sorting truth claims and categories.pdf

8/3/2019 sorting truth claims and categories.pdf

1/12

Sorting Truth Claims

Whether embedded in discursive analysis or mythopoetic

narrative

Is this a claim that can be safely abstracted from its context

within the whole without doing violence to its integrity?rather than, to paraphrase C.S. Lewis, being wrenched from its

context in the whole and swollen to madness in its isolation?

And the general default stance would be that most truth claims

should have some interreligious, intercultural significance as

human beings are, for the most part, vis a vis the human

condition, similarly situated and, furthermore

Despite any pretense to the contrary, individual truth claims

are not going to be inextricably bound within or to systematic

formulae because they are otherwise ordinarily going to be

related as individual strands of cable that collectively

impart strength and resilience one to the other in a way that

is much more informal. And the distinction in play, here, is

that between foundational and nonfoundational epistemologies,

between deductive reasoning from a priori, apodictic

propositions and a form of reasoning that otherwise cycles

through abductive and inductive inferences in a cumulative

case-like approach. Further, one must consider the distinction

between propositional claims and nonpropositional posits.

As one moves within and across various communities of value-

realizers, one must consider the nature of the concepts being

employed vis a vis to what extent such concepts enjoy

theoretic (negotiated), heuristic (still-in-negotiation),dogmatic (non-negotiated) or semiotic (non-negotiable) status.

One must further distinguish between articulations of any

given theory of truth (correspondence & congruence) versus a

proposal for a test of truth (coherence, consilience &

consonance)

next between nomological (descriptive/interpretive) &

axiological (normative/evaluative) truth claims

and then further distinguish between prudential

(moral/practical) norms and relational norms

(unitary/unitive), the latter which

foster realizations of absolute unitary being and/or

intersubjective unitive intimacy, distinct realizations, to be

sure, but both

from which solidarity and compassion seem to inevitably ensue?

and which have profound existential import?

The relational norms (ceremonial, liturgical, ascetical &

mystical) may, perhaps, be the most interesting when they lead

to

phenomenal experiences that do not so much lend themselves to

1


2/12

phenomenological descriptions (much less

metaphysical/ontological hypotheses?) as they will otherwise

bring about a practitioner's affective attunement with reality

vis a vis how friendly and safe it is notwithstanding all

appearances to the contrary (ridding folks of angst, perfect

love driving out all fear)?

There is a "Taste and See" approach to such truth claims that

engages our participatory imaginations more than our

conceptual mapmaking?

This is not to say that empirical, logical, moral and

practical propositions are unimportant, only to realize that

'marital propositions' are far more 'engaging' and meaning-

giving, inviting what I like to call an existential-

disjunctive: "I am going to live as if She loves me." And when

so many efficacies ensue from thus living AS IF ... perhaps

truth will come flying in on the wings of beauty & goodness?

as it is not merely informative but robustly performative,

even transformative?

Our existential responses can be mapped along either the axis

of co-creativity (formative and redemptive poles) or the axis

of codependency (a/pathetic poles) based on their frequency

and amplitude, revealing behavior to be existential or

neurotic, life-giving and relationship-enhancing or their

opposite.

Distinctions & Neologisms

pansemioentheism

pneumatological consensus (the secular as)

nomological vs axiological trut claims

prudential vs relational norms

unitary vs unitive

descriptive sciences

evaluative cultures

normative philosophies

interpretive religions

theoretic concept

semiotic concept

heuristic concept

dogmatic concept

intraobjective identity (absolute unitary being)

intersubjective intimacy (intimate unitive communion)

intrasubjective integrity

interobjective indeterminacy

simple phenomenal experience

vague phenomenological concepts

robust ontological descriptions

2


3/12

risk management, both attenuation & amplification, ordered

toward the augmentation of

value-realization

value-realizations as

intrinsic vs extrinsic rewards

end-product vs by-product

axis of co-creativity (formative and redemptive poles)

axis of codependency (a/pathetic poles)

theoretical theological capitulation

practical pastoral accommodation

universal ethical norms of justice & ordinary virtue (morality

as end-product)

Christian unitive norms of love & extraordinary virtue

(morality as by-product)

A Pneumatological Consensus?

In a pluralistic country, might we perhaps discern how much,

on the whole, its people cooperate with the Spirit?

Might we observe how well its:

1) culture sanctifies

2) history orients

3) society empowers

4) economy heals &

5) politics save ----------- its people?

Might the secular there manifest, for better or worse, a"pneumatological consensus" with its implicit theology

(sanctifying),

eschatology (orienting), ecclesiology (empowering),

sacramentology (healing) & soteriology (saving)?

Of course, we are talking about proleptic (anticipatory)

realizations of Kingdom values that are yet unfolding toward a

future fullness.

This would clearly differ from any overly dialectical

perspective that would essentially run counter to a robustly

incarnational and profusely pneumatological approach to all of

reality, even while recognizing significant differences in any

degree of cooperation with the Spirit. Of course, failures to

cooperate might result from either inabilities (due to poor

formation or even deformative influences) or refusals (known

to God alone).

Also, this might differ, somewhat, from any Niebuhrian realism

that would draw too sharp a distinction between the

eschatological and temporal significance of Gospel

imperatives? For example, nonviolence then but not now?

Or from any exegetical interpretations that would too sharply

distinguish between our personal vocations and political

3


4/12

statecraft? For example, coercion there but not here?

Or that would suggest so-called dispensational distinctions?

For example, signs & wonders then but not now, there but not

here)?

And we might introduce a distinction between the Gospel'srobustly unitive norms (how to live in loving intimacy with

God and others) and general revelation's merely moral norms

(how to live in harmony with God, others, creation & self,

pursuing what's good and right, avoiding what's evil and

wrong), morality realized as a by-product of the former, an

end-product of the latter, necessary in any case.

Because of our radical human finitude and sinfulness

(personal, social & institutional), any sanctioned departures

from these unitive norms would represent, then, no theoretical

theological capitulations (eisegesis even) but, rather,

practical pastoral accommodations (for example, regarding any

use of coercive

violence).

At any rate, these unitive norms - and not any essentially

moral norms, which are otherwise transparent to human reason

without the benefit of special revelation(s) - differentiate

the Gospel brand in the marketplace. Love is a suitable means

to the ends of justice but its unitive aims clearly exceed

those, even breaking open a new category.

The whole point of my exploration is that we might more

broadly conceive

just when and where and in whom we might encounter the Spirit!The unitive vs moral

norm distinction moreso differentiates the Old & New

Testaments, as I see it. Keep in mind,

though, that 'good people doing good things for good reasons'

characterizes moral norms.

Our unitive norms entail a striving for loving intimacy,

relating as lovers. So, what I am

saying is that morality is not what separates the Gospel

messages from other messages b/c

anyone can do morality, which is transparent to human reason

without the benefit of

special revelation, which is why we see good people doing good

things for good reasons

everywhere. The Good News tells us that we are loved beyond

imagining by a God, Who

wants us to relate to Him as Daddy, or, if one prefers, as

Betrothed.

To some extent, this unitive striving can be distinguished

from those practices of the East

that are ordered toward gifting one with an experience of

absolute unitary being, which I

consider an intuition of intraobjective identity, our great

causal connectedness, reality's

immense solidarity. The unitive striving gifts us with an

4


5/12

intersubjective, interpersonal

intimacy. Both lead to compassion.

The thrust is that the Spirit just might be at work -

in every history, every culture, every society, every economy

and every political effort,

albeit in varying degrees. And the efficacies of the Spiritare being realized not just in the

past or future but now, not just here and here but there and

there. And that the Spirit's

invitation takes us -- not without but -- way beyond mere

moral & practical concerns to

robustly relational concerns.

What is at stake in adopting an interpretive stance toward

reality involves relational

values & relationships, evaluative posits of various types

(truth, beauty, goodness,

freedom/love), normative approaches (how to best avoid or

acquire dis/values) and

descriptive accounts (what is that?).

To some extent, we can roughly map these endeavors as science

(descriptive-truth),

philosophy (normative-goodness) and culture (evaluative-

beauty). Religion is an interpretive

stance that takes us meta- via creed (truth), cult-ivation

(beauty), code (goodness) and

community (relational).

The Spirit (based on Lukan Christology, too) orients,

sanctifies, empowers, heals and savesus and these functions are manifest in our churches,

respectively, via eschatology, theology,

ecclesiology, sacrament and soteriology, mapping roughly over

an otherwise, again

respectively, secular history, culture, society, economy &

body politic.

More commonly, we see the terms orthodoxy (truth), orthopathy

(beauty), orthopraxy

(goodness) and orthocommunio (community), as applied to our

needs for believing,

desiring, behaving and belonging.

A New Testament emphasis would, in my view, for purposes of

formative

spirituality/development, while viewing all of these aspects

as integral, would accord a

certain primacy to belonging, which then forms our desires,

which then elicit our behaviors

which will nurture our interpretive stance or beliefs. And

these beliefs engage our

participatory imagination way more than our propositional

cognition, being way more

performative than informative, much more about practical

living than theoretical

5


6/12

speculation.

This does not correspond, however, to the Old Covenant

mindset, which certainly values

belonging, desiring, behaving and believing but seems to

accord a primacy to believe this

and behave like that and then you can belong (and what's adesire?).

What we are doing in our dialogue is a theological task. We

are unpacking our densely

packed jargonistic prose. There is nothing magical about

jargon but it is an eminently useful

tool of any trade that consists, usually, of a shorthand that

is highly nuanced, hence saving

time and space. When it is used, no problem, but it needs

translating when being taken to a

different audience. And that's all that was about. And this is

aside from any discussion of

ecclesiology or models of church, which, again, I don't see as

mutually exclusive. I do see a

role for experts in descriptive, normative and theological

sciences but that doesn't drive my

pneumatology or view of the Spirit at work in the world. We do

want to collaboratively

pursue the most nearly perfect articulation of truth in

creeds/myths, the most nearly

perfect celebrations of beauty in cult/liturgy, the most

nearly perfect preservation of the

good in code/law and the most nearly perfect enjoyment of

fellowship in community and

this will require our fostering of Lonergan's conversions:intellectual, affective, moral,

sociopolitical and religious, all toward the end of optimal

value-realization. In that, there are

diverse ministries but one mission.

I call my own approach a pan-semio-entheism precisely because

I choose to prescind

from any robustly metaphysical descriptions (an ontology) to a

more vague

phenomenological perspective, which categorizes our

experiences of God in relational

terms based on our intuitions, evaluations and performative

responses that ensue in the

wake of these experiences. Those categories include 1)

intraobjective identity regarding

our vague intuitions of an absolute unitary being 2)

intersubjective intimacy regarding

our unitive strivings 3) intrasubjective integrity think of

Lonergans conversions &

formative spirituality and 4) interobjective indeterminacy

which hints at the

methodological constraints and putative ontological occulting

that thwart natural

theological inquiry, as some claim in-principle (which is too

strong a position to defend

6


7/12

philosophically) and as I acknowledge (instead for all

practical purposes) at least, at this

stage of humankinds sojourn.

So, a suitably nuanced panentheism is not an ontology or

metaphysic or natural theology

but, instead, a theology of nature, which employs metaphor,analogy, myth, koan, song and

dance. It does not aspire to describe what remains

indescribable, to say more than we can

possibly know, does not attempt to prove too much or to tell

untellable stories. The abovecategories

certainly have ontological implications (which get

analytically frustrated) that

might flow from those distinct phenomenological categories of

our God-experience but they

honor, with reverent silence and respectful apophasis, the

mysterium tremendum et

fascinans. Our panentheism is then saying much more about the

value-realizations that

grow out of our God-encounters but much less about causal

joints and divine mechanics.

We affirm THAT values are being realized from experiences

without specifying HOW.

It is worth noting that in our other metaphysical adventures,

nowadays, we know better

than to use a modal ontology of possible, actual and necessary

but now substitute

probable for necessary. Confronted with epistemic

indeterminacy and ontological

vagueness in navigating proximate reality, how much more folly

we would engage whenattempting to describe ultimate reality? Still, everywhere in

reality, necessity suggest itself

even as, nowhere in reality, have we found it physically

instantiated. Charles Sanders Peirce

speaks of our abduction of the Ens Necessarium and I resonate

with that inference, weak

though it may be. I precisely make the same appeal to the

Jewish intuition of Gods

shrinking to make room for reality and my own theology of

nature then sees emergent

reality participating in various degrees of semiotic freedom

in an ontological-like hierarchy

(crowned by the imago Dei).

So, I dont embrace some neo-Platonic participatory ontology

of proodos, mone and

epistrophe as a description of metaphysical reality, much less

God ad intra or ad extra in a

natural theology. But I do believe it is enormously helpful to

honor and thereby categorize

the many human phenomenal experiences of God that ensue from

our subjunctive (as if)

encounters of God in creed, cult, code and community in a

theology of nature that is self-aware

of its metaphorical, mythical, liturgical nature as qualifed

7


8/12

by suitable kataphatic,

apophatic and relational predication and generally revealed.

The Trinity and Gods relational

nature is specially revealed as Love, exceeding anything we

could otherwise infer

empirically, logically, practically or morally from nature.

At least this is my attempt to grapple with the same issues.

Systematic Theology?

Sometimes, to me, it feels like systematic theology is an

oxymoron, practical theology is a redundancy and natural

theology is a fool's errand. And where natural theology is

concerned, I'm talking about the kind that gets all

metaphysical using somebody's pet root metaphor, be that being

or substance or process or social-relational or flavah du

jour. Our realization of life's values just seems a lot more

informal, a lot messier, if you will, than all of the

otherwise neat formulas that the theo-wonks are fashioning

with the aim of shoehorning creation & Creator into some One

SiZe FiTs AlL Gospel sandals.

But a theology of nature that begins within the faith and

spontaneously breaks into lyric and psalm and myth and koan

and song and poem with metaphors cascading and collapsing ---

engenders fascination and mystery, awakens desires and

longings, fosters communal celebrations and forms ecological

sensibilities, reinforcing how everything belongs. In this

belonging our desires are formed such that compassionate

behaviors naturally ensue. What we call our beliefs, then, are

more so interpretations, less so descriptions, what we mightcall existential disjunctives that suggest: if we live as if

... then thus and such! So, we participate imaginatively by

celebrating with God, other, world and self as if we all

really belonged to one another in solidarity and compassionate

interactions then ensue toward others and our environment.

Finally, since all interpretive approaches are inescapably

tautological and all metaphors eventually collapse, one way

science can enhance our understanding of God's word and

creation is by providing more accurate descriptions for our

interpretations such that our metaphors are more robust (last

longer before collapsing - as we mine their meanings) and our

tautologies are more taut (tautologies do not provide new info

but that doesn't mean they are not true or that all are

equally true; there are criteria for how well they "fit"

reality).

The Gospel Brand

What differentiates the Gospel brand is an interpretation of

reality as both created &

friendlier than we could ever imagine. Authentic friendship,

however, transcends the need

for extrinsic rewards (what's in it for me?) and enjoys the

robustly relational intrinsic

8


9/12

rewards (truth, beauty, goodness, freedom, trust, love) that

are ends unto themselves, their

own reward, in no need of apology or explanation.

Now, "to transcend" does not mean to "go without" but, rather,

"beyond." Still, for some, it

might invite a re-EMPHASIS?

Another implication is that religion's core mission is to

interpret reality and not to otherwise

describe, norm or even evaluate it, all activities (e.g.

science & moral reasoning) that are

already transparent to human reason. This is not to suggest

that it would not have moral

implications for, if we act as if we really believe the Good

News, we will then exceed the

demands of justice!

An Existential Disjunctive - to live as if

Christian faith, as an existential orientation/interpretive

stance (Christology/Pneumatology),

has normative implications. Beyond our practical and moral

norms with their extrinsic

rewards, it introduces a new category of norms, the unitive,

which are intrinsically

rewarding. These unitive norms provide suitable means for

moral ends but their aim

transcends our practical and moral concerns.

As an interpretive stance, Christian faith fosters our

imaginative participation in an intimate

relationship with the Trinity thus orienting our historicalperspective eschatologically,

sanctifying our cultural aspirations theologically, empowering

our societal institutions

ecclesiologically, healing our economic orders sacramentally

and saving our political

endeavors soteriologically. And what singular reality orients,

sanctifies, empowers, heals

and saves? Love. Love transforms our ultimate concerns. The

norms of Christian love foster

our realization of solidarity with all of reality.

As an interpretive stance, Christian faith fosters our

imaginative participation in an intimate

relationship with the Trinity thus orienting our historical

perspective eschatologically,

sanctifying our cultural aspirations theologically, empowering

our societal institutions

ecclesiologically, healing our economic orders sacramentally

and saving our political

endeavors soteriologically. And what singular reality orients,

sanctifies, empowers, heals

and saves? Love. Love transforms our ultimate concerns. The

norms of Christian love foster

our realization of solidarity with all of reality.

9


10/12

Communal Discernment

communal discernment - my favorite redundancy, and it applies

in science, philosophy & religion b/c, in my approach, at

least, epistemology is epistemology is epistemology (contra

any notion of, for example, a religious epistemology vs other

types). This is not to say that there is no such phenomenalexperience as "hearing from God" but, even then, the

individual will be processing (chewing & digesting) it through

(self-critical) lenses provided during formation in community

& the fruits of same (or lack thereof) are subject to the

prudential & theological judgments of community (another

source transcendent of one's mere self). We don't want to deny

signs & wonders, which may be proleptic realizations of what

may some day be an eschatological fullness but we want to

resist the tendency to sensationalize them in a way that

devalues the splendor of the ordinary and the stupefaction we

should all be experiencing in every waking (and dreaming)

moment at the ... the ... the ...

Church Polity

Beyond the difficult to pin down empirical data re: the exact

nature, rates, causes & handling of abuse incidents, in one

denomination vs another (and some fairly good studies are

emerging even as some fairly dubious & facile analyses

persist), there is a related issue in play re: church polity

vis a vis any question re: a grassroots 'people's

reform' of the RCC.

It may be that, in theory, the sense of the faithful (sensus

fidelium) or "what has been received & practiced by thefaithful" is what guides the Teaching Office (magisterium) but

it seems pretty obvious to me that, in practice, this process

has been seriously flawed.

Apparently, this is less the case with the methodologies

employed in formulating & articulating social teachings even

as it has clearly been the case where church disciplines (e.g.

celibacy, women's ordination), liturgical practices (e.g. open

communion, sacramental reception by divorced & remarried) and

moral doctrines (e.g. contraception, homoerotic behavior) are

concerned. Catholic social teaching has experienced three

rather seismic shifts in methodology. In Catholic social

teaching, Charles Curran describes three methodological shifts

in emphasis from: 1) classicism to historical consciousness 2)

natural law to personalism and 3) legalism to relationality-

responsibility.

This methodological shift implicitly invites &

fosters the collegial participation of lay experts &

commissions (iow, us anawim - of both genders, even), social &

political scientists, academic theologians and so on in a much

broader & deeper consultative, active-listening process.

The good news, then, is that the seeds of reform are there for

the planting if only the church could cross-pollinate its

10


11/12

seminal social doctrine cultivation and plant and nurture them

in the furrows of its church discipline, liturgical practice &

moral doctrine rows. This will require pulling the weeds of

patriarchalism, hierarchicalism, clericalism, sexism and so on

from those rows as has been done on the others. Or, to change

metaphors, one has reason to hope that the seismic shifts that

have already taken place already, to the edification of thefaithful and the world community writ large, will cause some

tectonic reshuffling as their aftershocks emanate out from

that epicenter.

There are roles to play, then, in ongoing institutional reform

and there are end-arounds, too, via non-institutional vehicles

(not mutually exclusive). In some sense, it seems to me that

the hierarchicalism & clericalism is not just a top-down

oppression but that it reflects where so much of the laity

remains. We don't want to over-identify THE church with either

its institutional form or its clerical leadership but we

cannot deny that their re-formation and ongoing transformation

would help advance the Kingdom. A significant but

marginalized minority continues to voice prophetic protest and

live in loyal dissent; others change denominations or employ

non-institutional vehicles. Whatever the case, a denomination

is but a means and not the end, thank God.

The Role of Government

In an ideal world, there would be no coercion needed at all.

Government is a necessary evil because we are fallible,

flawed, finite. Political statecraft, especially at the

federal level, must maintain the public order, best it can. To

try to accomplish more than that, especially in a pluralisticsociety, isn't workable and quickly devolves into the

counterproductive, precisely because coercive force encroaches

on personal dignity & will demoralize "the governed."

The government, then, is to be about the administration of

justice, leaving the demands of charity to individual

initiatives. Even what have traditionally been called

"entitlement" programs are not really in place to administer

mercy; rather, they are in place to maintain the public order

b/c w/o social security, medicare & medicaid, for example,

society could otherwise be brought to the brink of chaos and

disorder via outright criminality. That's why it is aptly

named "social" and not, rather, "retirement" security.

I would not go so far as to say that all can meet their own

needs b/c, sometimes, due to bad luck, misfortune and other

at-risk situations, even life's basic necessities will remain

out of reach. I am also not suggesting that the collective

resources of our population are so scarce that maybe even all

of our population's basic needs might not be met by them. The

nuance is that I am saying that the government is in no

position to commandeer those resources that we, thru our

selfish habits of consumption, are not otherwise willing to

freely share via our individual and nongovernmental charitable

initiatives. The Goose would selfishly fly away is the

11


12/12

problem, I'm afraid.

The tax code should be socially & economically neutral & not

used to incentivize the allocation of private capital. They

can give the collected revenues away to whomever they'd like

per the wisdom of their appropriations commitees. Also, I hope

they seriously study the practicality of taxing consumption &not income & never both.

In the case at hand, erroneously and so-called tax-breaks for

Big Oil, the incentives should be repealed for all

manufacturers or none. Again, neutrality.

To balance the budget, both spending cuts & revenue

enhancements are needed & the lionshare of the latter must

come from a rising ecomomic tide rather than tax hikes.

Spending cannot be based first on society's needs b/c those

will always exceed our available governmental resources, which

must be defined as a sustainable percent of annual GDP. Needs

require, then, some tragic triage decisions.

Some always focus on the Goose & some on the eggs. No goose,

no eggs!

12

Documents

sorting truth claims and categories.pdf