[Lonergan_l] The Given
David W Oyler
The notion of the given is problematic. If we ask "what is it?" do we
miss it or do we find it? If we take it as experience, then we have
additional issues because the notion of experience gets tangled up with
that of consciousness if you want to make Lonergan's account fully
systematic. And it we take it as a fulfilling condition, then it needs to
be real in some way. And how does that reality get established de facto
(via evolution?) as structurally efficacious or as "real prior to
judgment"? If we answer these questions, I think the given ends up being
very complex. I would take Lonergan's notion of the given as introduced
in this discussion as part of a complex. As a first clue, I would
consider the "given" along the lines of "given to ...?" If the given is
given to questioning, then we can see that it is dynamic, that it can be
developed and that it extends beyond the empirical residue. This is a
shift from a content - the given - via a perhaps more problematic notion -
experience/experiencing - to an operation with varying "objects" -
questioning.
Dave
lonergan_...@skipperweb.org
Sent by: lonergan_...@skipperweb.org
12/28/2009 12:00 PM
Please respond to
loner...@skipperweb.org
Subject
Lonergan_l Digest, Vol 29, Issue 40
Send Lonergan_l mailing list submissions to
loner...@skipperweb.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://skipperweb.org/mailman/listinfo/lonergan_l_skipperweb.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
lonergan_...@skipperweb.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
lonergan...@skipperweb.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Lonergan_l digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: just to share a comment (mou...@uw.edu)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 09:50:02 -0800 (PST)
From: mou...@uw.edu
Subject: Re: [Lonergan_l] just to share a comment
To: loner...@skipperweb.org
Message-ID:
<Pine.LNX.4.43.09...@hymn33.u.washington.edu>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
I like that! I use Lonergan's inverse insight regarding the material
condition as an illustration of *reducto ad absurdum,* but the longer
journey recommends itself in terms that come to present a notion of
unrestricted being; and it is a structured notion. Doug
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009, Octavio Groppa wrote:
> Hello, Joe,
> oh, this could drive us to a long, long discussion! J.L. Marion has been
> writing several books on this phenomenological matter. But I think we
are
> coming to terms...!
>
> Does the "given" have a structure? Well... I think that it hasn't a
> structure independent of our interpretation of it. In your words, if it
is
> not "sought after". I guess that in BL's scheme this would be the same
as
> saying that it has a potential objectivity. It is not an "already out
there
> now real" (nothing is), because, as given, it is not a real fact (yet).
Only
> facts have absolute objectivity. The "already out there now real" is a
wrong
> interpretation of knowledge, a wrong-set-out problem discovered thru an
> inverse insight.
> I see underlying here the problem of the "desire to know" drive, of the
> primacy of the above upwards movement, or above downwards. Exciting
matter!
> Marion says that the given is known in the adonn? (could I say
"begiven"? I
> don't know how the English edition of Marion translates that neologism).
The
> adonn? is the subject, but not as modernity thought him, that is, as a
> nominative (I, with capitals!), but as an accusative (me, Levinas),
> recipient of a previous movement.
>
> Regards!
>
> Octavio
>
>
> PS. I will be leaving on vacation for 2 weeks.
>
> 2009/12/27, Joe F <172...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> Octavio, Doug:
>>
>> Question: is the 'given' as you see it an already out there now real?
>>
>> I notice that the 'given' has a structure and certain aspects. It
>> consists of the expected and unexpected (Quality). The unexpected will
>> not be 'given' if it is not sought after (Quantity). The only thing
>> given about the given is the fact that it is given. In fact its
>> quality and quantity are entirely dependent on thought about it.
>>
>>
>> Joe
>>
>>
>> On 12/24/09, Joe F <172...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Doug,
>>>
>>> Scientists seek more than invariant laws I guess. But at least Darwin
>> did:
>>>
>>> "The grand question that every naturalist ought to have before him
>>> when dissecting a whale, or classifying a mite, fungus, or infusorium
>>> is 'What are the Laws of Life?" Charles Darwin Notebook B:
>>> [Transmutation of species (1837-1838)
>>>
>>> Was he kidding?
>>>
>>> Joe
>>>
>>> On 12/23/09, mou...@uw.edu <mou...@uw.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> from the usual-comments dept.
>>>>
>>>> Fully-agree here that Christian Theology adds a linkage of that
mystery
>>>> with
>>>> the faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ! Whenever I
>> hear
>>>> terms like "interpret" or "data," however, I think of Lonergan's
method
>>>> (scientific method).
>>>>
>>>> Isn't that "scientific thought?" If we replace the idea of remaining
>>>> critical when a scientist trespasses their field with the idea of
>>>> remaining
>>>> critical when anyone trespasses anywhere beyond where their data and
>>>> assumptions allow, then aren't we remaining critical about the same
>>>> offense
>>>> to science? In any case, I think you mean science as physics,
chemistry
>>>> and
>>>> biology as many people do.
>>>>
>>>> Let's not forget that we all use the same methods! And, I must admit
>>>> that,
>>>> although I differ with Joe on the quest of science being for
invariant
>>>> laws,
>>>> I do believe that God's got his footprints all over the place-and is
>>>> still
>>>> walking around-moreover gracefully allowing us an imprint on that
>>>> sovereign
>>>> ground. regards, Doug
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009, Octavio Groppa wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear Joe,
>>>>> Why do you think that theology has abandoned the study of Creation?
I
>>>>> don't
>>>>> think so. In fact, ?next year I will be teaching a course on
Theology
>> of
>>>>> Creation in my University! Only in Spanish there are quite a number
of
>>>>> treatises on that issue.
>>>>> The point is what we mean when we say that *God* created the
universe.
>>>>> What
>>>>> do we mean by that name, *God*? I think that the transcendental
notion
>>>>> of
>>>>> the given (or the *givenness*) is, phenomenologically speaking, a
way
>> to
>>>>> speak of creation (see Husserl, and above all, Marion). Christian
>>>>> Theology
>>>>> adds a linkage of that mystery with the faith in the death and
>>>>> resurrection
>>>>> of Jesus Christ (*mysterium paschale*) and so interprets the data or
>>>>> theories of physicists within a religious framework, but leaving the
>>>>> task
>>>>> of
>>>>> scientific thought its proper autonomy for it has its own rationale.
It
>>>>> does
>>>>> not say that God was the "lighter" of the Big-Bang ([?]). I don't
>>>>> believe
>>>>> that the mission of a (christian) physicist or of a theologian
should
>> be
>>>>> looking for the footsteps of God in creation, for example. That
would
>> be
>>>>> just apologetics and (learning form Galileo case) arguing in this
way
>>>>> would
>>>>> be quiet risky and daring. In this way, I agree with you that
science
>>>>> and
>>>>> theology (reason and faith) are compatible.
>>>>> But what Theology does have to do is to remain as a critical
instance
>>>>> when
>>>>> scientist trespass their own field and yield conclusions beyond what
>>>>> their
>>>>> data and assumptions allow (in my humble opinion, I believe that
would
>>>>> be
>>>>> the case of multiverse theory). Properly speaking, this would be an
>>>>> epistemological task, but Theology has some useful criteria (mainly,
>> the
>>>>> Trinitarian and Christological dogmas, which, by the way, were
decisive
>>>>> for
>>>>> the development of Aquinas' theory of knowledge; see *Verbum*).
>>>>>
>>>>> Octavio
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2009/12/23 Joe F <172...@gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Octavio,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Season's Greetings. Lonergan uses the idea of the uniquely probable
in
>>>>>> INSIGHT as a way to propound how explanatory genera are arranged.
>>>>>> (Something like that- I find it's difficult reading). In other
words
>>>>>> its a slight departure from direct empirical testing but
nevertheless
>>>>>> a useful scientific way of thinking. A conception is considered the
>>>>>> uniquely probable conception if it meets a question squarely for
which
>>>>>> there are no alternative views available. It turns out to be the
stuff
>>>>>> of scientific hypotheses. I found in a scientific article the
>>>>>> assertion that '...this is the uniquely probable mechanism...for
the
>>>>>> bio-luminescense' for example.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wondered if this 'uniquel probable' is not a continuation of a
>>>>>> thread from theology method of discerning 'moral probability', and
had
>>>>>> always hoped that with it one can begin to see God's signature in
the
>>>>>> natural order. Not to say there is not a lot of bad in the natural
>>>>>> order. Edward Forbes discerned ten 'creation centers' in the
Natural
>>>>>> History of the European Seas, a book published posthumously with
the
>>>>>> completion of his friend Godwin - Austin in 1859 needless to say in
>>>>>> the Shadow of Darwin's work. Forbes felt that a science that did
not
>>>>>> admit an area of mystery is a form of 'besotted human pride'. Of
>>>>>> course modern science wants to explain everything.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But the two views are not incompatible. The mystery can co-exist
with
>>>>>> the penchant for uniquely probable or plausible models. That's my
>>>>>> personal hangup but I do wish to ask how Theology justifies an
>>>>>> abandonment of a concerted study of the Creation as it stands in
its
>>>>>> relation to God on an an independent basis, though not in
irrelevant
>>>>>> way, to its consideration of man and his relation to GOd. Forbes
>>>>>> thought that he could identify the original species of a 'creation
>>>>>> center' and detect the aberrations. That would be so good for one
who
>>>>>> wanted to study cell physiology and detect the good functioning
from
>>>>>> the bad, or intrusive, functioning. C'mon morality is part of the
>>>>>> natural order and theologians should attend to it and not avoid a
>>>>>> sacred study of the creation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/22/09, Joe F <172...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Dear Octavio,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for your reply. If we start with so basic an idea that God
>>>>>>> created the universe, that everything in the natural order is His
>>>>>>> Creation then why shouldn't theology make also among its interests
>>>>>>> that natural order in addition to the intelligently intelligible.
>>>>>>> Surely theology grants that God created the natural order and that
>> the
>>>>>>> natural order is His Creation. So I don't see how theology must
>>>>>>> abandon its role in the study of the natural order. It is not
>>>>>>> customary to view that theology number among its concerns the
natural
>>>>>>> order. I know. I guess I just don't see why theology has come to
view
>>>>>>> itself as not being properly concerned with the Creation itself
and
>>>>>>> its relation to God, limiting itself to a concern with man and his
>>>>>>> relation to God. I don't disagree with this, necessarily but I
wonder
>>>>>>> when theology diverged from a study of the Creation- and why.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 12/22/09, Octavio Groppa <octavi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hello, Joe,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, your point is a hard task to answer, especially because I
>>>>>>>> don?t
>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>> the notion of the ?uniquely probable? ? but let me share with you
my
>>>>>>>> point
>>>>>>>> of view.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> First of all, I would have in mind the difference between the
>>>>>>>> intelligible
>>>>>>>> and the intelligent process. Physics is a theory which deals with
>> the
>>>>>>>> intelligible that is not intelligent, that is, the material world
>>>>>> subject
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> emergent probability. Theology, instead, deals with religious
>>>>>>>> experience
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> meaning, and so, with the autotranscedent subject. (Of course
that,
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> foundational level, boundaries between Theology and Philosophy
are
>>>>>> fuzzy.
>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>> refer to it as theological field but it could also be called a
>>>>>>>> philosophical
>>>>>>>> field, provided it is open to or compatible with Christian
>>>>>>>> *Weltanschauung*
>>>>>>>> .)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, the ?rightness? in the intelligible that is not intelligent
>> could
>>>>>>>> hardly
>>>>>>>> be called ?moral?. But in both arenas we should aim at grasping
and
>>>>>>>> achieving explanatory conjugates: in the first one, by developing
>>>>>> systems
>>>>>>>> that integrate and account for all the relevant issues and its
>> mutual
>>>>>>>> relationships in the field in question; in the second one, by
>>>>>>>> grasping
>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>> cognitional structure, which Lonergan called ?interiority?, and
>>>>>>>> applying
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> properly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If a philosopher or theologian borrows any category from another
>>>>>>>> field,
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> exercise does not mean that that field would be foundational: in
any
>>>>>>>> case,
>>>>>>>> that field (Physics, in your example) would have been using a
>>>>>>>> category
>>>>>>>> grounded in another level of analysis. Foundational categories
>> cannot
>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>> grounded on applied sciences, as the task of understanding does
not
>>>>>>>> lie
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> the empirical level. It is a different functional specialty (in a
>>>>>>>> first
>>>>>>>> stage, interpretation, GEM2; if it achieves the virtual
>>>>>>>> unconditioned,
>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> could be derived from Foundations, GEM5). When you understand the
>>>>>>>> categories
>>>>>>>> you are using in Physics, then you are not doing Physics, but
theory
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> Knowledge or Epistemology.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Re ?moral laws?, well, I am not sure that they exist at all, if
>> with
>>>>>>>> under
>>>>>>>> that expression we are assuming a notion of objectivity as if it
is
>>>>>>>> something ?already-out-there-here-and-now?. I don?t know much
about
>>>>>>>> Lonergan
>>>>>>>> and probabiliorism (I guess that he could have accepted it in his
>>>>>>>> young
>>>>>>>> ?molinist? years, but let us hear the opinion of those who know
more
>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>> me
>>>>>>>> about it), but I relate it with a conceptualist interpretation of
>>>>>>>> Ethics
>>>>>>>> which is far from BL?s thought. See that in *Insight*, the
chapter
>>>>>>>> dedicated
>>>>>>>> to Ethics is called ?The *possibility* of Ethics? (my
underlining).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I hope I have answered your questions. Best regards!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Octavio
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2009/12/22 Joe F <172...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dear Octavio,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Will you overlook my ignorance about theology just long enough
to
>>>>>>>>> consider a question I have. You mention that theology is the
>>>>>>>>> ultimate
>>>>>>>>> horizon which gives meaning and values to the social sciences.
Why
>>>>>>>>> should that not apply to physics? I don't blame you if you think
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> sounds silly. But couldn't there be a sort of moral rightness to
>> the
>>>>>>>>> physical order- I mean when things, cells, solar systems are
>>>>>>>>> functioning well. I have had a theory that Lonergan, who applies
>> the
>>>>>>>>> notion of the uniquely probable, which is a tool of the physical
>>>>>>>>> sciences, to an important aspect of his metaphysics, derived
that
>>>>>>>>> notion of the probable from a very sophisticated and specialized
>>>>>>>>> notion of the theologically probable the sense of which may be
>>>>>>>>> available only to the theologian living immersed in a
theological
>>>>>>>>> community and not the layman like myself-theological
>> probabiliorism.
>>>>>>>>> In other words we can expect nature to be, in its proper
function,
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> reflect the moral grandeur of God in the same way that we can
find
>>>>>>>>> moral laws to be 'probable'. And Lonergan exported that sense in
>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>> measure to his notion of the uniquely probable which has been
>>>>>>>>> applied
>>>>>>>>> in scientific hypothesis making.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Joe F
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 12/20/09, Octavio Groppa <octavi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> > Thank you, very much, Doug!
>>>>>>>>> > Re the subject of my thesis, well, it won't be easy to resume
it
>>>>>>>>> > in
>>>>>>>>> > a
>>>>>>>>> > few
>>>>>>>>> > words... I think that the relationship appears through the
>>>>>> orientation
>>>>>>>>> given
>>>>>>>>> > by the fourth level of our intentional structure, that is,
>> through
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> > judgments of value and the decision to act, because Theology
is
>>>>>>>>> > the
>>>>>>>>> ultimate
>>>>>>>>> > horizon of meaning and it handles with the religious level,
which
>>>>>>>>> integrates
>>>>>>>>> > our whole identity and our affective dispositions (because it
is
>>>>>>>>> > an
>>>>>>>>> > experience of transcendental love).
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > Maybe the most daring of my conclusions is that the omission
of
>>>>>>>>> reflection
>>>>>>>>> > on transcendental value (grace) in the social order tends to
>>>>>>>>> > identify
>>>>>>>>> with a
>>>>>>>>> > negation of grace itself (or however you'd like to call it in
a
>>>>>>>>> > postchristian world), because current social values -reflected
or
>>>>>> not-
>>>>>>>>> > conform the horizon the subjects depart from, and the
incarnation
>>>>>>>>> > of
>>>>>>>>> value
>>>>>>>>> > in human society can only be achieved in a conscious,
reflexive,
>>>>>>>>> > free,
>>>>>>>>> way.
>>>>>>>>> > So, a social science who insists in being "value-free" would
only
>>>>>> give
>>>>>>>>> > us
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> > distorted or truncated (in the sense of Newman's theorem)
image
>> of
>>>>>>>>> society
>>>>>>>>> > and human person.
>>>>>>>>> > That is what still happens in our dismal science (?)...
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > Best regards !
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > Octavio
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > 2009/12/18 <mou...@uw.edu>
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >> Congratulations Octavio! I'd like to hear your ideas on the
>>>>>>>>> relationship
>>>>>>>>> >> between Theology and Social Sciences.
>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>> >> (mi tio fue desde buenos aires, y mi primas carnales viven en
la
>>>>>>>>> >> ciudad
>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>> >> Feliz Navidad!)
>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>> >> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Octavio Groppa wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>> >> Dear pals,
>>>>>>>>> >>> I just want to tell you that yesterday morning I had my STL
>>>>>>>>> dissertation
>>>>>>>>> >>> on
>>>>>>>>> >>> BL's GEM and the relatonship between Theology and Social
>>>>>>>>> >>> Sciences,
>>>>>>>>> >>> at
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> >>> Jesuit Uniersity, here in Buenos Aires.
>>>>>>>>> >>> You don't imagine my surprise and emotion when this morning
I
>>>>>>>>> >>> realized
>>>>>>>>> >>> that
>>>>>>>>> >>> yesterday had been Lonergan's birthday! A nice gift!
>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>> >>> I wish a merry Christmas for you all.
>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>> >>> Octavio
>>>>>>>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> >>> 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
>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Lonergan_l mailing list
Loner...@skipperweb.org
http://skipperweb.org/mailman/listinfo/lonergan_l_skipperweb.org
End of Lonergan_l Digest, Vol 29, Issue 40
******************************************
American Express made the following annotations on Mon Dec 28 2009 12:58:54
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This message and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient and may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, use, or distribution of the information included in this message and any attachments is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and immediately and permanently delete this message and any attachments. Thank you."
American Express a ajouté le commentaire suivant le Mon Dec 28 2009 12:58:54
Ce courrier et toute pièce jointe qu'il contient sont réservés au seul destinataire indiqué et peuvent renfermer des renseignements confidentiels et privilégiés. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire prévu, toute divulgation, duplication, utilisation ou distribution du courrier ou de toute pièce jointe est interdite. Si vous avez reçu cette communication par erreur, veuillez nous en aviser par courrier et détruire immédiatement le courrier et les pièces jointes. Merci.
******************************************************************************
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maxim Faust
Because I don't find the notion of the the given difficult, I guess I'm in
line to learn something.
I understand the notion of the given analogically. For instance, the topic
of this post is given, i.e., what we are talking about. More exactingly, the
given is any level or complex of experience (include entanglements with
consciousness) which evokes a question, i.e., that calls for
intelligibility, verification, belief, choice.
Now, some labor is needed to tack down the given, to identify the data...
oops! new notion. But, yes, it helps to make this distinction. I don't want
to confound my concrete open engagement with x that sets a problem for
intelligence or choice in motion with the next step forward. Put otherwise,
describing x is not experiencing x.
And this is helpful. Say some guy wants to understand what fire is. But on
inquiry - inquiry into his experience of fire - we discover that his
descriptives include "smoke". It would seem then that his attention to what
he wants to understand needs refinement. Okay, now, substitute the notion of
believing, belief, for fire and a new world of consequence is pending.
So given-data-question are solidary. I look forward to your reply.
Max
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 2:58 PM, David W Oyler <david....@aexp.com>wrote:
> Hi all -
>
> The notion of the given is problematic. If we ask "what is it?" do we
> miss it or do we find it? If we take it as experience, then we have
> additional issues because the notion of experience gets tangled up with
> that of consciousness if you want to make Lonergan's account fully
> systematic. And it we take it as a fulfilling condition, then it needs to
> be real in some way. And how does that reality get established de facto
> (via evolution?) as structurally efficacious or as "real prior to
> judgment"? If we answer these questions, I think the given ends up being
> very complex. I would take Lonergan's notion of the given as introduced
> in this discussion as part of a complex. As a first clue, I would
> consider the "given" along the lines of "given to ...?" If the given is
> given to questioning, then we can see that it is dynamic, that it can be
> developed and that it extends beyond the empirical residue. This is a
> shift from a content - the given - via a perhaps more problematic notion -
> experience/experiencing - to an operation with varying "objects" -
> questioning.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>
Catherine B. King
I won't quote here, but there is a nice development of the notion of the
given under "experiential objectivity" in Insight, newer version pp. 405-.
But the given is assumed in the activity of questioning--we assume some
materials into which we question (data, anticipated "things," etc.)
Regards,
Catherine
Catherine B. King
The below quote from Lonergan's Lectures on Education may also help with the
exploration of the given. Buried here also is the relationship between
means and ends, which is particularly important, I think, for the recovery
process of Western minds.
Regards,
Catherine
". meaning has an initial stage, which is the Aristotelian identity, and a
second stage when it moves on to a meant. By elemental meaning, then, I
mean the first stage. When meaning is fully developed, there are
distinctions between objects. But prior to the ontology there is the ontic
of which Heidegger speaks; and that is another way of indicating what is
meant by elemental meaning. . When experience slips into a purely
experiential pattern, we are lifted out of our ready-made world of everyday
living. Our experience is not being instrumentalized to our function in
society, our job, our past, to all the things we have to do. It is on its
own. Experience is a component in our apprehension of reality. And this
quite different type of experience, that corresponds to the release of the
purely experiential pattern, is a transformation of the world. . it is an
opening of the horizon." (Lonergan, 1959, pp. 203-04)
Joe F
Would anyone agree that the fact that the sky is blue is a given? We
grow up thinking it and we don't feel surprised if someone asks their
Dad, "why is the sky blue?". It is commonly accepted, It is a given,
but it is also a fact. But if it's not an already out their now real
then it must be by virtue of being intelligible that the sky in blue
and not just in a descriptive way but in an explanatory way. To make
the given 'the sky is blue' into a fact that is not an already out
there now real is to grant it intelligibility and that implies
granting it some implicit, latent explanation. The given has potency,
form and act. Isn't 'form' the intelligibility and term of
explanation? In other words when our eyes fall on the sky there is
something about it that invites reflection. It's fraught with the
grandeur of God -explanation.
Joe
Maxim Faust
The page you sent includes references to other entries:
*See experience - from formulation to the given*
* *
*See imagination - and the given*
* *
*See insight and understanding - inverse-abstraction and*
I would like to read these also.
In the entry "[the given] not the real", you write:
"As given, the real is data - of sense and data of consciousness."
I see that you have not expanded on that statement but I hope you have noted
that I'm inclined to distinguish objectifications of the given via
description as data. The distinction is a practical caution. Inquiries can
go astray because data is misdrawn or is buried in the folds or
is irrelevant or all messed up with other stuff of one's psyche. In these
circumstances it may be possible to return to the given with heightened
attention.... which is just another way of encourageing the distinction.
Anyway, I am encouraged by what I have read.
Max
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 3:08 PM, <leo.s...@utoronto.ca> wrote:
> Dear Max,
> I thought it might interest you to read the entry "Given, the"
> from a glossary of Lonergan's terms that I have written. In the attached
> text I've put in footnotes a few of the most relevant of the
> cross-references. Best wishes of the season,
>
> Leo.
David W Oyler
Considering the notion of given used in the context of "independent"
conditions for judgment, facts are not given. Rather the given can
provide fulfilling conditions for some facts. Once a fact is known, it
may or may not be known in an explanatory context. To simply know that
the sky is blue is factual but not explanatory. To know why the sky is
blue is both (which assumes your explanation is correct).
Dave
Joe F <172...@gmail.com>
12/29/2009 01:48 PM
To
David W Oyler/AMER/TRS/AEXP@AMEX
cc
loner...@skipperweb.org, lonergan_...@skipperweb.org
Subject
Re: [Lonergan_l] The Given
HI Dave,
Joe
American Express made the following annotations on Thu Dec 31 2009 11:31:03
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This message and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient and may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, use, or distribution of the information included in this message and any attachments is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and immediately and permanently delete this message and any attachments. Thank you."
American Express a ajouté le commentaire suivant le Thu Dec 31 2009 11:31:03