One wonders what Fr. Bernard Lonergan would have made of the short text we have known as the “gospel according to Mary Magdalen”, specifically the lords of the underworld (or lowlands) apparently revealed to her by the quasi-historical person we know as Jesus. The first of these was known as Christ While historians are still… Continue reading Christ as History: Fr. Bernard Lonergan’s Christology, Part One
The ontology of metaphysics is so embedded in the way we think, so coiled within the very language that we must use, so protected, that we cannot get at it by a frontal approach. It is necessary to dwell in an author’s work to grasp the underlying ontological principles at work. In the between-two of… Continue reading The Transparent Becoming of World and Quantum Field Brain Dynamics – an initial look at the work of Gordon G. Globus
“Moving away from the representationalist trap of geometrical optics, I shift the focus to physical optics, to questions of diffraction rather than reflection.” “What often appears as separate entities (and separate sets of concerns) with sharp edges does not actually entail a relation of absolute exteriority at all. Like the diffraction patterns illuminating the indefinite… Continue reading Agential Realism
This is the problem with people like Neil deGrasse Tyson: the people he criticizes are spreading nonsense, but in a certain sense he is doing exactly the same. While what he is saying has validity in a specific context, outside that context, which is where he is putting it, it is also nonsense. Worse, his underlying motive is the *same* as those who he is disputing. He’s not a sham ideologue like Dawkins or Hitchens, he’s sincerely trying to get across what ‘scientific reality’ looks like, but that’s precisely the problem. Much like Sagan and the first Cosmos series, there’s an assumption that ‘scientific reality’ is ‘really real reality’, which is a human, all too human desire, but one that can never be accomplished, because at root it is an unverifiable model that happens to be predictively more or less accurate, but nothing more.
“Both types of knowing possess their validity. One cannot claim that one is concerned with mere appearance while the other is concerned with reality. For elementary knowing vindicates its validity by the survival, not to mention the evolution, of animal species. On the other hand, any attempt to dispute the validity of fully human knowing involves the use of that knowing, and so, if the attempt is not to be frustrated by its own assumptions, it must presuppose that validity. The problem set by the two types of knowing is, then, not a problem of elimination but a problem of critical distinction. For the difficulty lies, not in either type of knowing by itself, but in the confusion that arises when one shifts unconsciously from one type to the other. Animals have no epistemological problems. Neither do scientists, as long as they stick to their task of observing, forming hypotheses, and verifying. The perennial source of nonsense is that, after the scientist has verified his hypothesis, he is likely to go a little further and tell the layman what, approximately, scientific reality looks like! Already we have attacked the unverifiable image; but now we can see the origin of the strange urge to foist upon mankind unverifiable images. For both the scientist and the layman, besides being intelligent and reasonable, also are animals. To them as animals, a verified hypothesis is just a jumble of words or symbols. What they want is an elementary knowing of the ‘really real,’ if not through sense, at least by imagination.”
Lonergan, Bernard (1992-04-06). Insight: A Study of Human Understanding, Volume 3: 003 (Collected Works of Bernard Lonergan)
The Meaning of Christian Eschatology Barth’s Disingenuous Description Let us be honest: we do not know what we are saying when we speak of Jesus Christ’s coming again in judgment, and of the resurrection of the dead, of eternal life and eternal death. That with all these there will be bound up a piercing revelation—… Continue reading The Meaning of Christian Eschatology
The Origin of Human Evil Leaving aside natural evil, the evil of interest is that produced by the Self as part of its self-determination. Having looked at the history of the ontology of evil, the common theme has to do with self-will. However precisely how self-will can and does do evil, sometimes even unintentionally, is… Continue reading The Origin of Human Evil: Why Belief is the Problem