tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6367540557347019200.post9160258846942612306..comments2024-02-20T00:47:19.513-08:00Comments on Currents in Catholic Thought: Discovery at Bethany, ReduxJoe Chttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14191089729473477072noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6367540557347019200.post-32009533245761022442018-03-19T00:07:33.905-07:002018-03-19T00:07:33.905-07:00PS: "Imploded" might not be Meier's ...PS: "Imploded" might not be Meier's metaphor, now that I think of it. Now I seem to remember Meier using it, but that he got it from Ray Brown. So, it could be his phrase. It's a good metaphor, either way. Joseph Charles https://www.blogger.com/profile/02849704279926794392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6367540557347019200.post-5505859264083248222018-03-19T00:05:24.979-07:002018-03-19T00:05:24.979-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Joseph Charles https://www.blogger.com/profile/02849704279926794392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6367540557347019200.post-9845864976486174262018-03-18T02:55:15.829-07:002018-03-18T02:55:15.829-07:00I think we can even go further than this: John wan...I think we can even go further than this: John wants us to see the depth of humanity, the humanness, *of God*. Jesus's profound humanity is a revelation here because John has already, to use Meier's phrase, imploded the divinity of God and the humanity of Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus's grief over the loss of Lazarus and the suffering of Lazarus's family can only be important (in the gospel) if Jesus is divine. <br /><br />We all grieve. We all endure loss. We all suffer and suffer because we see others suffering. That's not unique at all. Jesus deserves no more praise or gratitude for this than anyone else who suffers and endures the suffering of others. <br /><br />Jesus's humanity is unique because it is, supposedly, a revelation of the divine, and that's what John is about on any and every level. <br /><br />Everyone can and will grieve over the loss of a friend. <br /><br />No one but God can give them more time with us. Yet, here we are, a world as heartbroken and grieving as it was when Jesus was here. But this time, all the tombs—and too many mass graves—remain occupied. Joseph Charles https://www.blogger.com/profile/02849704279926794392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6367540557347019200.post-71924780225458297572018-03-09T16:03:47.723-08:002018-03-09T16:03:47.723-08:00"John wants us to see the depths of Jesus'..."John wants us to see the depths of Jesus' humanity here---the generosity of his joy for his disciples and of his grief over the loss of his friend."<br /><br />And he wants us to see the heights of Jesus's divinity—the sheer love of the Word which creates the world from nothing, now physically recreates Lazarus from rotting. Joseph Charles https://www.blogger.com/profile/02849704279926794392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6367540557347019200.post-41981865984683944202015-11-02T20:29:39.202-08:002015-11-02T20:29:39.202-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Joseph Charles https://www.blogger.com/profile/02849704279926794392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6367540557347019200.post-66689465025938332032015-10-25T14:51:21.094-07:002015-10-25T14:51:21.094-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Joseph Charles https://www.blogger.com/profile/02849704279926794392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6367540557347019200.post-21013707673019895682015-10-22T14:58:59.505-07:002015-10-22T14:58:59.505-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Joseph Charles https://www.blogger.com/profile/02849704279926794392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6367540557347019200.post-14948231923229365782015-10-05T04:15:52.236-07:002015-10-05T04:15:52.236-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Joseph Charles https://www.blogger.com/profile/02849704279926794392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6367540557347019200.post-74835862820283893082015-10-04T08:25:38.467-07:002015-10-04T08:25:38.467-07:00Understood. I don't think Marion is that simpl...Understood. I don't think Marion is that simple. Let's move this onto the other 'threads;' feel free to 'present' Harman and appropriate him to continue your critique.Joe Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14191089729473477072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6367540557347019200.post-52853029279678971002015-10-04T08:22:53.203-07:002015-10-04T08:22:53.203-07:00I agree that we should be focusing on the theology...I agree that we should be focusing on the theology here. I deeply appreciate and admire the philosophy Marion has moved forward, but, like him (I surmise), I am most interested in faith that seeks possibility and understanding.<br /><br />Marion (indeed all these thinkers lately in this blog) has given me a language to express theological experience. I understand Marion to be moving not to an anthropological metaphysics (a reasonable critique for sure), but to a divine/God sided analogical imagination. Not an analogia entis, but a new analogical language that looks to a univocity-busting analogy that reverses metaphysics---which turns on a rejection of language that moves from the finite to the infinite, but from the infinite to the finite. Marion calls this 'from God's point of view' approach the only way to recover authentic analogical language for God. Phenomenology has provided for him the possibility for this creative maneuver. This maneuver has opened him up to the obvious criticism.<br /><br />For now, let me say simply this about thaumaturgy: a theology of the event is already beyond the mimetic level (the level of narrative, the miracle report), and even beyond the semiotic, seeking a even more aggressive understanding signification. I am leaving miracles to the historical-critical method for now, which in no way denies the inadequacy in that approach and my own to date. I do want an answer to the question: what is a miracle? I want to answer that question for us, for Jesus, for his followers and his enemies, for the evangelists and for the church. Right now, the status quo is schizophrenic, and that is part of the 'throwness' and facticity we encounter when we ask those kinds of questions.Joe Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14191089729473477072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6367540557347019200.post-64284352741171819582015-10-04T08:04:39.483-07:002015-10-04T08:04:39.483-07:00If you would repost those comments on either the &...If you would repost those comments on either the 'What's in a name' or 'Mahler' sections, I would appreciate it. They have gotten lost in this extended comments section.Joe Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14191089729473477072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6367540557347019200.post-65941717892587329172015-10-04T07:41:56.242-07:002015-10-04T07:41:56.242-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Joseph Charles https://www.blogger.com/profile/02849704279926794392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6367540557347019200.post-77423573399098405322015-10-04T05:49:49.801-07:002015-10-04T05:49:49.801-07:00Marion's critique of Husserl is robust, and co...Marion's critique of Husserl is robust, and consciousness as limit does indeed suggest idealism, but Husserl is still able to more toward 'givenness' which is tied up in the intentional object, but in a way that Marion finds inadequate to a phenomenology that does heavy lifting.<br /><br />Marion takes the next step with his 3rd reduction which acknowledges the privilege of the given to be prior to any kind of constitution by the subject. If that is not a full blown democracy of objects it is at the very least a democracy of phenomenological selves ( the only exception would be revelation or God).<br /><br />On another note, Marion equates his 'object' with Kant's 'phenomenon' but rejects the possibility that saturated phenomena are 'noumena.' I think this goes far in answering your critique the thing itself. Marion has also suggested that saturated phenomena are open to practical reason, which, nonetheless, does not contradict his assertion that SP are not noumena.Joe Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14191089729473477072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6367540557347019200.post-36057145376745903982015-10-03T13:02:48.956-07:002015-10-03T13:02:48.956-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Joseph Charles https://www.blogger.com/profile/02849704279926794392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6367540557347019200.post-62159054501292264582015-10-03T12:40:30.049-07:002015-10-03T12:40:30.049-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Joseph Charles https://www.blogger.com/profile/02849704279926794392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6367540557347019200.post-21825588475785302252015-10-03T12:23:45.772-07:002015-10-03T12:23:45.772-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Joseph Charles https://www.blogger.com/profile/02849704279926794392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6367540557347019200.post-80114458003715724522015-10-03T05:13:22.347-07:002015-10-03T05:13:22.347-07:00The hyperbole of the Met example seems to have bee...The hyperbole of the Met example seems to have been an unfortunate dstraction. When we leave the Impressionists for something else, we are in fact no longer doing phenomenology. But you do obviously see that degrees of givenness and phenomenality are at least possibile, if not absolutely mundane---What Marion calls the banality of saturation.<br /><br />As I noted earlier, the 'completion' and surpassing of metaphysics does not eradicate it. We move beyond its categories and allow things to be freer both in their objectness and phenomenality. Without totally abandoningthe Met example, we can look at that Monet and then make a decision to do mass spectrometry on a fleck of paint and change a saturated phenomenon into a poor phenomenon, a simple object under a completely different kind of gaze that can no longer see art, but chemistry, and the physical properties of matter.<br /><br />I think metaphysical statements can be made about what has undergone the reduction (Husserl), but Marion wants to explore a different kind of laterality in that moment. Even beyond being (Heidegger), and toward the giving and receiving selves.<br /><br />While we must pay attention while doing phenomenology, it's what we're doing with our 'intention' that drives the moment. Intention means the same thing for Husserl, Heidegger and Marion. All of them problematize consciousness, but each in succession moves the project further and further away from metaphysics and the simple subject-object relation, and away from the constituting subject (the Cartesian subject/ego) and to the thing itself, as itself, giving itself. Heidegger's *destruktion* is the deconstruction of metaphysical categories, and Marion meticulously salvages what he needs from both Husserl's and Heigger's critiques of metaphysics, to arrive at the ground of the 3rd reduction, and his very new and exciting phenomenology. But it is still phenomenology with all its pluses and minuses.Joe Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14191089729473477072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6367540557347019200.post-25920499683664760812015-10-03T03:54:49.170-07:002015-10-03T03:54:49.170-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Joseph Charles https://www.blogger.com/profile/02849704279926794392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6367540557347019200.post-59940680018055653372015-10-02T16:29:07.515-07:002015-10-02T16:29:07.515-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Joseph Charles https://www.blogger.com/profile/02849704279926794392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6367540557347019200.post-31414039704320413172015-10-02T16:26:45.210-07:002015-10-02T16:26:45.210-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Joseph Charles https://www.blogger.com/profile/02849704279926794392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6367540557347019200.post-52860111135386759902015-10-02T05:51:46.452-07:002015-10-02T05:51:46.452-07:00Mahler's 4th is made real in its realization--...Mahler's 4th is made real in its realization--- its performance. The music 'comes to life' when it is heard, 'experienced' in its phenomenality, its givenness. Performance 'makes it so;' givenness is anterior to 'existence.' Art is often but not always a saturated phenomenon. Marion points out that a rock can be a saturated phenomenon and God can be an object, and there are hermeneutic consequences in those experiences, especially in the latter, where God-as-object has been diminished in its given phenomenality. But if we don't press this example too hard, we can see how such degrees of givenness and experience play out everyday in our ordinary lives: we're at the Met viewing a Monet. At one point, we are engaged in the play of light and color, the vibrancy of the image, our very vision nearly blinded by such brilliance. At another point, we're hungry or need to use the restroom---we must exit the room where all those paintings are shining forth. Now they are simply paintings---objects on the wall; they are things we must walk past to get to our destination. They are now become something else---their saturation has become less saturated (they withdraw). And that's a good thing because we *really need* to be elsewhere and fast.<br /><br />Marion would agree that our gaze has some ontological status, and determines not the phenomenality of what is given, but plays in the Dasein of reception (I've written a bit about this recently). So the self does not constitute what is within the gaze. Isn't causality challenged by the very distance between sound and sense?Joe Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14191089729473477072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6367540557347019200.post-65261585939672386692015-10-01T17:25:18.490-07:002015-10-01T17:25:18.490-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Joseph Charles https://www.blogger.com/profile/02849704279926794392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6367540557347019200.post-15057501518271487242015-09-30T13:00:58.139-07:002015-09-30T13:00:58.139-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Joseph Charles https://www.blogger.com/profile/02849704279926794392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6367540557347019200.post-67520555880409011982015-09-30T12:10:59.387-07:002015-09-30T12:10:59.387-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Joseph Charles https://www.blogger.com/profile/02849704279926794392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6367540557347019200.post-38254684043940977152015-09-30T06:07:05.048-07:002015-09-30T06:07:05.048-07:00I would also add that the reason 'evil' is...I would also add that the reason 'evil' is unbracketable in this theodical approach is because evil is constitutive not only of the natural world (horrible events) but constitutive of revelation itself, the Christ-event itself, which are always complicit in 'evil.' Such phenomenon cannot give themselves, or make an appearance *without* their constituent 'evil.'Joe Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14191089729473477072noreply@blogger.com