I am interested - no, I am curious - as to what your thoughts are on Maximus’ statement that the fall of Adam occurred “at the same instant he came to be”.
As one who seems to take Maximus at his word, would you say that his understanding is akin to your statement that The Fall is a cataclysm of the inauguration of the moral? Is it that any finite creature, upon its creation, falls away from the Divine?
Perhaps, this is the “Instant/cataclysm” in which the gnomic will is pulled into the equation - where we are cast from the garden and beckoned to return to our telos - the true Human Being: Jesus Christ.
Balthasar, I think correctly, reads this as Maximus's denial of a prelapsarian or paradisiacal state—that is, Maximus reads Genesis as myth. One need not posit a historical Adam at all, then, to read "Adam" as essentially the fallen nature of humanity. (From our historical vantage, I hope it is self-evident that there was no literal Adam, no literal Eden.) Jordan Wood has a good section on this in The Whole Mystery of Christ.
Right! The story of The Garden of Eden did not happen in historical time - it was not a terrestrial event. However, it is still the case that man is a fallen creature. The turn we do not want to make is to say that God created humanity in a fallen state.
Michael, you mentioned Jordan Wood. Do you figure that his reading of Maximus’ theory of sin is a key component to this conversation? This would be that ignorance is the fundamental cause of sin - albeit not the sufficient explanation.
Is it then fair to say that God created humanity with the gnomic will by which they are able to freely come into being (keeping in mind that the final cause of humanity is in Christ - who has no gnomic will)?
Do I have that straight so far?
To know the good would be to choose the good, for if you truly knew it for what it was, you would love it and pursue it.
I mean, I don't think the Garden of Eden happened at all. I think it's a story, albeit a good one. I'm not the right person to ask about any of this. I confess that I don't find the notion of gnomic will useful. I revere Maximus, but I rarely find the concepts or categories of theology relevant to my own understanding of things. Which is probably just a deficiency of my gnomic will. But I have recently been reading Wood's book, so thought I'd jump in.
Yeah i took the class Jordan gave 2 years ago on eclectic orthodoxy about his book. I just haven't had time to let all of that erudition sink and seep into my bones and pores. It was fairly dense, for me, at any rate. It's probably also because I was following his recondite debate with DBH over the fact it seems like JDW might be a sort of high falutin process theologian. I need to go over the relevant texts again because I don't see how we get around the problem of God creating us in a fallen state. There must've been at least a single moment of innocence or something like that. IDK Ive given up on getting concrete answers until the eschaton.
Good places to look into would include, though not exhaustively, Ambigua 7, especially 42, & 45; Responses to Thalassios, Questions 5, 21, 44, 61, & 62.
I want to echo Rembert's (much more elegantly framed) praise of your engagement with Kevin—I was definitely struck by your good-natured patience throughout. I think this conversation could serve as an apt introduction to you and your work for lots of people who, like him, lack substantial acquaintance with your oeuvre or, indeed, the issues discussed here.
This is all true, but, what’s more, this conversation contains some intriguing bits even for dedicated DBH readers: from the formal description of his job with the University of Norte Dame to the negative connotation of perennialism to his masterful interpretation of Meister Eckhart’s quote. And even topics he has written extensively about such as Maximus’s two wills concept and allegoric reading are further elucidated. I am very thankful to Kevin that he ignored his skeptical acquaintances and dared to conduct this interview.
1) Very patient Basso continuo by David Bentley Hart: "You know...."
2) Short Riff by Kevin Gregorian: "Interesting.." -
3) Short Pause
4) da Capo al Fine
Well - that is about the form - but content wise the Basso continuo surprises with great short summaries and remarks. Well worth the 90 minutes of my lifetime and on top:
Some of the humor by DBH is so good - I vote for it to be extracted, canned, published, commented by Roland and canonised
Dr. Hart, in one of your lectures on YouTube you said something that stuck with me: "scripture is the testimony of a revelation, not a revelation unto itself." I find that extremely useful for looking at the Bible more honestly. As a result though, I wonder how we determine to what degree we cosign their way of thinking or what we consider authoratative. For example, no one in their right mind would agree to ancient cosmology (firmament, pillars of earth, stars as deities, sheol, etc). In your book Doors of the Sea, you conceded a sort of perceived dualism that presents itself in our experience due to evil. Do you subscribe to ideas of other elohim ("rulers, authorities, principalities") that imperfectly rule over creation (Dt 32 worldview)? For me at least, if you buy into that premise found throughout the scriptures and 2nd temple texts, it helps "makes sense" of the problem of evil.
Sorry if you find these questions tedious, but I often find your perspectives very helpful.
If they are deities then I'll have to agree with the egyptians that my pet cats and snake are magical, holy, creatures. Wonder what Roland would have to say.
Rupert Sheldrake has a great peer reviewed journal article in his site defending the premise that stars are conscious beings. In it, he even cites physicists who point out that most stars in the universe are in binary systems and that it is possible to perceive this as cannibalistic "stellivore" activity. Perhaps it isn't convincing but there's a lot more to the idea than most people think.
Reading through Dr. Sheldrake's paper, I don't find it to be particularly convincing. He bases it on materialist models of panpsychism, which Dr. Hart inveighs against in RIM (and rightly so!).
The electromagnetic field, at least on the classical level, evolves quite deterministically when left to its own devices (check out the Maxwell equations, which are gorgeous and eminently successful). "Conscious experiences may actually be transient spatial patterns of large field potentials: in other words transient spatial patterns of electromagnetism" is meaningless; the electromagnetic four-potential does not even have a definite value, and "transient spatial patterns of electromagnetism" seems to be blatant sophistry for "neural impulses" (which, incidentally, are not governed by large-scale field structure in the brain, as far as we know).
Well I guess I didn't mean that he was perfect in every detail, but I thought it was good in that it was a defense of stars as conscious beings although he may be utterly wrong as to why or how that is the case he does at least open his mind to the possibility and use more up to date science in order to do so. I too am against materialist construals of panpsychism although looking at his other work he is far from a rote materialist so I'm not quite sure what to make of him.
Your comments on faith remind me that I've never seen you comment on Kierkegaard. Granted, I've not read all your works or seen all your lectures or interviews. You quote or comment on Kant, Hegel, Neitzsche, and Heidegger (and others), but curiously nothing on SK. Would you mind correcting your oversight here in Leaves?
I shan’t link to the fashy site on which it appeared, but David has a piece on SK entitled “The Laughter of the Philosophers,” reprinted in one of the essay collections (I am away from my shelves & forget which one).
Michael, sorry for the unhealthy curiosity, but why did you change the spelling of your last name? First I thought that it is your Scandinavian doppelgänger, but you refusal to link to the site that shall not be named confirmed your identity:).
How did that happen? Theology I can understand, but the German department seems ever-so-slightly random. Don't get me wrong, it's a fine language; I'm just not seeing the connection.
What? The garden of Eden didn't literally happen? I am shocked! (Doing my best Claude Rains from Casablanca impersonation)
I am interested - no, I am curious - as to what your thoughts are on Maximus’ statement that the fall of Adam occurred “at the same instant he came to be”.
As one who seems to take Maximus at his word, would you say that his understanding is akin to your statement that The Fall is a cataclysm of the inauguration of the moral? Is it that any finite creature, upon its creation, falls away from the Divine?
Perhaps, this is the “Instant/cataclysm” in which the gnomic will is pulled into the equation - where we are cast from the garden and beckoned to return to our telos - the true Human Being: Jesus Christ.
What is a better way of putting this? Anyone?
I would also like to see this elaborated upon. So there wasn't even a single moment of innocence? I have many questions.
Balthasar, I think correctly, reads this as Maximus's denial of a prelapsarian or paradisiacal state—that is, Maximus reads Genesis as myth. One need not posit a historical Adam at all, then, to read "Adam" as essentially the fallen nature of humanity. (From our historical vantage, I hope it is self-evident that there was no literal Adam, no literal Eden.) Jordan Wood has a good section on this in The Whole Mystery of Christ.
Lol There is some wisdom in what you are saying here.
I am now going to clean my room and brush my dog’s coat.
Thx for the feedback.
Right! The story of The Garden of Eden did not happen in historical time - it was not a terrestrial event. However, it is still the case that man is a fallen creature. The turn we do not want to make is to say that God created humanity in a fallen state.
Michael, you mentioned Jordan Wood. Do you figure that his reading of Maximus’ theory of sin is a key component to this conversation? This would be that ignorance is the fundamental cause of sin - albeit not the sufficient explanation.
Is it then fair to say that God created humanity with the gnomic will by which they are able to freely come into being (keeping in mind that the final cause of humanity is in Christ - who has no gnomic will)?
Do I have that straight so far?
To know the good would be to choose the good, for if you truly knew it for what it was, you would love it and pursue it.
I mean, I don't think the Garden of Eden happened at all. I think it's a story, albeit a good one. I'm not the right person to ask about any of this. I confess that I don't find the notion of gnomic will useful. I revere Maximus, but I rarely find the concepts or categories of theology relevant to my own understanding of things. Which is probably just a deficiency of my gnomic will. But I have recently been reading Wood's book, so thought I'd jump in.
Yeah i took the class Jordan gave 2 years ago on eclectic orthodoxy about his book. I just haven't had time to let all of that erudition sink and seep into my bones and pores. It was fairly dense, for me, at any rate. It's probably also because I was following his recondite debate with DBH over the fact it seems like JDW might be a sort of high falutin process theologian. I need to go over the relevant texts again because I don't see how we get around the problem of God creating us in a fallen state. There must've been at least a single moment of innocence or something like that. IDK Ive given up on getting concrete answers until the eschaton.
Good places to look into would include, though not exhaustively, Ambigua 7, especially 42, & 45; Responses to Thalassios, Questions 5, 21, 44, 61, & 62.
Thank you for this. I will look this up later. I appreciate it.
I want to echo Rembert's (much more elegantly framed) praise of your engagement with Kevin—I was definitely struck by your good-natured patience throughout. I think this conversation could serve as an apt introduction to you and your work for lots of people who, like him, lack substantial acquaintance with your oeuvre or, indeed, the issues discussed here.
This is all true, but, what’s more, this conversation contains some intriguing bits even for dedicated DBH readers: from the formal description of his job with the University of Norte Dame to the negative connotation of perennialism to his masterful interpretation of Meister Eckhart’s quote. And even topics he has written extensively about such as Maximus’s two wills concept and allegoric reading are further elucidated. I am very thankful to Kevin that he ignored his skeptical acquaintances and dared to conduct this interview.
It also has the possible benefit of being the first time someone has brought up Always Sunny to DBH
Short Summery in musical terms
1) Very patient Basso continuo by David Bentley Hart: "You know...."
2) Short Riff by Kevin Gregorian: "Interesting.." -
3) Short Pause
4) da Capo al Fine
Well - that is about the form - but content wise the Basso continuo surprises with great short summaries and remarks. Well worth the 90 minutes of my lifetime and on top:
Some of the humor by DBH is so good - I vote for it to be extracted, canned, published, commented by Roland and canonised
Dr. Hart, in one of your lectures on YouTube you said something that stuck with me: "scripture is the testimony of a revelation, not a revelation unto itself." I find that extremely useful for looking at the Bible more honestly. As a result though, I wonder how we determine to what degree we cosign their way of thinking or what we consider authoratative. For example, no one in their right mind would agree to ancient cosmology (firmament, pillars of earth, stars as deities, sheol, etc). In your book Doors of the Sea, you conceded a sort of perceived dualism that presents itself in our experience due to evil. Do you subscribe to ideas of other elohim ("rulers, authorities, principalities") that imperfectly rule over creation (Dt 32 worldview)? For me at least, if you buy into that premise found throughout the scriptures and 2nd temple texts, it helps "makes sense" of the problem of evil.
Sorry if you find these questions tedious, but I often find your perspectives very helpful.
Sure, why not?
But why do you assume that stars aren’t deities? Seems like a reasonable supposition. They certainly have a divinely aloof air about them.
If they are deities then I'll have to agree with the egyptians that my pet cats and snake are magical, holy, creatures. Wonder what Roland would have to say.
“In our world," said Eustace, "a star is a huge ball of flaming gas."
"Even in your world, my son, that is not what a star is, but only what it is made of.”
-C.S. Lewis, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader
Rupert Sheldrake has a great peer reviewed journal article in his site defending the premise that stars are conscious beings. In it, he even cites physicists who point out that most stars in the universe are in binary systems and that it is possible to perceive this as cannibalistic "stellivore" activity. Perhaps it isn't convincing but there's a lot more to the idea than most people think.
Reading through Dr. Sheldrake's paper, I don't find it to be particularly convincing. He bases it on materialist models of panpsychism, which Dr. Hart inveighs against in RIM (and rightly so!).
The electromagnetic field, at least on the classical level, evolves quite deterministically when left to its own devices (check out the Maxwell equations, which are gorgeous and eminently successful). "Conscious experiences may actually be transient spatial patterns of large field potentials: in other words transient spatial patterns of electromagnetism" is meaningless; the electromagnetic four-potential does not even have a definite value, and "transient spatial patterns of electromagnetism" seems to be blatant sophistry for "neural impulses" (which, incidentally, are not governed by large-scale field structure in the brain, as far as we know).
Well I guess I didn't mean that he was perfect in every detail, but I thought it was good in that it was a defense of stars as conscious beings although he may be utterly wrong as to why or how that is the case he does at least open his mind to the possibility and use more up to date science in order to do so. I too am against materialist construals of panpsychism although looking at his other work he is far from a rote materialist so I'm not quite sure what to make of him.
What? The Garden of Eden didn't actually happen? I am shocked! (Doing my best Claude Rains from Casablanca impersonation)
Your comments on faith remind me that I've never seen you comment on Kierkegaard. Granted, I've not read all your works or seen all your lectures or interviews. You quote or comment on Kant, Hegel, Neitzsche, and Heidegger (and others), but curiously nothing on SK. Would you mind correcting your oversight here in Leaves?
One of the chapters of That All Shall Be Saved starts with a Kierkegaard's quote that is quite pertinent to the main message of the book.
I shan’t link to the fashy site on which it appeared, but David has a piece on SK entitled “The Laughter of the Philosophers,” reprinted in one of the essay collections (I am away from my shelves & forget which one).
Michael, sorry for the unhealthy curiosity, but why did you change the spelling of your last name? First I thought that it is your Scandinavian doppelgänger, but you refusal to link to the site that shall not be named confirmed your identity:).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_umlaut
God May forgive you. I never will.
Now, now, Dävid …
You're attached to the German department?
Nominally.
How did that happen? Theology I can understand, but the German department seems ever-so-slightly random. Don't get me wrong, it's a fine language; I'm just not seeing the connection.
Shouldn’t the real question be what department I would not be suited to?
Maybe it has something to do with the Analogia Entis translation.
I'm disappointed but unsurprised that there aren't connections with philosophy and Englishg.
Those could perhaps be arranged.