[Lonergan_l] THE TRUTH OF SYMBOLS
nichola...@utoronto.ca
Dear All and Max:
Reaching up to the meaning of anagogy and kerygma as types of meaning
demands that we become unstuck from focusing on lower levels of
consciousness and expand the usual rails of philosophy to focus on the
meaning of symbols. The "truth" of symbols basically regards their
effectiveness in orienting the subject to responsible human living.
Indeed, a symbol is defined by Frye as "any literary structure that
can be isolated for critical attention...Even the letters a writer
spells his words with form part of his symbolism in this sense"
[ANATOMY OF CRITICISM, p. 71). This is why Gadamer prefers to call
literature "letterature" see my transcription of Gadamer's lecture
http://www.voegelinview.com/the-ministry-of-love.html
Indeed, symbols are also affect-laden images that not only convey
meaning but also mediate values. Genuine symbols are always orientated
toward action (INSIGHT 532, 574) informed by vision. Action and vision
interpenetrate like faith and hope. Lonergan recognizes that
associated with symbols are exclamations and bodily movements, in
rites and ceremonies, in song and speech
(INSIGHT 532-533).
Perhaps it would be helpful to refer to this whole complex of symbols
and their associations as "myth" in the non-pejorative sense of the
term currently employed by historians of religion, such as Mircea
Eliade. For an excellent discussion of Eliade, see, NORTHROP FRYE AND
THE PHENOMENOLOGY OF MYTH, 2006, Ch. 1. If this meaning is ascribed
to myth, then it is clear that "myth" is both a general and permanent
feature of human history ( a point Bruno Snell's THE DISCOVERY OF MIND
overlooks) since it is the product of symbolic consciousness and
symbolic consciousness in the general and permanent correspondence of
man's sensitivity to his drive to inquire, understand, reflect,
deliberate, evaluate, and decide -- a drive which is general and
permanent (INSIGHT, pp. 533-534) Lonergan usually attaches a
pejorative meaning to the name, myth; but more recently he has stated
that such a meaning is out of line with current usage. (SECOND
COLLECTION, p. 275).
The important element in symbolic consciousness is the capacity to
give one's knowing and acting with vision a "mass and momentum and
power." (METHOD p. 65).
Symbolic consciousness declares that the project of authentic living
is worthwhile, a value. It moves the subject to follow the Eros of
mind and pursue the intention of the good by attracting him to the
endless revelation of ultimate meaning and value. In this respect,
symbolic consciousness most conspicuously goes beyond logic and admits
the coincidentia oppositorum. Lonergan's position is in line with Eric
Voegelin's observation that man is in a drama that concerns his very
existence yet he cannot step out of it and and and fully comprehend
the plot and his role (ORDER AND HISTORY I Intro.) Here Voegelin
agrees with Lonergan "Explanation (theory) does not give man a home"
(INSIGHT5 547/570).
Hoping this helps and keeps us on track.
--NWG
Quoting Maxim Faust <maxim...@gmail.com>:
> I'm sorry, Nicholas, but I don't understand your reply. You give me nothing
> to pursue. For example, the meanings of "preaching" and "anagogy" are
> simply not the same. I will wait for someone else to respond who understands
> what you are trying to say.
>
> Max
>
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 2:37 PM, <nichola...@utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Dear Max,
>>
>> Thanks for your response.
>>
>>
>> If anagogy and kerygma are the same thing, a question that?s difficult to
>> answer in a word because both words are used in numerous contexts. They are
>> certainly related terms. ?Interpenetration? is another of those key words,
>> especially in Frye?s late work. It appears in different contexts: historical
>> (in relation to Spengler), philosophical (in relation to Whitehead)
>> scientific (in relation to David Bohm), social (in relation to Frye?s
>> liberal politics and his utopian vision of a classless society). But its
>> primary context is religious. In this context Frye associates
>> interpenetration with anagogy, kerygma, apocalypse, spiritual intercourse,
>> the vision of plenitude, the everlasting gospel, the union of Word and
>> Spirit, the new Jerusalem, atonement and the Incarnation??which are also
>> religious terms. So just as a number of religious concepts tend to cluster
>> around ?interpenetration,? so they do around ?anagogy? and ?kerygma.?
>>
>> --NWG
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Quoting Maxim Faust <maxim...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> Nick,
>>>
>>> Many questions for good discussion in your post, but I think the first
>>> must
>>> address the Aquinas reference, ST I, 1 art. 10:
>>>
>>> The *anagogic* specifies a level of meaning expressed suitable to us by
>>> God,
>>> viz., what relates to the reality of eternal glory, the reality of God. On
>>> our part, it is a level of meaning arrived at by faith seeking
>>> understanding. What understanding is attained imperfectly, obscurly, etc.,
>>> the meaning may be enjoyed by us, which spiritual pleasure may color one's
>>> way in the world, including a happy trope or two in the report of the
>>> understanding. But it is good to note the distance from the reality
>>> adumbrated by such human speech which must among us remain *anchored* in
>>> the
>>> literal.
>>>
>>> Max
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 9:18 PM, <nichola...@utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Max and John:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "I dedicate this work to: Professor Leo Strauss who taught me how to read
>>>> Plato, and to Father Bernard Lonergan,S.J., who taught me philosophy and,
>>>> therefore, how to correct Leo Strauss's misreading of Plato. Resquiescant
>>>> in
>>>> pace. May They Both Rest in Peace." So reads the dedication in Emile J.
>>>> Piscitelli, IN PRAISE OF LOVE, 2006.
>>>>
>>>> As you say, I've mentioned Piscitelli's thesis before and its being one
>>>> of
>>>> the first to arrive at the Lonergan Centre, which I was helping to set up
>>>> in
>>>> Toronto, in the 70s. It was its focus on language which attracted me,
>>>> along
>>>> with it use of Ricoeur, who relies heavily on Frye especially in the
>>>> second
>>>> volume of his triology TIME AND NARRATIVE. In a letter to Hugo Meynell,
>>>> Frye
>>>> expresses his dissatisfaction with his account of language in THE GREAT
>>>> CODE. In WORDS WITH POWER, ch. 1, he takes a somewhat different approach,
>>>> more in line with intentionality analysis and levels of consciousness,
>>>> presenting four modes of verbal communication: the descriptive, the
>>>> dialectical, the ideological, and the imaginative. Each mode is connected
>>>> to
>>>> its successor by what Frye calls "the excluded iniative", what Lonergan
>>>> refers to as quasi operator [see, my transcripts of Q & A sessions at
>>>> Boston
>>>> Workshops].
>>>>
>>>> Frye's final account of language is in his postumously published book,
>>>> THE
>>>> DOUBLE VISION: LANGUAGE AND MEANING IN RELIGION, where he states: "The
>>>> language that lifts us clear of the merely plausible and the merely
>>>> credible
>>>> is the language of the spirit; the language of the spirit is, Paul tells
>>>> us,
>>>> the language of love, and the language of love is the only language that
>>>> we
>>>> can be sure is spoken and understood by God." (p.21).
>>>>
>>>> Piscitelli's IN PRAISE OF LOVE takes us a far a Plato, as far as
>>>> dialectical and philosophical language can go, and what Frye invites us
>>>> to,
>>>> is to a level of speech and consciousness that is far richer and
>>>> abundant,
>>>> to a level that Aquinas (pt.I,q.1, art 10) and Dante call the anagogic.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --NWG
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Quoting Maxim Faust <maxim...@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>> Nick, John,
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Joseph Fitzpatrick, *Philosophica Encounters: Lonergan and the analytic
>>>>> tradition*, Univ. of Toronto Press, 2005 is a masterful exposition
>>>>> of partial turns to the subject.
>>>>>
>>>>> Max
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 5:44 PM, <jaray...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nick,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BL relied on many authors to make his own case but I'm not sure he
>>>>>> would
>>>>>> have accepted one of Frye's claims which you quote below, namely
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "That leaves us with nothing genuinely "subjective" except a structure
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> language...which is the only thing left that can be distinguished from
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> objective world. Even that structure is objective to each student of
>>>>>> it.
>>>>>> People are "subjects", then, not as people, but only to the extent that
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> form a community within a linguistic structure which records some
>>>>>> observation of the objective."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You stated that you studied Piscitelli, Catherine's mentor. In a PdF
>>>>>> file
>>>>>> which I can't reproduce here, Piscitelli seems to read Ricoeur on
>>>>>> intentionality and myth in ways that would not be fully consonant with
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> above claims Frye makes. Ricoeur, like BL, wanted to penetrate into
>>>>>> ways
>>>>>> that subjects through their questions, for example, explore dimensions
>>>>>> beyond and that help structure human language(s) and human communities,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: nichola...@utoronto.ca
>>>>>> To: Lonergan <loner...@skipperweb.org>
>>>>>> Sent: Sat, Nov 28, 2009 9:08 am
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Lonergan_l] IMPLEMENTATION WITHOUT VISION = Bad Faith
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Folks, Joe & Jeremy:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Elizabeth Anscombe, at the Lonergan Florida Conference, stoped smoking
>>>>>> her
>>>>>> cigar and said to Loneran, "I don't understand you at all!". Lonergan
>>>>>> said
>>>>>> later he'd wished he had replied, "What's missing?"--Insight!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The word "fiction" means "to make", "to create", see Vico's principle
>>>>>> verum
>>>>>> factum first formulated in 1710.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FRYE ON LONERGAN:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Generalized empirical method operates on a combination of both the
>>>>>> data
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> sense and the data of consciousness: it does not treat of objects
>>>>>> without
>>>>>> taking into account the corresponding operations of the subject; it
>>>>>> does
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> treat of the subjects operations without taking into account the
>>>>>> corresponding objects."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [B. Lonergan, A Third Collection, 1985, p.141]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think we've come across this before in some of our postings?!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here's how Frye expresses it:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "As soon as we realize that observation is affected by the observer, we
>>>>>> have to incorporate the observer into the phenomena to be observed, and
>>>>>> make
>>>>>> him an object too. This fact has transformed the physical sciences, and
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> course the social sciences are based entirely on the sense of the need
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> observe the community of observers. That leaves us with nothing
>>>>>> genuinely
>>>>>> "subjective" except a structure of language...which is the only thing
>>>>>> left
>>>>>> that can be distinguished from the objective world. Even that structure
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> objective to each student of it. People are "subjects", then, not as
>>>>>> people,
>>>>>> but only to the extent that they form a community within a linguistic
>>>>>> structure which records some observation of the objective."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [Northrop Frye, THE GREAT CODE, 1982, 21 -22]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "To conclude, our aim regards:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (5) not a development indicated by appealing either to the logic of the
>>>>>> as
>>>>>> yet unknown goal or to a presupposed and as yet unexplained
>>>>>> ontologically
>>>>>> structured metaphysics, but a development that can begin in any
>>>>>> sufficiently
>>>>>> cultured consciousness..." [INSIGHT, 1957) XXVIII.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> NWG
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Quoting Jeremy Blackwood <jeremy.b...@marquette.edu>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > Joe-
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Yes, such a notion of fiction as 'not real' depends upon a specific
>>>>>> > (namely, already out there now) notion of 'real.' The question is,
>>>>>> when
>>>>>> > someone like Nicholas says something is 'not real,' we must ask
>>>>>> whether
>>>>>> > they are not maybe already in a non-intellectual differentiation in
>>>>>> > which 'real' does not constitute a strictly intellectual or theoretic
>>>>>> > claim.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Sometimes, persons' positions can be helpful in spite of their
>>>>>> explicit
>>>>>> > affirmations, especially if those affirmations are simply the result
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> > insufficient differentiation. That may be the case here.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Sent from my iPod
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > On Nov 27, 2009, at 4:50 PM, Joe F <172...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >> Fiction has a negative connotation of being make believe. But the
>>>>>> >> world view of a 'more just world' for a legal scholar is not a
>>>>>> fiction
>>>>>> >> but a potency,.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>> Dear Folks & John,
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> Without vision the people perish--Proverbs 29:18
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> How perceptive of you to recognize anthropomorphisms, which like
>>>>>> myth
>>>>>> >>> or fiction in a constructed vision does not make it unreal. INSIGHT
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> >>> an essay in aid of the appropriation of one's rational
>>>>>> >>> self-consciousness and what I'm pointing to is the appropriation of
>>>>>> >>> one's imaginative self-consciousness, a wider horizon, which
>>>>>> involves
>>>>>> >>> one in constructing an appropriate vision at the level of our
>>>>>> times.
>>>>>> >>> It does not involve an intelligent/imaginative, theory/vision
>>>>>> split,
>>>>>> >>> but calls for an imaginative intelligence in constructing a
>>>>>> visionary
>>>>>> >>> theory, by reading the classics and not distracting ourselves with
>>>>>> >>> mathematical and scientific models, which have landed us in morass
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> >>> technology. In my much neglected Lonergan transcripts, Lonergan
>>>>>> >>> recalls a round-table discusion, with a number of professors,on the
>>>>>> >>> topic of education. All agreed that what was needed was for more
>>>>>> >>> students and professors to reopen the Classics Departments. When
>>>>>> asked
>>>>>> >>> what their sons were studying, they all answered--computers!! What
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> >>> called for is not simply Newman's rational but also an imaginative
>>>>>> >>> assent, a reason and a will to create by shrugging off the Atlas
>>>>>> >>> complex of being stuck and duped into under-sanding, as,the myth of
>>>>>> >>> Atlas recounts. Implementation without vision is bad faith.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> John seems to be positing a totally transcendent God, somekind of
>>>>>> >>> transcendental signifier (Derrida), wich suits our modern
>>>>>> alienation.
>>>>>> >>> Lonergan admits that David Tracy was right in pointing out the
>>>>>> >>> weakness, the failure of INSIGHT'S chs. 19 & 20 to start from the
>>>>>> >>> horizon of the subject; as Lonergan says, they are simply a wrap-up
>>>>>> >>> job on his way to Rome.
>>>>>> >>> [see, LANGUAGE, TRUTH AND MEANING, Response by Lonergan]
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> The proper perspective is an acceptance of that expressed by T.S.
>>>>>> >>> Eliot: "The hint half guessed, the gift half understood, is
>>>>>> >>> Incarnation." [Dry Salvages, No.3 of 'Four Quartets', part 5];
>>>>>> >>> Northrop Frye: "The journey that the Word is taking through us."
>>>>>> >>> [Bible Lectures]; Est deus in nobis (Ovid, Fasti).
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> Hope the following is of some help:
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> "Everyone with any social function has some model community in his
>>>>>> >>> mind in the light of
>>>>>> >>> which he does his job, such as a community of better health for the
>>>>>> >>> doctor, of clearer
>>>>>> >>> judgment for the teacher, of fewer wrecked and wasted lives for the
>>>>>> >>> social worker. The
>>>>>> >>> model so contructed is a myth or fiction, and in normal minds it is
>>>>>> >>> known to be a
>>>>>> >>> fiction. That does not make it unreal; what happens is rather an
>>>>>> >>> interchange of reality
>>>>>> >>> and illusion in the mind. Most of what we call objective reality is
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> >>> human construct
>>>>>> >>> [even cosmologies are fictions] left over from yesterday; much of
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> >>> could do with
>>>>>> >>> imrovement, and the model that hope affords shows up a good deal of
>>>>>> >>> this contruct as both
>>>>>> >>> undesireable and removable, and to that extent unreal. The
>>>>>> touchstone
>>>>>> >>> of reality is the
>>>>>> >>> fictional model vision. The Epistle of James talks about "works"
>>>>>> >>> [implementation] as the complement of faith [2:14-26], but it seems
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> >>> me a better
>>>>>> >>> metaphor to regard faith and hope, the dialectic of belief and
>>>>>> vision,
>>>>>> >>> as the parents of
>>>>>> >>> which works [implementation] are the offspring." Frye, CW. vol. 4,
>>>>>> p.350
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> --NWG
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> Quoting jaray...@aol.com:
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> Nick,
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> you say,
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> "God does not sit around trying to understand and, since we are
>>>>>> made
>>>>>> >>>> in God's image" we should strive to be artists and to create."
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> Further questions arise: Are we to play God, pretending?" or "Are
>>>>>> we
>>>>>> >>>> to recognize the first Commandment that there is only one God,
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> >>>> we are not be deluded?" Let us not confuse the image that we are
>>>>>> >>>> for the creative reality that God is.
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> God does not need to "sit around" anthropomorphisms, true. But
>>>>>> >>>> we do need to understand what God has done, what God enables us to
>>>>>> >>>> keep on doing using the imagination given us in and through the
>>>>>> >>>> further anthromorphic "bosom-of-God" image. To authenticate the
>>>>>> >>>> "both/and" should we not say that only God creates; we piggy back
>>>>>> on
>>>>>> >>>> that creative power--never able to dispense w. a basic
>>>>>> >>>> understanding of God's creation? Poe and the impressionists were
>>>>>> >>>> still within the trying-to-understand, reflective frame of mind.
>>>>>> >>>> Unlike Verlaine or Rimbaud, Einstein understood his limitations.
>>>>>> >>>> Are not even the postmodernists (who disclaim so much) trying to
>>>>>> >>>> make us "understand"? Or does Frye have a different view on such
>>>>>> >>>> matters?
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> In another email, you yourself answered such questions by
>>>>>> >>>> reflecting on thaumazetein, wonder etc as interpreted by
>>>>>> Aristotle,
>>>>>> >>>> Vico, Voegelin, Lonergan. Better not play these giants against
>>>>>> Blake
>>>>>> >>>> or Frye--two other giants. Being artists, it seems to me, and
>>>>>> >>>> trying to "create" is for us MADE in God's image a mere weak
>>>>>> >>>> derivative ability for we, unlike God, first have to try to
>>>>>> >>>> understand. Or could one say that for great artists the
>>>>>> >>>> creative-understanding faculty is a single, comprehensive
>>>>>> function?
>>>>>> >>>> Lonergan needed interpreters to help him understand and discourse
>>>>>> >>>> on symbols, myth and the "creative" process in humans. In which
>>>>>> way
>>>>>> >>>> was BL misguided in following Susan Langer?
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> John
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> >>>> From: nichola...@utoronto.ca
>>>>>> >>>> To: Lonergan <loner...@skipperweb.org>
>>>>>> >>>> Sent: Mon, Nov 23, 2009 12:26 pm
>>>>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [Lonergan_l] WHERE IS HOME? WHERE IS HERE?
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> Dear Jeremy,
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> What counts is the intellectual imagination, whose purpose is to
>>>>>> >>>> create not to understand. You are right in recognizing that it is
>>>>>> >>>> not a question of either/or but rather both/and. Like the
>>>>>> mind/body
>>>>>> >>>> split the failure to recognize the intellectual imagination is the
>>>>>> >>>> source of much of our misery. "The imagination is the bosom of
>>>>>> God",
>>>>>> >>>> as Blake says. God does not sit around trying to understand and,
>>>>>> >>>> since we are made in God's image" we should strive to be artists
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> >>>> to create.
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> --NWG
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> Quoting Jeremy Blackwood <jeremy.b...@marquette.edu>:
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> If the only true point of discourse is to "give man a home" in
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> >>>>> sense, then the very book whose depths of wisdom you plumb
>>>>>> (Insight)
>>>>>> >>>>> ought not have been written.
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> Whence the either/or? Neither a soulless mind NOR a mindless soul
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> >>>>> the answer. What counts, after all, is the authenticity of the
>>>>>> whole.
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> Jeremy W. Blackwood
>>>>>> >>>>> Doctoral Student
>>>>>> >>>>> Marquette University
>>>>>> >>>>> Theology Department
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> On Nov 23, 2009, at 12:07 PM, <nichola...@utoronto.ca>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>> Dear Folks,
>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>> Are we jumping the gun by indulging ourselves in such refined >>
>>>>>> >>>>>> speculations about Lonergan as we see in the comments of Phil
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Catherine? Some time back Catherine asked me why I was so
>>>>>> >>>>>> opposed >> to theory and my only answer could be
>>>>>> >>>>>> INSIGHT 547/570: "But explanation [theory] does not give man a
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>>>>> home" To reach home, which is here and now" we must radically >>
>>>>>> >>>>>> transcend the physical universe and begin to explore the verbal
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>>>>> universe. Remember, the word "universe" is a metaphor no matter
>>>>>> >>>>>> how >> we try to embrace it. In reading Proust it is well to
>>>>>> >>>>>> remember we >> are in a literary context and any chemical or
>>>>>> >>>>>> physical references >> must be seen as metaphors, like the bones
>>>>>> >>>>>> in Ezekiel. It is the >> study of myth and metaphor, not
>>>>>> >>>>>> linguistics and semiotics, that is >> the proper study of
>>>>>> language
>>>>>> >>>>>> and its future and which can lift us >> from theory to vision,
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> >>>>>> our true home, the anagogical perspective >> that St. Thomas
>>>>>> >>>>>> mentions.
>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>> Every breakthrough in education is a breakthrough in vision, to
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>>>>> quote Frye, ON EDUCATION. The study of Scripture, literature,the
>>>>>> >>>>>>>> verbal universe, and not mathematics, physics, chemistry,
>>>>>> >>>>>> etc.,is >> the right direction is the true reward we find in
>>>>>> >>>>>> studying Lonergan >> and St. Thomas.
>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>> Article 10: Does Sacred Scripture have multiple senses
>>>>>> underlying
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> >>>>>> single passage?
>>>>>> >>>>>> Here St. Thomas gives an orderly account of the different senses
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> >>>>>> Scripture. The foundational sense is the literal or historical
>>>>>> sense,
>>>>>> >>>>>> though even here we have to be careful about how we identify
>>>>>> this
>>>>>> >>>>>> sense. (See reply to obj. 3 on parabolic speech.)
>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>> Given this basic sense, the other (so-called spiritual senses)
>>>>>> fall
>>>>>> >>>>>> into place:
>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>> When something in the Old Testament is understood to be a type
>>>>>> or
>>>>>> >>>>>> figure of something in the New Testament, there is the
>>>>>> allegorical
>>>>>> >>>>>> sense. So, for instance, many things that happen to Joseph in
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> >>>>>> book of Genesis are figures of Christ; the passover is a figure
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> >>>>>> Christ's sacrifice and of the Mass, etc.
>>>>>> >>>>>> When something in either Testament is put before us for
>>>>>> imitation
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> >>>>>> our lives, this is the moral or tropological sense.
>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>> When something prefigures eternal glory, this is the anagogical
>>>>>> sense.
>>>>>> >>>>>> (Take, for instance, the promise of a land flowing with milk and
>>>>>> >>>>>> honey)
>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>> --NWG
>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> >>>>>> You are subscribed to the Lonergan_l mailing list
>>>>>> >>>>>> Loner...@skipperweb.org
>>>>>> >>>>>> Archives on skipperweb:
>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>> http://skipperweb.org/mailman/listinfo/lonergan_l_skipperweb.org
>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>> List Moderators: John Raymaker and Adrial Fitzgerald
>>>>>> >>>>>> List Owner: Robert Boyd Skipper
>>>>>> >>>>>> St. Mary's University
>>>>>> >>>>>> San Antonio, Texas
>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>> For conversations or topics not directly related to Lonergan or
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> >>>>>> the GEM (Generalized Empirical Method) please use the sister
>>>>>> list,
>>>>>> >>>>>> Eureka:
>>>>>> >>>>>> http://skipperweb.org/mailman/listinfo/eureka_skipperweb.org
>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>> Lonergan_L archives (from June 5, 2007):
>>>>>> >>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/lonergan_l
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> >>>>> You are subscribed to the Lonergan_l mailing list
>>>>>> >>>>> Loner...@skipperweb.org
>>>>>> >>>>> Archives on skipperweb:
>>>>>> >>>>> http://skipperweb.org/mailman/listinfo/lonergan_l_skipperweb.org
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> List Moderators: John Raymaker and Adrial Fitzgerald
>>>>>> >>>>> List Owner: Robert Boyd Skipper
>>>>>> >>>>> St. Mary's University
>>>>>> >>>>> San Antonio, Texas
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> For conversations or topics not directly related to Lonergan or
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> >>>>> the GEM (Generalized Empirical Method) please use the sister
>>>>>> list,
>>>>>> >>>>> Eureka:
>>>>>> >>>>> http://skipperweb.org/mailman/listinfo/eureka_skipperweb.org
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> Lonergan_L archives (from June 5, 2007):
>>>>>> >>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/lonergan_l
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> >>>> You are subscribed to the Lonergan_l mailing list
>>>>>> >>>> Loner...@skipperweb.org
>>>>>> >>>> Archives on skipperweb:
>>>>>> >>>> http://skipperweb.org/mailman/listinfo/lonergan_l_skipperweb.org
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> List Moderators: John Raymaker and Adrial Fitzgerald
>>>>>> >>>> List Owner: Robert Boyd Skipper
>>>>>> >>>> St. Mary's University
>>>>>> >>>> San Antonio, Texas
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> For conversations or topics not directly related to Lonergan or to
>>>>>> >>>> the GEM (Generalized Empirical Method) please use the sister list,
>>>>>> Eureka:
>>>>>> >>>> http://skipperweb.org/mailman/listinfo/eureka_skipperweb.org
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> Lonergan_L archives (from June 5, 2007):
>>>>>> >>>> http://groups.google.com/group/lonergan_l
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> >>>> You are subscribed to the Lonergan_l mailing list
>>>>>> >>>> Loner...@skipperweb.org
>>>>>> >>>> Archives on skipperweb:
>>>>>> >>>> http://skipperweb.org/mailman/listinfo/lonergan_l_skipperweb.org
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> List Moderators: John Raymaker and Adrial Fitzgerald
>>>>>> >>>> List Owner: Robert Boyd Skipper
>>>>>> >>>> St. Mary's University
>>>>>> >>>> San Antonio, Texas
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> For conversations or topics not directly related to Lonergan or to
>>>>>> >>>> the GEM (Generalized Empirical Method) please use the sister list,
>>>>>> Eureka:
>>>>>> >>>> http://skipperweb.org/mailman/listinfo/eureka_skipperweb.org
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> Lonergan_L archives (from June 5, 2007):
>>>>>> >>>> http://groups.google.com/group/lonergan_l
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> >>> You are subscribed to the Lonergan_l mailing list
>>>>>> >>> Loner...@skipperweb.org
>>>>>> >>> Archives on skipperweb:
>>>>>> >>> http://skipperweb.org/mailman/listinfo/lonergan_l_skipperweb.org
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> List Moderators: John Raymaker and Adrial Fitzgerald
>>>>>> >>> List Owner: Robert Boyd Skipper
>>>>>> >>> St. Mary's University
>>>>>> >>> San Antonio, Texas
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> For conversations or topics not directly related to Lonergan or to
>>>>>> >>> the GEM (Generalized Empirical Method) please use the sister list,
>>>>>> Eureka:
>>>>>> >>> http://skipperweb.org/mailman/listinfo/eureka_skipperweb.org
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> Lonergan_L archives (from June 5, 2007):
>>>>>> >>> http://groups.google.com/group/lonergan_l
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> >> You are subscribed to the Lonergan_l mailing list
>>>>>> >> Loner...@skipperweb.org
>>>>>> >> Archives on skipperweb:
>>>>>> >> http://skipperweb.org/mailman/listinfo/lonergan_l_skipperweb.org
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> List Moderators: John Raymaker and Adrial Fitzgerald
>>>>>> >> List Owner: Robert Boyd Skipper
>>>>>> >> St. Mary's University
>>>>>> >> San Antonio, Texas
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> For conversations or topics not directly related to Lonergan or to
>>>>>> >> the GEM (Generalized Empirical Method) please use the sister list,
>>>>>> Eureka:
>>>>>> >> http://skipperweb.org/mailman/listinfo/eureka_skipperweb.org
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Lonergan_L archives (from June 5, 2007):
>>>>>> >> http://groups.google.com/group/lonergan_l
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>>> > You are subscribed to the Lonergan_l mailing list
>>>>>> > Loner...@skipperweb.org
>>>>>> > Archives on skipperweb:
>>>>>> > http://skipperweb.org/mailman/listinfo/lonergan_l_skipperweb.org
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > List Moderators: John Raymaker and Adrial Fitzgerald
>>>>>> > List Owner: Robert Boyd Skipper
>>>>>> > St. Mary's University
>>>>>> > San Antonio, Texas
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > For conversations or topics not directly related to Lonergan or to
>>>>>> > the GEM (Generalized Empirical Method) please use the sister list,
>>>>>> Eureka:
>>>>>> > http://skipperweb.org/mailman/listinfo/eureka_skipperweb.org
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Lonergan_L archives (from June 5, 2007):
>>>>>> > http://groups.google.com/group/lonergan_l
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> You are subscribed to the Lonergan_l mailing list
>>>>>> Loner...@skipperweb.org
>>>>>> Archives on skipperweb:
>>>>>> http://skipperweb.org/mailman/listinfo/lonergan_l_skipperweb.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> List Moderators: John Raymaker and Adrial Fitzgerald
>>>>>> List Owner: Robert Boyd Skipper
>>>>>> St. Mary's University
>>>>>> San Antonio, Texas
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For conversations or topics not directly related to Lonergan or to
>>>>>> the GEM (Generalized Empirical Method) please use the sister list,
>>>>>> Eureka:
>>>>>> http://skipperweb.org/mailman/listinfo/eureka_skipperweb.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lonergan_L archives (from June 5, 2007):
>>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/lonergan_l
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> You are subscribed to the Lonergan_l mailing list
>>>>>> Loner...@skipperweb.org
>>>>>> Archives on skipperweb:
>>>>>> http://skipperweb.org/mailman/listinfo/lonergan_l_skipperweb.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> List Moderators: John Raymaker and Adrial Fitzgerald
>>>>>> List Owner: Robert Boyd Skipper
>>>>>> St. Mary's University
>>>>>> San Antonio, Texas
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For conversations or topics not directly related to Lonergan or to
>>>>>> the GEM (Generalized Empirical Method) please use the sister list,
>>>>>> Eureka:
>>>>>> http://skipperweb.org/mailman/listinfo/eureka_skipperweb.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lonergan_L archives (from June 5, 2007):
>>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/lonergan_l
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>> You are subscribed to the Lonergan_l mailing list
>>>>> Loner...@skipperweb.org
>>>>> Archives on skipperweb:
>>>>> http://skipperweb.org/mailman/listinfo/lonergan_l_skipperweb.org
>>>>>
>>>>> List Moderators: John Raymaker and Adrial Fitzgerald
>>>>> List Owner: Robert Boyd Skipper
>>>>> St. Mary's University
>>>>> San Antonio, Texas
>>>>>
>>>>> For conversations or topics not directly related to Lonergan or to
>>>>> the GEM (Generalized Empirical Method) please use the sister list,
>>>>> Eureka:
>>>>> http://skipperweb.org/mailman/listinfo/eureka_skipperweb.org
>>>>>
>>>>> Lonergan_L archives (from June 5, 2007):
>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/lonergan_l
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> You are subscribed to the Lonergan_l mailing list
>>>> Loner...@skipperweb.org
>>>> Archives on skipperweb:
>>>> http://skipperweb.org/mailman/listinfo/lonergan_l_skipperweb.org
>>>>
>>>> List Moderators: John Raymaker and Adrial Fitzgerald
>>>> List Owner: Robert Boyd Skipper
>>>> St. Mary's University
>>>> San Antonio, Texas
>>>>
>>>> For conversations or topics not directly related to Lonergan or to
>>>> the GEM (Generalized Empirical Method) please use the sister list,
>>>> Eureka:
>>>> http://skipperweb.org/mailman/listinfo/eureka_skipperweb.org
>>>>
>>>> Lonergan_L archives (from June 5, 2007):
>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/lonergan_l
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> You are subscribed to the Lonergan_l mailing list
>>> Loner...@skipperweb.org
>>> Archives on skipperweb:
>>> http://skipperweb.org/mailman/listinfo/lonergan_l_skipperweb.org
>>>
>>> List Moderators: John Raymaker and Adrial Fitzgerald
>>> List Owner: Robert Boyd Skipper
>>> St. Mary's University
>>> San Antonio, Texas
>>>
>>> For conversations or topics not directly related to Lonergan or to
>>> the GEM (Generalized Empirical Method) please use the sister list, Eureka:
>>> http://skipperweb.org/mailman/listinfo/eureka_skipperweb.org
>>>
>>> Lonergan_L archives (from June 5, 2007):
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/lonergan_l
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> You are subscribed to the Lonergan_l mailing list
>> Loner...@skipperweb.org
>> Archives on skipperweb:
>> http://skipperweb.org/mailman/listinfo/lonergan_l_skipperweb.org
>>
>> List Moderators: John Raymaker and Adrial Fitzgerald
>> List Owner: Robert Boyd Skipper
>> St. Mary's University
>> San Antonio, Texas
>>
>> For conversations or topics not directly related to Lonergan or to
>> the GEM (Generalized Empirical Method) please use the sister list, Eureka:
>> http://skipperweb.org/mailman/listinfo/eureka_skipperweb.org
>>
>> Lonergan_L archives (from June 5, 2007):
>> http://groups.google.com/group/lonergan_l
>>
>
_______________________________________________
You are subscribed to the Lonergan_l mailing list
Loner...@skipperweb.org
Archives on skipperweb:
http://skipperweb.org/mailman/listinfo/lonergan_l_skipperweb.org
List Moderators: John Raymaker and Adrial Fitzgerald
List Owner: Robert Boyd Skipper
St. Mary's University
San Antonio, Texas
For conversations or topics not directly related to Lonergan or to
the GEM (Generalized Empirical Method) please use the sister list, Eureka:
http://skipperweb.org/mailman/listinfo/eureka_skipperweb.org
Lonergan_L archives (from June 5, 2007):
http://groups.google.com/group/lonergan_l