradox and contradictions, Jung says: and this seems to speak of the sophia aspect of wisdom. Therese of Lisieux may have defined wisdom when she said Do small things with great love. Wisdom, as intelligence(s) plus love, thus shares to a great extent in the divine's own perspective, which enables one to see the true worth of something and its relation to other things. In natural theology or philosophical contemplation, one might learn that any system that is complete is inconsistent, that any system that is consistent is incomplete, that paradox is inescapable, that contradictions abound, that infinite regress or circular logic are the only systems attainable, that question begging is unavoidable, that a system's axioms are unprovable in that system, that only parts of reality are both comprehensible and intelligible and the whole of reality is intelligible but not comprehensible ... Natural theology can hypothesize that perhaps there is a vantage point that SEES reality completely and consistently, that SEES in a manner that is consistently comprehensive and comprehensively consistent, that SEES no veridical contradictions, that SEES no paradox, that SEES an end to infinite regress, that SEES the cessation of circular logic. This could only be a Divine Perspective that would SEE such things, for the world's greatest logicians and mathematicians and philosophers have proved that the above-described vantage point is unattainable, not to be had by humankind. Does any human share such a Divine perspective? The very first principles, our basic pre-philosophical approach, our philosophical presuppositions, not rationally demonstrable, all intuitive, perhaps best known, collectively, as common sense, all embrace the principles of identity, of noncontradiction, of the excluded middle, and such. We don't know HOW all paradox is ultimately reconciled, HOW it could be that no contradictions are veridical, HOW a comprehensive grasp could also be consistent, HOW infinite regress and circular logic are brought to end, but we instinctively know THAT reality would be utterly and hopelessly absurd otherwise. Common sense, then, is the beginning of wisdom, of sophia. It senses in all visible things an invisible fecundity, a dimmed light, a meek namelessness, a hidden wholeness, a mysterious Unity and Integrity, Natura naturans, an inexhaustible sweetness and purity, a silence, a fount of action and joy, rising up in wordless gentleness and flowing out to us from the unseen roots of all created being. It is not HOW this is so but THAT this is so that sophia knows. When a human shares the perspective THAT all things are related, the SEE-ER must be the Divine within because no human intellection can so render a glimpse at such a grasp of reality, which is both comprehensive and consistent (human intellection, in fact, disclaims the possibility). This is sophia, the immanent God. In the first act of human freedom, when we pursue the good for the sake of the good, we begin our journey into sapienta. When, with an act of the will, and with repeated acts of the will we affirm this relatedness of all things SEEing their worth, LOVE becomes the perfection of a knowledge showing itself in action. Sapienta becomes the perfection of Sophia showing itself in action (the transcendent God, the Holy Spirit). Whenever we engage any knowledge or intelligence of any variety or degree with Love, Wisdom is present. Mary is thus the Seat of Wisdom. The Little Flower is thus a Doctor of the Church. Aquinas was just a philosopher and systematic theologian in one sense but likely became the definitve Angelic Doctor when he noted that, without love, his writings were so much straw. A systematic theologian can be a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal ... but, truly, only if she lacks love. It has been said that the first step in discerning the presence of the Holy Spirit is to look for common sense. Common sense has an intuitive aspect that defies rational explanation, based as it is on self-evident presuppositions. This ineffability could well be the mark of a SEE-ER within all of us. When a relational aspect with this SEE-ER within unfolds and Love ensues of this SEE-ER within and all of the created order wherein S/he SEES, natural wisdom has transmuted into supernatural wisdom. There is definitely a type of human awareness that transcends innate human intelligences and which can only be a participation in what Someone Else is SEE-ing. See? jb | ||||
|
That was a very wise answer, JB.  Thank you very much for taking the time to share your thoughts on this topic. I very much concur that wisdom is much more than awareness or knowledge, but evaluation in the context of love. Since we believe that God is love, it follows that wisdom is a kind of seeing things from the divine's p.o.v. I think your point about willingness being something of a pivotal virtue is most important. I also like your affirmation of common sense as a type of wisdom. Maybe we should add a sense of humor to the mix as well, if for no other reason than the frequency it manifests among wise people. | ||||
|
I think your point about willingness being something of a pivotal virtue is most important. I wonder how much of the disagreement with Duns Scotus and Aquinas re: the primacy of the will vs the intellect resulted from a sort of false dichotomy? such as between faith and good works? To know God is to love God. Being reasonable is a loving thing to do. Loving is a reasonable thing to do. Duns Scotus, unmitigated, would lead to fideism. Aquinas, unmitgated, would lead to rationalism/empiricism. Somewhere, in all of this, Maritain's knowledge through connaturality seems to best capture the dynamism of combining the act of knowledge with the act of love? What say you to this issue, mon ami? | ||||
|
Maybe we should add a sense of humor to the mix as well, if for no other reason than the frequency it manifests among wise people. I�m blushing. But seriously, this in an interesting discussion. I�m just wise enough to shut up and listen. Or was. Ooops. | ||||
|
What say you to this issue, mon ami? I say . . . "Let's all sit down." (Wise rabbi, in "Fiddler on the Roof") And . . . I think Maritain has extended the old understandings on wisdom with his teachings on connaturality and the intuition of being. Also, Arraj has extended Maritain.  Re. Brad's contribution -- I do believe humor has an "angle" on things, if it's used "wisely" (there's that word again). It can help to break tension, change perspective, and open doors to relationship. Of course, it can be used to hurt people as well, as in ridicule and certain forms of sarcasm. Powerful force! | ||||
|
reality would be utterly and hopelessly absurd otherwise. Adler gives us the guide that a self-evident truth is one whose opposite is unimaginable. I think it was Zeno's backdoor that introduced the reductio ad absurdum, a process of refutation on grounds that absurd � and patently untenable consequences would ensue from accepting the item at issue. Common sense and intuition rely on self-evident truth. At the same time, like any knowledge, common sense and intuition must be cultivated, because some counter-intuitive results, such as non-Euclidean geometry, are sometimes found to be true. [Also, a reliance on reductio ad absurdum arguments runs the risk of committing the fallacies of begging the question, and slippery slope, ergo caveat emptor.] On the whole, the gift of Wisdom, for our sanctification, and the charism of Wisdom, for building the church, are manifest in common sense, uncommon as it may seem, sometimes. From the mouths of babes comes wisdom. The First Cause and the Unmoved Mover and the Incomprehensible Consistent Comprehender, the negation of infinite regress and cessation of circular logic, are just common sense, nothing that a system like non-Euclidean geometry will ever unravel. To reject these propositions is to saw off the epistemological limb one sits on, to knock down the epistemological ladder one has climbed, to dance, epistemologically, with someone other than brought you to the Epistemological Ball, rendering your system complete but inconsistent Trust your intuition, but cultivate it. IOW, pray for wisdom and She will help you. | ||||
|
Consequently wisdom which is a gift, has its cause in the will, which cause is charity, but it has its essence in the intellect, whose act is to judge aright The above is taken from Connaturality in Aquinas: The Ground of Wisdom by R.J. Snell in Quodlibet Journal: Volume 5 Number 4, October 2003 with excellent references/citations from Lonergan, Rahner and Heidegger. | ||||
|
I thought it would be appropriate to interject some quotes about wisdom since it seems to be a concept, like the sun, best glimpsed with a sideward glance. �Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it.� = Andre Gide �The function of wisdom is to discriminate between good and evil.� � Cicero �To understand reality is not the same as to know about outward events. It is to perceive the essential nature of things. The best-informed man is not necessarily the wisest. Indeed there is a danger that precisely in the multiplicity of his knowledge he will lose sight of what is essential. But on the other hand, knowledge of an apparently trivial detail quite often makes it possible to see into the depth of things. And so the wise man will seek to acquire the best possible knowledge about events, but always without becoming dependent upon this knowledge. To recognize the significant in the factual is wisdom.� � Dietrich Bonhoeffer �It is no longer enough to be smart � all the technological tools in the world add meaning and value only if they enhance our core values, the deepest part of our heart. Acquiring knowledge is no guarantee of practical, useful application. Wisdom implies a mature integration of appropriate knowledge, a seasoned ability to filter the inessential from the essential.� � Doc Childre and Deborah Rozman �Life is the only real counselor; wisdom unfiltered through personal experience does not become a part of the moral tissue.� � Edith Wharton �To know when to be generous and when firm�that is wisdom.� � Elbert Hubbard �Science is organized knowledge. Wisdom is organized life.� � Immanuel Kant �Besides the noble art of getting things done, there is the noble art of leaving things undone. The wisdom of life consists in the elimination of non-essentials.� � Lin Yutang �Knowledge is a process of piling up facts; wisdom lies in their simplification.� � Martin Fischer �But goodness alone is never enough. A hard cold wisdom is required, too, for goodness to accomplish good. Goodness without wisdom invariably accomplishes evil.� � Robert Heinlein �An idealist believes the short run doesn't count. A cynic believes the long run doesn't matter. A realist believes that what is done or left undone in the short run determines the long run.� � Sydney J. Harris �Kindness is more important than wisdom, and the recognition of this is the beginning of wisdom.� � Theodore Rubin | ||||
|
| <w.c.> |
http://www.heartmath.org/resea...intuition/index.html Check out the first two links on intuition and DNA response to heart intentionality. | ||
|
| 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 No intuition, no metaphysician.