Posted by johnboy on March 27, 19101 at 23:58:47:
to explore the ethics of it all with the radical empiricist and the apophatic mystic
a discussion outline:
1) The interrogatories, "where-when-what-how", will occupy the domain of
science, corresponding to the realm of space-time-matter-energy.
2) The "why" questions will be the concern of philosophy.
3) The domain of theology will involve the "who" inquiries.
4) Interdisciplinary "consilience" will both recognize and honor these
domains.
5) Historical interactions between these domains will be noted but not
completely considered, not fully explicated, not simply recapitulated. When
noted, it will be mostly for the purpose of recognizing pseudo-consilient
trends, toward the end of setting forth, early and clearly, where this
consideration is not headed.
6) A decision will have to be made regarding which philosophical
presuppositions can be assumed, taken for granted, and which must be clearly
adverted to, especially the epistemological, ontological and metaphysical.
7) More emphasis will be placed on presuppositions of method, less on
presuppositions of substance.
8) The exchange of ideas will follow the "dialogue decalogue" of the Global
Dialogue Institute.
9) The voices representing the scientific domain will be those who speak of
the great chain of being using an evolutionary epistemology, both aware of
the emergence dynamics of complexity theory and informed by cultural
anthropology.
10) The voices representing the domain of theology will be those who have
primarily journeyed the via negativa of apophatic experience and/or who've
otherwised been ascribed "implicit" faith.
These are the ground rules for an imaginary engagement. What will the
dialogue participants talk about? A global ethic.
Can we devise a Global Ethic?
Will we merely discover the pre-existing Global Ethic?
a) We will inventory both the presuppositions and positions of both the
metaethical and ethical variety of both the empiricists and of the mystics.
b) We will examine their stances toward reality, more specifically about
what they say can be said about reality, whether concerning the theological
realm, the philosophical realm or the scientific realm.
c) As regarding the metaethical/ethical suppositions and stances toward
reality, we will be looking for consonance, resonance and overlapping
perspectives.
d) We will distinguish real consonance from apparent consonance. In other
words, we will take note of whether or not truth claims are actually similar
or merely sound similar. We will ask whether the truth claim statement is
metaphorical, anagogical or unitive.
e) We will discuss whether consonant truth claims have any implications for
metaethical considerations or force for ethical imperatives, when one claim
is clearly metaphorical while the other is obviously anagogical, as we
explore both authoritative and nonauthoritative deontologies.
f) We will explore any apparent convergence in the stances toward reality of
radical empiricism and of radical apophaticism.
g) We will ask whether the emphases
1) in questions of metaphysics, on the natural over against the
supernatural;
2) in questions of ontology, on the immanent over against the transcendent;
3) in questions of epistemology, on the existential over against the
theological;
4) in questions of theology, on the impersonal over against the personal;
by certain empiricists and by certain mystics are perhaps identical and, if
so, in what respects. Even a convergent evolutionary adaptation?
h) Where these emphases and tendencies converge we will ask whether or not
certain metaphorical and anagogical propositions have similar cultural
anthropological origins? Might they even represent protorational, protomoral
and protoaesthetic adaptations selected in a prelingual stage of our
cognitive evolution? accounting for the deeply felt but ineffable
experiences of truth, goodness and beauty?
i) Can we can build a bridge between the radical empiricist and the
apophatic mystic as regarding their deeply experienced imperatives?
j) We will explore how the bridge between radical apophaticism and
traditional kataphatic approaches might be built using the neoplatonic tools
of Dionysian triads, triads which, potentially, could constructively resolve
anagogical-metaphorical tension, unitively ameliorate both the quietistic
heresies of radical apophaticism and the insidious idolatries of radical
kataphaticism.
Do these bridges need to be built or simply walked across?