Re: [Lonergan_l] Lonergan_l Digest, Vol 20, Issue 7
Maxim Faust
Sorry, friend, but I don't understand the "greatest of saints" reference. I
thought that such blunt categories have been discarded due to the insight
that there is no such state as "finished development". I seem to recall F.
Crowe, the pastoral theologian, writing the startling image of the extension
of development even in heaven.
(The notion of Conversion is easy to communicate. Take any potential
to do what one has not done with attention attache. Now pay attention to
it, develop it. Conversion is not adding foreign elements to one's world or
creating anything new in one's self.)
Max
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2009 15:04:27 EST
> From: Jaray...@aol.com
> Subject: [Lonergan_l] honoring the conversions
> To: loner...@skipperweb.org
> Message-ID: <c89.4209be...@aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Dan,
>
> Your rightly insist on " keeping foundations foundational by continually
> reminding of the role of foundations in the discernment of foundations."
>
> Max seems to be saying something analogous on the more mundane level of
> appreciating work for what it is and the ambiguities involved in doing so.
>
> "WORK:
>
> 1. a person?s performance, physical and / or communicative
> 2. of a patterned activity
> 3. acquired through trial and error, or designed,
> 4. as a function in the provision of things or services
> 5. for human well being (without prejudice to the possibility of
> authentic or inauthentic notions thereof).
>
> Work, so understood, is a function of all societies under any economic
> system, such that it is, like the family, a primary determination of
> primordial
> intersubjectivity underpinning, sustaining and surviving the fortunes of
> any
> civilization....What Liddy?s draft essay has renewed for me is the ongoing
> difficulty of
> differentiating the basic form of questions of practical intelligence on
> the
> one hand, and on the other hand, questions of morality, of the ethical. For
> there is nothing *done* under the aegis of practical intelligence which
> does
> not include its fifth property, yes? But that fifth property is at the
> heart
> of moral inquiry, yes?"
>
> Yes, living the religious and moral conversions without ambiguity is NIGH
> impossible except perhaps for the greatest of saints. The Bible reminds us
> that
> the just man falls 7 times a day,
>
> John
>
>
_______________________________________________
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
d...@kpond.net
I have no problem with this but, in that case, I don't see why one would
find value in introducing the term heaven or find specululations about
heaven startling? Continuity is not startling, what is startling is an
unexpected discontinuity that transforms expectation in an unexpected way.
If my present expectation is such that it precedes its beginning and exceeds
its end, then we don't need such phantoms as heaven or grace, except as
common-sense props. No?
-Dan