Comments on: Love Alone: the marriage of Theology and Aesthetics http://www.thelandofunlikeness.com/2007/06/08/love-alone-the-marriage-of-theology-and-aesthetics/ Catholic Anglican Reflections on Theology and Culture Thu, 04 Dec 2008 08:14:45 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: <![CDATA[mutabilitie]]> http://www.thelandofunlikeness.com/2007/06/08/love-alone-the-marriage-of-theology-and-aesthetics/#comment-150 Tue, 12 Jun 2007 18:27:00 +0000 http://www.thelandofunlikeness.com/2007/06/08/love-alone-the-marriage-of-theology-and-aesthetics/#comment-150 Ah, right. Yeah, I certainly have no problem agreeing with you re: 'pre(or non)verbal' events and 'verbal' events; it's something of a mystery how language maps onto what is not itself linguistic--though there are many theories which try to explain this. It's not surprising that although medieval Christians, working with Aristotle and his arabic commentators, that the 'agent intellect' of a person (i.e. the pre-conscious active feature of the intellect) converts what is sensed into something that is per se intelligible, which is a mental basis for concept formation. Anyways... 'intuitive cognition' [I.C.] is unmediated direct knowledge (i.e. unmediated by a sensible image in any of the 5 senses, or anything in the imagination, i.e. phantasms). I.C. is of/about the existence of whatever is known (i.e. immediate conscious awareness of some real thing); whereas abstractive cognition presupposes I.C. and considers what is known whether or not it is really existing. Also, A.C. 'starts' from a habit or inclination that results after the I.C. (as opposed to the extra-mental thing as with I.C.). So, in a loose sense, intuitive cognition is like a 1st order cognition (occurrent thought), and abstractive cognition is like a 2nd order cognition, with peculiar features regarding cognition of the existence of the known thing and a basis for the act of cognition (the extra-mental thing or a habit). I think there are perhaps modern variations on this distinction, but certainly this is something to consider .... Ah, right. Yeah, I certainly have no problem agreeing with you re: ‘pre(or non)verbal’ events and ‘verbal’ events; it’s something of a mystery how language maps onto what is not itself linguistic–though there are many theories which try to explain this. It’s not surprising that although medieval Christians, working with Aristotle and his arabic commentators, that the ‘agent intellect’ of a person (i.e. the pre-conscious active feature of the intellect) converts what is sensed into something that is per se intelligible, which is a mental basis for concept formation. Anyways… ‘intuitive cognition’ [I.C.] is unmediated direct knowledge (i.e. unmediated by a sensible image in any of the 5 senses, or anything in the imagination, i.e. phantasms). I.C. is of/about the existence of whatever is known (i.e. immediate conscious awareness of some real thing); whereas abstractive cognition presupposes I.C. and considers what is known whether or not it is really existing. Also, A.C. ’starts’ from a habit or inclination that results after the I.C. (as opposed to the extra-mental thing as with I.C.). So, in a loose sense, intuitive cognition is like a 1st order cognition (occurrent thought), and abstractive cognition is like a 2nd order cognition, with peculiar features regarding cognition of the existence of the known thing and a basis for the act of cognition (the extra-mental thing or a habit). I think there are perhaps modern variations on this distinction, but certainly this is something to consider ….

]]> By: <![CDATA[D. W. McClain]]> http://www.thelandofunlikeness.com/2007/06/08/love-alone-the-marriage-of-theology-and-aesthetics/#comment-149 Mon, 11 Jun 2007 13:00:00 +0000 http://www.thelandofunlikeness.com/2007/06/08/love-alone-the-marriage-of-theology-and-aesthetics/#comment-149 No, Ricoeur's position, which is not really the topic of this post, is simply that there are events, instances on this side of heaven that happen to us that are unmediated, or not purely mediated by language. see Figuring the Sacred for his defense of this. But, let me leave it at this, if you don't adopt something like this, then the aesthetic will always be subordinated to the linguistic - a position held by most deconstructionists/post-structuralists as far as I can tell. <br/>As far as your use of will/intellect/intuition - these aren't categories currently in popular employment - certainly not in this conversation with modern theologians. could you "translate" them for the benefit of our readers? No, Ricoeur’s position, which is not really the topic of this post, is simply that there are events, instances on this side of heaven that happen to us that are unmediated, or not purely mediated by language. see Figuring the Sacred for his defense of this. But, let me leave it at this, if you don’t adopt something like this, then the aesthetic will always be subordinated to the linguistic - a position held by most deconstructionists/post-structuralists as far as I can tell.
As far as your use of will/intellect/intuition - these aren’t categories currently in popular employment - certainly not in this conversation with modern theologians. could you “translate” them for the benefit of our readers?

]]> By: <![CDATA[mutabilitie]]> http://www.thelandofunlikeness.com/2007/06/08/love-alone-the-marriage-of-theology-and-aesthetics/#comment-148 Mon, 11 Jun 2007 08:04:00 +0000 http://www.thelandofunlikeness.com/2007/06/08/love-alone-the-marriage-of-theology-and-aesthetics/#comment-148 Dan: I don't disagree with your conclusion, but I'm not clear (yet) on what precedes it. How should we take 'pre-verbal'? Does it mean something like 'mental language' (i.e. concepts which are a foundation for a natural language, e.g. English), or rather, an _act_ of intellect (i.e. an occurent thought), whether intuitive and abstractive? I think Scotus would say in general in this life the wayfarer can have abstractive knowledge based on natural and revealed knowledge, and unmediated intuitive knowledge in the beatific vision in the life to come. Dan: I don’t disagree with your conclusion, but I’m not clear (yet) on what precedes it. How should we take ‘pre-verbal’? Does it mean something like ‘mental language’ (i.e. concepts which are a foundation for a natural language, e.g. English), or rather, an _act_ of intellect (i.e. an occurent thought), whether intuitive and abstractive? I think Scotus would say in general in this life the wayfarer can have abstractive knowledge based on natural and revealed knowledge, and unmediated intuitive knowledge in the beatific vision in the life to come.

]]> By: <![CDATA[D. W. McClain]]> http://www.thelandofunlikeness.com/2007/06/08/love-alone-the-marriage-of-theology-and-aesthetics/#comment-147 Sun, 10 Jun 2007 13:29:00 +0000 http://www.thelandofunlikeness.com/2007/06/08/love-alone-the-marriage-of-theology-and-aesthetics/#comment-147 First off, thanks to everyone for sticking with us here. Scott, from our shared readings of Ricouer you might remember PR's use of the categories of manifestation and proclamation for religious events: proclamation is the verbal communication, whereas manifestation is preverbal. But I think what Balthasar is driving at here is not whether the theologian is "loving" (although I think he'd affirm that too), but that we have a choice about that which is the center of the theology, whether that be a cosmology, an anthropology, or the glorious self-revelation of God through the loving incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ his son. First off, thanks to everyone for sticking with us here. Scott, from our shared readings of Ricouer you might remember PR’s use of the categories of manifestation and proclamation for religious events: proclamation is the verbal communication, whereas manifestation is preverbal. But I think what Balthasar is driving at here is not whether the theologian is “loving” (although I think he’d affirm that too), but that we have a choice about that which is the center of the theology, whether that be a cosmology, an anthropology, or the glorious self-revelation of God through the loving incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ his son.

]]> By: <![CDATA[mutabilitie]]> http://www.thelandofunlikeness.com/2007/06/08/love-alone-the-marriage-of-theology-and-aesthetics/#comment-146 Sat, 09 Jun 2007 23:00:00 +0000 http://www.thelandofunlikeness.com/2007/06/08/love-alone-the-marriage-of-theology-and-aesthetics/#comment-146 Janet: There are counter-examples ... theologians can indeed do orthodox theology and not do it with love. There can be an objective correctness which may or may not co-occur with loving God. I say this out of experience; I work in the vast details of medieval trinitarian theology-- I may not always have my heart in it, and I may even be talking about the blessed Trinity without love in my heart at the time, and yet I may be saying some orthodox and even 'wise', though without a 'for me' voice. So, based on this experience, I think it possible for orthodox theology without love of God. I do however, think that there are strategies for the lover of God to employ when articulating this truth that literally performs 'more truth', or rather, wills the truth (rather than just knowing it) because it is good. Janet: There are counter-examples … theologians can indeed do orthodox theology and not do it with love. There can be an objective correctness which may or may not co-occur with loving God. I say this out of experience; I work in the vast details of medieval trinitarian theology– I may not always have my heart in it, and I may even be talking about the blessed Trinity without love in my heart at the time, and yet I may be saying some orthodox and even ‘wise’, though without a ‘for me’ voice. So, based on this experience, I think it possible for orthodox theology without love of God. I do however, think that there are strategies for the lover of God to employ when articulating this truth that literally performs ‘more truth’, or rather, wills the truth (rather than just knowing it) because it is good.

]]> By: <![CDATA[Janet leslie Blumberg]]> http://www.thelandofunlikeness.com/2007/06/08/love-alone-the-marriage-of-theology-and-aesthetics/#comment-145 Sat, 09 Jun 2007 20:12:00 +0000 http://www.thelandofunlikeness.com/2007/06/08/love-alone-the-marriage-of-theology-and-aesthetics/#comment-145 "Cold truth" has been our own modern invention, hasn't it? At least for my medieval and renaissance writers (or for the Greeks) "truth" was a lady on a high hill, Beatrice, bearer of grace, and so self-validating (if true), like prophetic critique, by taking the top of our heads off, by remaking us as its "lover," by changing and transfiguring us into its friends. The sheer brilliance of H. U. von B in (re)connecting eros and glory with truth, through basically our depth experiences of esthetic beauty, just blows me away. Thanks so much for putting this on your blog, Dan. Encore! Encore! “Cold truth” has been our own modern invention, hasn’t it? At least for my medieval and renaissance writers (or for the Greeks) “truth” was a lady on a high hill, Beatrice, bearer of grace, and so self-validating (if true), like prophetic critique, by taking the top of our heads off, by remaking us as its “lover,” by changing and transfiguring us into its friends. The sheer brilliance of H. U. von B in (re)connecting eros and glory with truth, through basically our depth experiences of esthetic beauty, just blows me away. Thanks so much for putting this on your blog, Dan. Encore! Encore!

]]> By: <![CDATA[Cynthia Nielsen]]> http://www.thelandofunlikeness.com/2007/06/08/love-alone-the-marriage-of-theology-and-aesthetics/#comment-144 Sat, 09 Jun 2007 00:09:00 +0000 http://www.thelandofunlikeness.com/2007/06/08/love-alone-the-marriage-of-theology-and-aesthetics/#comment-144 It is always nice to meet another Balthasar fan. I am adding you to my blogroll. <br/><br/>Cheers,<br/>Cynthia It is always nice to meet another Balthasar fan. I am adding you to my blogroll.

Cheers,
Cynthia

]]> By: <![CDATA[mutabilitie]]> http://www.thelandofunlikeness.com/2007/06/08/love-alone-the-marriage-of-theology-and-aesthetics/#comment-143 Fri, 08 Jun 2007 23:23:00 +0000 http://www.thelandofunlikeness.com/2007/06/08/love-alone-the-marriage-of-theology-and-aesthetics/#comment-143 apologies for the odd syntax in the last sentence above. apologies for the odd syntax in the last sentence above.

]]> By: <![CDATA[mutabilitie]]> http://www.thelandofunlikeness.com/2007/06/08/love-alone-the-marriage-of-theology-and-aesthetics/#comment-142 Fri, 08 Jun 2007 23:22:00 +0000 http://www.thelandofunlikeness.com/2007/06/08/love-alone-the-marriage-of-theology-and-aesthetics/#comment-142 Could you comment on the last sentence a bit? <br/><br/>Somehow the way he described 'truth' had a peculiar sense about it? Perhaps, some remark about 'cold reason'--i.e. a person who aims to know the truth and express it w/o also loving that of whom the truth indicates? Could you comment on the last sentence a bit?

Somehow the way he described ‘truth’ had a peculiar sense about it? Perhaps, some remark about ‘cold reason’–i.e. a person who aims to know the truth and express it w/o also loving that of whom the truth indicates?

]]>