[Lonergan_l] Doran, Marquette: systematic theology
Jaray...@aol.com
The two of you are addressing interesting "discontinuities" with
questions as to if and how such discontinuities could ever be resolved this side of
the grave.
Who ever said that this site is to be restricted to philosophy? OK, we
don't want to get bogged down or involved in divisive politics, theology or
ideologies. But GEM is very much "fair game" for addressing such in
dialectical-foundational ways.
This brings me to the subjects I here want to address. 1) As you know Bob
Doran is now at Marquette U. and still helping edit so as publish the rest
of Lonergan's works (mss).
Yesterday, I received in the mail a letter addressed to the 700
subcribers of _www.bermardlonergan.com_ (http://www.bermardlonergan.com) . In that
letter, Doran also speaks of the first colloquium on "Doing Systematic in a
Multireligious World". I suppose those of you who subscribe to Doran's Marquette
site rec'd the same letter. In any case, the colloquium will be held on Oct.
29 and 30 at Marquette in Milwaukee.
2) Lonergan's GEM is not exclusive of any philosophy or theology--nor is
this site. One of the the problems that Max and Dan address under the label
of "discontinuty" is precisely one of the subjects that all students of
Lonergan's thought should at least be aware of. How Kierkegaard or your favorite
writer on mysticism address discontinuity in relevant ways for our secularized,
often-all-too-confused citizens is important. One of the problems is that
most students of Lonergan lack an adequate grounding in Eastern-African
thought. Glad there are exceptions such as Kevin Cronin and Walmsley in Africa,
Colhoe in India, Wm. Johnston in Tokyo.
If such be the reality that GEM is all too much restricted to Western
thought, whose and what "systematic theology" should we be addressing--and
"expanding" so that GEM be a true WORLD philosophy..... able to better address
"discontinuities"....
John
Catherine B. King
In the light of your note, I think the quote in the introduction to Insight
might be an appropriate remembrance:
"Thoroughly understand what it is to understand, and not only will you
understand the broad lines of all there is to understand but also you will
possess a fixed base, an invariant pattern, opening upon all further
developments of understanding" (1958, p. xxviii; & 2000, p. 22)
Also, though theory itself is a particularly Western contribution--and one
that Lonergan expressly depends on for the development of general empirical
method, as well as in systematics--conceptualism and its less differentiated
relative, ideology, seem to be universal byproducts of human being, its
varied development, and its expression--both of which (conceptualism and
ideology) need to be understood (and given treatment) by all concerned if
any communications are to be developed that can be referred to as coming
from the transcendental viewpoint, or "resolved on this side of the grave,"
as it were, and within the unifying movement that an understanding of
Lonergan's work affords--at least in the longer view.
The problem of course is and always will be the "given treatment" situation.
Certainly, as your note suggests, we can only be at the beginning of that
road if those involved in the discussion are of the mindset that Lonergan's
work is either a set of concepts or a philosophical or theological ideology
from the get-go? Such assumptions already betray an uncritical acceptance
of particularly Western philosophical distortions?
Regards,
Catherine
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> 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
d...@kpond.net
I'd second this point, while drawing specific attention to the key qualifier
"thoroughly" - thoroughly understanding what it is to be thoroughly
understanding.
Lonergan's expressions are a potential occasion of such understanding and at
the same time, expressive of an understanding of how understanding occasions
understanding. In other words, there is an intention to communicate the
intention to communicate. Fun stuff!
-Dan
Catherine B. King
In an earlier note, you say: "One of the problems is that most students of
Lonergan lack an adequate grounding in Eastern-African thought. Glad there
are exceptions such as Kevin Cronin and Walmsley in Africa, Colhoe in India,
Wm. Johnston in Tokyo. ... If such be the reality that GEM is all too
much restricted to Western thought, whose and what 'systematic theology'
should we be addressing--and "expanding" so that GEM be a true WORLD
philosophy..... able to better address 'discontinuities'...."
To be clear for myself, (and I think a close reading of your note reveals
that), you are saying: Though the method is universal, the understanding of
it and its theoretical developments and applications in philosophical and
theological venues are mostly applied by/to western thought; but that
transitions and equivalences, etc., are not made (so far) to understand
other forms and expressions of thinking?
If that's what you are saying, this would be the case at first precisely
because theory itself is a product of (basically and broadly) western
thought. So that Eastern, and African, et al, thought will only appropriate
method, interiority, etc., to the extent that thinkers also first
appropriate theoretical consciousness, or at least that's my understanding
of it at present. The work would be to start where we are, to identify a
level of differentiation according to set principles (ala Lonergan's work),
and to identify conditions that need to be fulfilled to eliminate bias and
to promote development along "positional" lines--our own first, then
others'?
A supporting quote: Lonergan makes the distinction between (1) what is
universal and unrevisable in the method (the mind's operations themselves)
and (2) what is not universal and what is revisable in many places in his
works (various objectifications of those operations, e.g., in theory,
including his own). So recognizing and supporting the expression of the
positions first is key. For instance,
"I say that all of us are conscious of these activities, for our sensing and
feeling, our inquiring and understanding, our formulating and checking, our
deliberating and deciding, are not unconscious but conscious. ... I say
that so few have any exact knowledge of these operations, for while they are
conscious, still that consciousness is not knowledge but only the
infrastructure in a potential knowledge that few get around to actuating by
adding its appropriate superstructure" (Emerging religious consciousness of
our time [1985]. In F. E. Crowe [Ed.], A third collection, papers by
Bernard J. F. Lonergan, S. J. NY: Paulist Press. pp. 57-58).
Perhaps his discussion on latent, problematic, and explicit metaphysics
would be helpful? (1958, pp. 390-91 & pp. 415-16)
Catherine
----- Original Message -----
From: <Jaray...@aol.com>
To: <loner...@skipperweb.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 12:48 AM
Subject: [Lonergan_l] Doran, Marquette: systematic theology