[Lonergan_l] IMPLEMENTATION WITHOUT VISION = Bad Faith
nichola...@utoronto.ca
"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
Maxim Faust
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
nichola...@utoronto.ca
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.?
nichola...@utoronto.ca
esp. Pat Brown [HEC !!]
91 Box 8 File 3 Meynell
April 5/1989
Dear Mr. Meynell
Your essay on THE GREAT CODE is lucid and as warmly sympathetic as its
disagreements allow it to be. I do not think that the main bone of
contention is the validily of historical and dialectical
truth-language, which THE GREAT CODE subordinates but does not by any
means dismiss or deny the importance of. The real problem seems to be
the assumption that myth and metaphor can only be unreal or illusory,
and that the book is therefore advocating some kind of Biblical
aestheticism. I admit that this is a difficult point--so difficult
that I am writing a second volume trying to explain it more fully. But
I am greatful for your interest and for the fair hearing that your
essay grants me.
Yours sincerely,
Northrop Frye
NF: JW
--NWG
> Nick:
>
>
> Thanks for this email; it's very interesting indeed. Perhaps you
> could post the letter from Hugo and the response from Frye
> (presuming, of course, that you have Hugo's permssion). I suspect
> many of the folks on the skipperweb listserve would find it
> interesting.
>
>
> By the way, I would like to buy your transcripts from Lonergan's
> macro course. I don't know if you already have it, but in case not
> I've appended Lonergan's one-page syllabus from the Spring 1980
> "Macroeconomics and the Dialectic of History" course.
>
>
> Best,
>
>
> Pat Brown
> Seattle University