Let's take a perennially popular topic -- sex! -- and see how that plays out in the different perspectives.

Woo hoo! [Running to get cigars, beers, and a few Ruth Westheimer tapes.]

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] I wouldn't characterize Catholic moral theology as primarily an expression of natural law -- not even transvalued by theistic or theotic considerations. There is much of that, but also much that draws from the Bible -- 10 Commandments, beatitudes, works of mercy, etc. Some of these can also be found in the natural law, but others seem additional considerations drawn out from reflection on what it would mean to live a life committed to loving. [/qb]

And by "drawn out from reflection," you imply "philosophic" reflection? And of course many of the Biblical injunctives and imperatives were similarly derived, many pre-existing or co-existing in other cultures for thousands of years. So, even though they are included in a compilation of revealed theology, their "revelation" is moreso "natural"?

pax,
jb

Only . . . don't expect people operating at the philosophic level to understand the theotic. OTOH, don't expect the theistic and theotic appreciations to be realized if the philosophic isn't.

Actually, sophomoric sex jokes notwithstanding (and I haven�t quite run out of them yet), I think you just provided a wonderful, intelligible and PG-13 rated analogy and explanation of something that is quite complex. Making the complex simple, as Rush might say, is not as easy as it sounds. Well done, Phil.

Probably so for a lot of them, JB, at least insofar as the good being affirmed in a theistic context can also be affirmed for other reasons philosophically. E.g., not killing, stealing, lying, coveting; taking care of one's parents, faithfulness to one's spouse, etc. You don't need a covenantal context to see the value of this.

OTOH, it seems there are some ethical principles that arise more out of theistic and theotic concerns rather than natural law. They can be affirmed at the philosophic level, but don't seem very strongly developed there. E.g. love of the enemy and forgiveness, come to mind, and perhaps some of the principles implicit in the beatitudes. These might be latent at the philosophic level, but it was explication in a theistic or even theotic context that helped develop the philosophic appreciation. Still, in the end, I suppose ethics per se is primarily a philosophic concern.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] Let's take a perennially popular topic -- sex! -- and see how that plays out in the different perspectives. [/qb]

Very well done, Phil. Your schema makes for a nice adaptation of Helminiak's own schema, which, as I recall, is much more broadly conceived?

pax,
jb

p.s. to BN --- more later; I KNOW you must be curious, Dr. Ruth fan that you are!

No one should doubt the value they get from their Shalomplace membership. Phil truly provides the best bang for the buck when it comes to spirituality in cyberspace.

Take this present thread for example. Look at the quote below and ask yourself whether or not this presentation of Helminiak's ideas has better equipped you, even if not fully, to answer the question posed:

quote:

"Every college student, public intellectual, and political leader, should be able to answer the question, 'What is the relationship between science and the humanities, and how important is it to human welfare?' "
� E.O. Wilson

From another angle, this may be one of the first times that a thread has approached a quick death rather than a rapid resuscitation upon the Moderator's re-direction of the topic to the subject of sex!

pax,
jb

I didn't read Helminiak's book on homosexuality and the Bible, so I didn't include those considerations.

The broadening of the perspective is clearly shown in that example about sex, so that, from the theotic perspective, we're talking about values that have only vague analogues at the philosophic. Nevertheless, this is an instance, I believe, where someone well-grounded in philosophic ethics could deeply appreciate what's being emphasized without even buying into the theotic religious perspective. Authentic values rooted more in a theistic or theotic perspective are bound to find resonances of some kind in the philosophic, even if they didn't arise there.

I appreciate the affirmation from you and Brad. We have another good resource thread, here--one that I can not refer people to when the need arises. Somehow, I don't think we're quite done, however.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] I didn't read Helminiak's book on homosexuality and the Bible, so I didn't include those considerations.

The broadening of the perspective is clearly shown in ... [/qb]

Well, I wasn't thinking of that book, in particular, although I have read it and am sympathetic with Helminiak's account and approach; rather, I was thinking of Chapter 18, Sexuality & Spirituality, of The Human Core of Spirituality: Mind as Psyche & Spirit .

In that book, Helminiak draws a sharp distinction between the focus of spirituality and the focus of ethics . Systematic spirituality is a kind of anthropology and, as such, remains general . It presents an ideal picture, per Helminiak, but leaves the determination of particular expressions to human individuals themselves. Contrastingly, the task of ethics is precisely geared to the specific , specifying principles and guidelines for specific situations. The bridging principle is authenticy , which, in general, is integral to spirituality; contrastingly, the specification of what authenticity requires in specific cases is proper to ethics.

This is not in any way inconsistent with the principles of constraint and subsidiarity we fleshed out above as the more general , wider, foci are constrained, at each level, by the more specific , narrower, foci. What can end up happening in such a case as spirituality vs ethics is that, when the contributions of one aspect are somewhat limited, by definition, iow, narrow, as they influence another (not necessarily dealing with levels per se), the resulting available interpretations are broadened.

When subsidiarity is violated Helminiak notes: So this matter of spirituality quickly becomes theological and, what is more ominous, ethical. Sexual morality supplants sexual spirituality, and the morality is societal or religious prescriptions attributed to God.

He continues: In sum, though ethics and spirituality cannot be separated, making specific ethical judgments is not the task of a systematic spirituality. Thus, unlike most other approaches, the present account addresses the integration of sexuality and spirituality without a claim to ethics and, far more, without an appeal to God.

Earlier in his discussion, Helminiak dispenses with many of the myths which, in some cases, controlled sexual attitudes and practices for centuries. In a compare and contrast exercise between humans and other animal species, his anthropological account informs, naturally, his systematic spirituality.

Helminiak thus assigns meanings of sexuality to organism, psyche and spirit, in an oversimplified nutshell, here: the organismic-biological level serves procreation; the psychic level concerns affective togetherness and emotional attachment; the spirit is concerned with knowing, loving and caring through interpersonal sharing and is the ultimate determining factor of the distinctive nature of the human, such that, in his words, genital intimacy may be authentic and appropriate wherever caring and relating as persons are the ultimate structure of the relationship.

Of course, this sets the stage for the opening to the theological and then the theotic.

Theologically, in Helminiak's words, authentic believers, more than others, open themselves to some possibility of deeper human fulfillment in general. Perforce, they also open themselves to deeper sexual fulfillment in particular. He limits the theistic contribution to these, which are not numerous but still significant.

Theotically, the implications of the Incarnation radically affirm that humanity in general and sexuality in particular are good, with human sexuality not only geared toward interpersonal human communion but also toward human deification. He writes: the theotic viewpoint envisages earthly sexual experience as some anticipation of human fulfillment in heaven.

End of post.

Beginning of evangelical outreach:

Christian resurrection means perfection of all three: organism, psyche and spirit. Specific focus on sexuality highlights another implication of this belief. One could imagine that full actualization of human organism and psyche along with perfect integration of human spirit would be nothing other than eternal orgasm. Then heaven would be an ongoing sharing in divinity, which entails ever fuller human appreciation of being, which in turn entails never ending arousal and actuation of psyche and organism --- a continuous experience of peak "turn on." Heaven could be considered as making love with God and in God with everyone else and with the whole universe --- all at the peak of never-ending arousal eternally. [dog-eared at pg 264]

Wow! Makes Osama bin Laden's 72 virgins seem like a paltry reward, a meager and trivial incentive (and, besides, it's 72 Virginians those knuckleheads will face, eh?).

pax,
jb

Wow! Makes Osama bin Laden's 72 virgins seem like a paltry reward, a meager and trivial incentive (and, besides, it's 72 Virginians those knuckleheads will face, eh?).

Let's just say that I think the Jehovah's Witnesses would have far fewer doors slammed in their face if they went with that approach.

Now, for a side by side consideration of Phil's account and Helminiak's theistic and theotic accounts, noting that there was virtually complete agreement re: the other levels.

Phil: Theistic -- sex is the means by which human beings co-operate with the Creator in the act of bringing forth and nurturing existence. Its pleasures also indicate the joy of the Creator in creating and the goodness of what is created.

Helminiak: authentic believers, more than others, open themselves to some possibility of deeper human fulfillment in general. Perforce, they also open themselves to deeper sexual fulfillment in particular. He limits the theistic contribution to these, which are not numerous but still significant.

Phil: Theotic -- the marriage between man and woman is analogous to Christ's love for the Church. Man and woman ought to love and serve one another as Christ loves the Church and laid down his life for her (Eph. 5). Sex is the sacramental celebration of this love -- a kind of marital eucharist, as it were.

Helminiak: Theotically, the implications of the Incarnation radically affirm that humanity in general and sexuality in particular are good, with human sexuality not only geared toward interpersonal human communion but also toward human deification. He writes: the theotic viewpoint envisages earthly sexual experience as some anticipation of human fulfillment in heaven.

JB's assessment is that Helminiak's account allows for a broader interpretation of how both the theistic and theotic values are to be realized, in fact, by constraining their contributions vis a vis what we know from our systematic spirituality, which is in turn informed by our anthropology.

As a general rule, then, as we move from one aspect of our humanity to the next, what the theistic contributes is a radical affirmation of human goodness, what the theotic contributes is the affirmation that such an aspect is geared toward human deification. Beyond that, religions are walking on progressively thinner ice when dragging their moralities into the picture, and break through the ice when dragging God in to somehow authoritatively bolster their societal and religious moralities, which are often taboos.

pax,
jb

To paraphrase the "A" team, "I love it when a thread
comes together.

"Come together, right now, over me." - Fab Four

Sufis and Christian mystics are fond of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Song_of_Solomon

A dolphin's eye view:

http://www.ldolphin.org/ssong.shtml

And in the original Klingon:

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/.../public/KjvCant.html

Sometimes I'll be sitting in a twelve step group with ten people and twelve divorces and sex will come up as a topic, and I'll realize that very little Shalom exists in modern times. I'll defer to the married men who might know something about it. In Judaism, you can't grow a beard and be a real adult until you have your first child. I'm a clean shaven pup.

mea culpa, mea maxima culpa,

mm <*)))))><

I'll defer to the married men who might know something about it. In Judaism, you can't grow a beard and be a real adult until you have your first child. I'm a clean shaven pup.

I think priests should be able to be married, but not for purposes of "relating better" to married people. A mechanic probably hasn't driven your car before, but he knows how to fix it. Richard Feynman wasn't an astronaut or NASA employee and yet he cut through the BS regarding the Challenger accident and got to the problem. Very often an outside perspective is of enormous value. And tell me, MM, that you haven't actually "parented" a few people in your life or in your work in 12-step programs, particularly people whose own parents were so lacking.

Go ahead and grow that beard, but I have a feeling it wouldn't look good on you.

OK, now that JB has strolled through the bar room and thoroughly "tidied up" the manner in which sexuality can be understood vis a vis the four perspectives (nice job -- I'm thinking more about heaven these days! ), I'd like to reflect briefly on how Buddhism fits in here.

I vew Buddhism (as does Helminiak) as an authentic spiritual tradition in the philosophic perspective. This is very un-PC, I know, because it insinuates that the theistic and theotic religions have a broader grasp on things than Buddhism, and so they are "better" or "more-evolved," in some way. How might we get around this?

First, I think we need to acknowledge that it is the Buddhists themselves who draw the line between the philosophic and theistic perspectives. Guatama adamantly refused to go there, and so they have left the questions and issues addressed by theism "tabled," as it were.

Why?

Because, in his great integrity, Guatama realized that he did not know the answers to these questions. He knew the enlightenment experience, and how to lead others to this great liberation, and so that is what he taught.

What many have come to recognize, however, is that depth of spirituality found in Buddhism at the philosophic level exceeds what they found in their own theistic and theotic traditions. The temptation, then, is to say that Buddhism is a more evolved religious tradition--that even, as Bernadette Roberts put it, Buddhism picks up where transforming union (Christian journey) leaves off.

So the perspectives help to clarify all this by acknowledging that some Buddhists and humanists are indeed more spiritually developed than Christians, Jews or Moslems -- and maybe, even, because their focus is so exclusively placed in the philosophic that they are not "distracted" by concerns like "right dogma," salvation and so forth. Ideally, theism should enable deeper human spirituality, but, alas, that is not always the case. It doesn't follow, however, that Buddhism is higher perspective. It's not! Nor is it true that theistic and theotic traditions are lacking in saints and mystics who have tasted what Buddhism knows, and more. As John Paul II put it in Crossing the Threshold of Hope, Buddhism leaves off where John of the Cross begins. This got him into trouble with the PC police, but it's true. John of the Cross -- often accused of being a Buddhist -- incorporates all that Buddhism teaches in the service of detachment and enlightenment, and goes beyond to show how these disciplines enable a deeper opening to God.

One exciting possibility presented by the perspectives, then, is that a theist need not reject anything that is good and true at the philosophic level, including Buddhist and Hindu teachings. One will have to carefully sift out the religious aspects of those teachings that conflict with theism, but the rest should be OK. Thomas Merton and Dom Aelred Graham were early pioneers in showing how Christians could benefit from Buddhism. The Second Vatican Council also affirmed that the Church rejects nothing that is good and true in other religions. Let the explorations continue, but let us not be confused about what we're doing, and why.

Another very Fox-like reflection from Phil: fair and balanced

If I've been a little harsh towards Buddhism in the past I think it is simply because something really good (like chocolate ice cream) was not accepted and understood for what it was. Instead they tried to put all kinds of toppings on it until you virtually couldn't see or taste the chocolate anymore. It was all bits of Oreo and ground Snickers on top. As you said, Phil, it seems Buddha had the wisdom to know what he could do and what he couldn't. While pounding a nail with a screwdriver is possible, I think a hammer works much better.

I think with your Buddha reflections you start to bring home real practical applications of that original Exhibit A that you showed. Every discipline has its focused purpose and its strong points. We're surely tempted to call one better than the other because of personal pride or other feelings, but we ought to take from what you said and understand that a Buddhist can be far more spiritual than a Christian, or the other way around. It just depends. But deep spirituality is possible, it seems, in many, if not all, of the various religions and philosophies. One might naturally lead to the other. A good practice of Buddhism could lead one to becoming a Christian. But that is not necessarily to say that Buddhism is lacking or that Christianity is superior. They're just all doing different things with different ends in mind.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] First, I think we need to acknowledge that it is the Buddhists themselves who draw the line between the philosophic and theistic perspectives. Guatama adamantly refused to go there, and so they have left the questions and issues addressed by theism "tabled," as it were.

Why?

Because, in his great integrity, Guatama realized that he did not know the answers to these questions. He knew the enlightenment experience, and how to lead others to this great liberation, and so that is what he taught.

What many have come to recognize, however, is that depth of spirituality found in Buddhism at the philosophic level exceeds what they found in their own theistic and theotic traditions. The temptation, then, is to say that Buddhism is a more evolved religious tradition [/qb]

I hesitate to draw this analogy, knowing I run the risk of introducing unintelligible jargon, but I will try to be mindful of the peril and proceed anyway, because the analogy is so direct.

In philosophy, there have been similar movements, lines drawn between philosophy as concerned strictly with what we all know as logic, aesthetics and ethics, and philosophy as might broaden its focus of concern to include metaphysics. The common denominator between certain of these philosophical schools, which reject the possibility of metaphysics, and Buddhism, is what I have often derided as an excessive epistemological humility.

This is a malady shared, albeit for slightly different reasons, by the humean, kantian and analytic (and linguistic) schools. These schools issued a critique of human knowledge that was worthy of a response but not worthy of a total capitulation. In their questioning of the very foundations of human knowledge they properly evoked various responses from other schools by calling into question their epistemological hubris, most often exhibited as a claim to a priori knowledge of the fundamental nature of reality in terms of both structure and dynamic.

The proper answer to such questioning is a retreat from any a priori and rationalistic posture to an a posteriori and empiricist posture, which converts one from a naive realism to a moderate or critical realism.

A naive realism does not survive the postmodern critique of these other schools and must surrender any notion that humankind can ultimately comprehend reality.

A moderate realism answers the critique with an acknowledgment of reality's utter incomprehensibility accompanied by an affirmation of reality's partial apprehensibility. Reality is utterly intelligible and the process of advancing in our intelligence is inexorable and really infinite.

A moderate or critical realism not only answers the postmodern critique and radical postmodern decontsructionism by modifying its previously naive realism, it, in turn, issues its own scathing counter-critique, which is that one cannot coherently and consistently maintain reality's unintelligibility without self-contradiction, which is to further say that one cannot reject the possibility of metaphysics without self-contradiction, which is to final suggest that one cannot reject the possibility of theistic and theotic approaches without self-contradiction.

Why?

Because these approaches do not really amount to merely a critique or assessment of humankind's evaluative continuum or knowledge manifold (sensation and perception, emotion and motivation, learning and memory, common sense and intuition, cognition and inference and deliberation) but also represent our ventures into progressively larger spheres of concern: positivistic, philosophic, theistic and theotic, and one can conceive of metaphysics as straddling the philosophic-theistic divide.

Any explicit denial (or affirmation) of even only the possibility of doing philosophy is itself a philosophy, of even only doing metaphysics is itself metaphysics, of even only doing theistic analysis is itself theistic analysis, of even only doing theotic analysis is ipso facto theotic analysis.

At the instant you comment on a sphere of concern, you affirm it as a valid focus of human concern and broaden your own perspective, which is what Helminiak's descriptive account is all about. Now, prescriptively or normatively, how we then engage these spheres of concern with the human evaluative continuum-knowledge manifold is another issue entirely and we will variously agree and disagree regarding same. What cannot be denied without ipso facto affirming (in a manifestly self-contradictory manner) is reality's intelligibility, humanity's intelligence (in general) and humanity's natural spheres/foci of concern.

In the end, however, one must tip one's hat to Guatama, for he very circumspectly did not involve himself with such self-contradiction, as did Hume and the radical postmodern deconstructionists and the nouveau buddhists/nondualists (e.g. folks who commit pre-trans fallacies, let's say,like Wilber, himself?), but, rather, remained in a respectful silence. I'm not saying such is not problematical, however, for, in the end, it amounts to a practical radical apophaticism cum agnosticism, which is also self-contradictory, implicitly asserting that the one thing we can know is that we cannot know.

No, we must strike some balance between Haldane, who said that reality is not only stranger than we imagine but stranger than we can imagine , and Chesterton, who said we do not know enough about reality to say that it is unknowable . In this sense, then, an unmitigated agnosticism is also incoherent and self-contradictory. The proper corrective action is simply a retreat from agnosticism to fallibilism.

Fallibilism recognizes the inexorable advance of human knowledge while, at the same time, not ignoring various boundaries and limits. Those boundaries, in an ironic sort of way, in turn, even serve to guide our collective inquiry as we all acknowledge that we, at least minimally, are operating from implicit working hypotheses (metaphysically, theistically and theotically) guided by probabilistic inference and plain old common sense and, inescapably, some form of faith.

That's my answer and it's sticking to me.

pax,
jb

Any explicit denial (or affirmation) of even only the possibility of doing philosophy is itself a philosophy, of even only doing metaphysics is itself metaphysics, of even only doing theistic analysis is itself theistic analysis, of even only doing theotic analysis is ipso facto theotic analysis.

That makes sense.

In the end, however, one must tip one's hat to Guatama, for he very circumspectly did not involve himself with such self-contradiction, as did Hume and the radical postmodern deconstructionists and the nouveau buddhists/nondualists (e.g. folks who commit pre-trans fallacies, let's say,like Wilber, himself?), but, rather, remained in a respectful silence. I'm not saying such is not problematical, however, for, in the end, it amounts to a practical radical apophaticism cum agnosticism, which is also self-contradictory, implicitly asserting that the one thing we can know is that we cannot know.

From my readings of Buddha and Buddhism it seems his desire to skirt religious questions was also (perhaps mainly) a political consideration. He was pushing it as it was touching an untouchable. Imagine the problems he would have had had he taken a particular religious stance. His message would have been lost. He would have had no hope of spreading enlightenment and peace if he did not stay neutral on religion. He was not meant to be sacrificed for some larger or secondary purpose. And I still insist that his message (his philosophy, his techniques, his practice) is inherently lost if turned into a religious practice (which is not to say that those who practice religion can't make fruitful use of Buddha's techniques). Had he wanted to start a religion he would have done so and he would have said more about metaphysical questions. Whether he knew more then he was letting on, we can only guess. (I suspect he was.)

quote:

So the perspectives help to clarify all this by acknowledging that some Buddhists and humanists are indeed more spiritually developed than Christians, Jews or Moslems -- and maybe, even, because their focus is so exclusively placed in the philosophic that they are not "distracted" by concerns like "right dogma," salvation and so forth. Ideally, theism should enable deeper human spirituality, but, alas, that is not always the case. It doesn't follow, however, that Buddhism is higher perspective. It's not!

A parallel case exists in philosophy in what is called phenomenology, which proceeds to describe interactions between phenomena without regard to what their essential natures might be, which is to say they proceed by bracketing [metaphysics].

A [bracketing] of metaphysics or of the theistic and theotic can serve as a useful heuristic device and provide some much needed hermeneutical hygiene by which we can indeed critique our various metaphysics and theologies and theoses. There is a problem, however, when such phenomenological-bracketing approaches end up abandoning the metaphysical, theistic and theotic enterprises rather than merely prescinding from same (taking a step back to gain perspective). The prescinding, bracketing, backing up a few steps can indeed serve to advance our spiritualities even if all they accomplish is ridding them of impurities, contradictions, incoherencies, violations of subsidiarity and such.

Phenomenology, bracketing, prescinded approaches and backing up a few steps cannot propel us forward, however, with increased modeling power, which can only come from taking one step back and two steps forward, which is to suggest that we must not abandon the metaphysical, theistic and theotic but must occasionally retreat, only to regroup and charge!

The challenge, then, for theists and those practicing theosis, to those who would not only prescind from these foci of concern but would completely abandon them, is to demonstrate the efficacies of truly deepened spiritualites:

quote:

But the fruit the Holy Spirit produces is love, joy and peace. It is being patient, kind, and good. It is being faithful and gentle and having control of oneself... Galatians 5:22-23

It is shalom.

pax, amor et bonum, ne'est pas?
jb

There is a problem, however, when such phenomenological-bracketing approaches end up abandoning the metaphysical, theistic and theotic enterprises rather than merely prescinding from same (taking a step back to gain perspective). The prescinding, bracketing, backing up a few steps can indeed serve to advance our spiritualities even if all they accomplish is ridding them of impurities, contradictions, incoherencies, violations of subsidiarity and such.

I would agree, but if you're living in a world already full of religion, the effect of a philosophy such as Buddhism that presumably abandons the metaphysical, theistic and theotic (particularly when mixed with the practices in the real world) is to prescind, bracket and back up a few steps. Buddhism, as far as I can determine, wasn't meant or offered as a substitute for religion. It wasn't a competitor although surely it may have been seen as one, and surely it was turned into one. But the wisest among you here know that the techniques of Buddhism are quite compatible with Christianitiy. Phil mentions that you have to first pull some stuff out, but I would say that when you do that you're getting down to and back to the real Siddhartha deal.

On a separate venue and project, I have been working on something (with the enormous help of a friend) that is very much related to this project of Phil, which relies, in part, on Helminiak, who relies much on Lonergan. My friend (and now me) also relies heavily on Lonergan but is otherwise using a different metaphysics and coming from a different philosophical school (and further relying on his mentor Don Gelpi).

If you click here , you will see an outline of the Constructs & Structures of Dynamic Triadic Social-Relational Experience, which fleshes out 1)an Architectonic of the Known: organon of knowledge & spheres of human concern and also 2)an Architectonic of the Knower: evaluative continuum & aspects of human knowledge & bounded rationality .

These two "architectonics" correspond, respectively (and respectfully) with Phil's Spiritual Perspectives and Ontological View.

They also make for a great outline of the chapters in which my voluble musings would properly fit, organizing them in a less scatter-brained manner than has been my normal modus operandus thus far in life. I don't know what inspired Phil to do his outline, but that's what inspired me to do mine! For example, this particular post is related to item iii.3.b. from the first part of my outline

pax,
jb

Speaking of perspectives on spirituality, a couple questions occurred to me this morning: What is one's creation story? and Could spirituality be defined as the search for this?

Clearly we live in an evolving and changing universe. It is not static. And whether we are prepared for change or not, we inevitably get it. It's interesting, therefore, that many of our disciplines, such as meditation or Buddhism, are at least a partial search for stillness. In Buddhism they explicitly acknowledge this as "taking refuge". Might this search for stillness and peace also be mixed with a desire for insulation and refuge rather than, say, communication with God or with getting in touch with one's true self? I'm not denying that stillness isn't good but I find it to be another interesting paradox. We must move to change and yet if we do little but chase our tails we might as well be still.

You people here have a philosophy called "getting aligned with God's will". Whether there is a God or not it seems clear and self-evident that cooperating with creation (with the world that is so clearly in motion and going somewhere) is far preferable to fighting against it. (Whether building a physical dam such as Hoover is cooperating or fighting, I'll leave to the philosophers.) When we go with our natures instead of against them we are happier, healthier and more at peace. Therefore one could say that the major thrust of spirituality is to find that true self and to somehow divine the nitty-gritty laws and goals of creation so that one can put oneself in alignment with it.

Some people's creation story stops at science and nature and goes no further. That is full and complete for them -- at least that is their starting premise. But like all of us, no matter our creation stories, we must constantly fight and philosophize (and pray) to keep up with and manage the loose ends that inevitably pop up. There are so many details and we find, no matter our creation story, that, if we're honest, we allow faith to smooth over many of the nagging details so that our lives are not spent worrying and rationalizing and are spent living out and according to our creation stories. We just can't exist reasonably if we have to think our way through life from moment to moment. But from time to time our faith (whether religious or scientific) must be adjusted when the rubber meets the road, when a Galileo pops up or when, as men and woman grow older, a deeper sense of connection to something spiritual pops up. These have to be accounted for and managed. And I suppose when our Philosophical box can no longer hold our beliefs that we drift to the theistic. And when the theistic can't quite hold all our beliefs then we drift to the theotic. I doubt this is how it works for most. It seems probably that most are indoctrinated and then, later (much later, perhaps) we go back and categorize.

It is probably the wise (and happy) man or woman who knows his or her creation story and lives by it. For some their story is to search ever-deeper for the various creation stories themselves, how they exist, why they exist, what they have in common, and therefore, where this is all ultimately going. I think I know one or two of those people. And I also know that I'm still looking for my creation story. And I know this is hardly a unique position. One may say "Brad, simply apply faith and let the rest take care of itself." For some that is the best advice. I think surely that one will have little trouble finding and applying copious amounts of faith, but I think this is true only if one is operating inside (or within shouting distance) of one's suited creation story and is connected to that story by enough of one's true self. One still could, of course, jump in feet first with faith and work the other stuff out later, changing denominations or entire religions later on if necessary, but one might also do little more than slather yet another layer of false self on top of the true one. It's a tough call sometimes.

That is what I think is so effective and beneficial about such topics as "Perspectives on Spirituality" and about such forums as Shalom Place. Here we may delve and dabble and discover and perhaps steer our lives on course�or, if already on course, increase the wonder and pleasure of the cruise.

Brad notes: Speaking of perspectives on spirituality, a couple questions occurred to me this morning: What is one's creation story? and Could spirituality be defined as the search for this?

I think it was pointed out earlier in this thread that, minimally, spirituality is pursuit of meaning, goodness, truth, understanding, transcendence, etc. in the philosophic perspective. This can include an attempt to formulate a creation story, but it's much broader than that. When the accounting of creation moves into consideration of God-as-Creator, we're in the theistic perspective. One doesn't really need faith of any kind to do that kind of considering in the theistic realm; it's only when theism begins to inform one's sense of meaning, purpose, etc. that it can be said to be theistic spirituality.

JB, I don't have a problem with the "jargon" you're introducing as it's terminology proper to what I call pro-level philosophical exploration. The four-perspective approach isn't really pro-level, imo, although the underlying metaphysical and epistomological expositions of Helminiak and Lonergan are. I like the four perspectives because it shows general relationships between areas of concern, and because they don't seem artifically contrived. But it's good for people to know that, within each of these perspectives and cutting across them all, there are other issues that require investigation and elaboration.

I think it was pointed out earlier in this thread that, minimally, spirituality is pursuit of meaning, goodness, truth, understanding, transcendence, etc. in the philosophic perspective. This can include an attempt to formulate a creation story, but it's much broader than that. When the accounting of creation moves into consideration of God-as-Creator, we're in the theistic perspective. One doesn't really need faith of any kind to do that kind of considering in the theistic realm; it's only when theism begins to inform one's sense of meaning, purpose, etc. that it can be said to be theistic spirituality.

Sorry about that. I was taking a little more poetic license with the term "creation story" then I made clear.

re: poetic license with the term "creation story"

quote:

Understanding the order in the universe and understanding the purpose in the universe are not identical, but they are also not very far apart.
� Charles Hard Townes

Some people's creation story stops at science and nature and goes no furtherThat is full and complete for them -- at least that is their starting premise. But like all of us, no matter our creation stories, we must constantly fight and philosophize (and pray) to keep up with and manage the loose ends that inevitably pop up.

This made me think of a quote I read just this morning.

�I do see the design of the universe as essentially a religious question. That is, one should have some kind of respect and awe for the whole business. It's very magnificent and shouldn't be taken for granted. In fact, I believe that is why Einstein had so little use for organized religion, although he strikes me as a basically very religious man. He must have looked at what the preachers said about God and felt that they were blaspheming. He had seen much more majesty than they had ever imagined, and they were just not talking about the real thing. My guess is that he simply felt that religions he had run across did not have a proper respect for the Author of the universe.� (Charles Meisner on his shared views of organized religion.)

One may say "Brad, simply apply faith and let the rest take care of itself." For some that is the best advice.

I am one of those that really does live like that. It absolutely infuriates some folks, but I've found it to be the "true" application of my faith (for me personally). Not that I don't enjoy pondering things, but that in the end, I sometimes have to say...I don't understand it, but I believe it .

Blessings,
Terri

That whole order/purpose distinction, JB, is a worthy subject for meditation and rumination. I wonder what will come out from having put that idea on the back burner, so to speak? I often feel that the best analogy for our brains is that of a stove. We can handle a couple of different immediate issues on the hot front burners, but while juggling the sauce and the saut� with our split attention we usually manage to burn something. But the things put on low heat on the back burners are transformed by slow simmer into something much more palatable. Just don�t expect to eat in a hurry.

I am one of those that really does live like that. It absolutely infuriates some folks, but I've found it to be the "true" application of my faith (for me personally). Not that I don't enjoy pondering things, but that in the end, I sometimes have to say...I don't understand it, but I believe it

I was told recently by someone in real life that people who "think too much" often have a hard time with faith. I�m not entirely unfamiliar with the distinction between un-intellectual and anti-intellectual. I know that when one is, say, trying to hit the target that they must stop breathing for a moment in order to be still and pull the trigger. And as long as we�re going with armament analogies, I�m also familiar with the idea of the arrow that is not aimed. One can�t think one�s way, step by step, to an accurate shot. One must simply let go and shoot. Slackening the tyranny of the mind is something I am working on. I am at least intellectually aware that a kind act by one who knows nothing of religion or philosophy can be far greater than all the intellectualizing in the world.

That said, I really like that quote from Charles Meisner, Terri. Thanks for digging that one up.