Namaste: All the relationality with other humans can do is to be OCCASIONS for a person to become more of a self before God. That's what Aki did for me.

Tom: Yes, yes. But “more of a self” means more beauty.

Namaste: Aki helped me to work my way out of my DEEP despair of not willing to be myself. Through her love and consideration, I was able to become more and more AWARE of my despair. God used her mightly such that I became MORE OF A INDIVIDUAL SELF before God.

Tom: Cool.

Namaste: But it was ONLY GOD who actually has been removing the despair.

Tom: Yes. But God would have never removed it had Aki not provided the occasion for you to become aware of it. Had you not become aware of it, you’d be “less a self.”

Here’s the question: Can God (and the individual self)—all independent of any other persons—provide ALL THE OCCASION a self needs to become “all the self” a person can become? That’s Brandon’s issue. He says no. I tend to agree. Yes, this person can be despair-free, but they’ll reflect less beauty (even though despair-free) than they would be reflecting had greater human-human inter-relationality been involved.

Tom

Namaste: In the end, all beings will be despair-free and will all be completely satisfied as far as loving relationality goes (given their relationship with God), but they will DIFFER in the amount of beautiful experience that does the satisfying BECAUSE of the process nature of the "self's" development. Yes?

Tom: I think so.

Namaste: We can be a person of MORE POSSIBLE BEAUTY, if we relate to other human beings. (Our total beauty index for loving relationality goes up)

Tom: Not only does our total beauty index go up, but the Individual-God index goes up as well (along with other indexes) because the individual is MORE a self, brings MORE self to that relationship, and so more possible Individual-God beauty to express.

Namaste: But... We can be FULFILLED as a human being, even if we end up all by ourselves with God. (Our level of satisfaction in loving relationality never changes)

Tom: I agree we can be fulfilled with just God (without others). And I agree this level of fulfillment is our max (as defined by the particular “us” that no relating to others has contributed to producing). But I don’t think this means our level of satisfaction in loving relationality never changes. I think it obviously changes since the “self” in relationship is MORE a self (as a result of others’ input over time). More self means more capacity to enjoy. More capacity means a greater level of relationality. A two-year old can max out her capacity for loving relationality with God and so be fulfilled and despair-free. The same thing 10 years later. Same thing 20 years later. But each stage would mean a change in the level of loving relationality, all of them maximal given her “self” at each stage, but more intense and a greater reflection of beautiful given the increased capacities of the person to experience, enjoy, and reflect.

Tom

Post Edited (TGB) : 10/27/2006 12:03:54 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Namaste) : 10/27/2006 12:18:12 PM (GMT-5)

Namaste: We can say that there is a maximal intensity for each stage...and that, with respect to the satisfaction that comes from the intensity, NO stage is better than the other. If you were to ask the girl/woman this question at each stage: "Could you be happier than you are right now?", they would say "NO WAY!"...and the words would be true.

Tom: Right. But if you ask the forty year old, “Is this happiness greater and more intense than what you experienced when you were ten,” they’d say, “Oh yeah!”

Namaste: Now, of course, there are different LEVELS at which this satisfaction occurs..as you have well described. But still, the state of fulfillment has the same subjectively-felt intensity for all three life stages.

Tom: How can it BE the SAME intensity if the SUBJECT is a more developed subject with greater capacities?

Namaste: My point is that, regardless to WHAT life stage, only God can provide the necessary loving sociality to bring any being to a total state of existential fulfillment.

Tom: I agree. And I just wanna say that I’m already feeling tonight’s aesthetic satisfaction at Ty’s house!

Tom

Post Edited (Namaste) : 10/27/2006 3:36:05 PM (GMT-5)

Tom: But relationships can’t be collapsed like this. They really ARE different things, even if they impact each other. Why is it that “nothing can separate us from the love of God” (Rom)? Sword, famine, pestilence, others, persecution, demons, angels, whatever. None of those events or the relations that mediate their influence on us can dissolve our relationship with God in Christ. Why is that? It’s because the Susy-God relationship can’t be collapsed into the others.

And if you agree with what I said above (in this post), you have to draw some line between the Individual-God relationship and other relationships the individual has, because you’re agreeing that the Individual-God relationship CAN be all it can be (= the individual and God can both be doing all they can do to maximize beauty vis-à-vis each other). So beauty in THAT relationship can be maxed out. But you agree that there’s still beauty to be had by the individual in OTHER relationships. If this is EXACTLY what you’re saying, then you’re saying there IS a beauty-index that measures all the beauty an individual can reflect through her relationships. I’m suggesting those relationships are basically God-ward, Other-ward, & Environment-ward.

Brandon:  Sorry, I misspoke.  I didn't mean to say that these indexical relations COLLAPSE INTO EACH OTHER  such that there is no distinction between them. I was meaning to say that they do OVERLAP with each other, such that you can't have one without at some point affecting the other--this is the inter-connectedness of the cosmos!  And this is part of my schtick with your index.  I'm am by no means denying that there is an "ad intra" life.  What I'm saying (and which up until this point earlier today you guys seemed to be denying) was that the other relations in the index affect the "ad intra" life of the person. 

If what affects negatively someone being "more human" is their lack of relations with others, then this WILL affect the God-human relationship negatively.  But again, I'm not to big on your compartmentalization of the God-human relation such that it has no overlapping with the other categories in the index.  The self (or creation) is not so neatly divided and neither is the God-human relationship.

Ultimately, this is why I think God will renew creation itself because it contributes to the lack of maximization of beautification and satisfaction that God desires.

Anyhoo...my son is waiting for me.  Really good stuff.  Yaaay! 

Post Edited (Namaste) : 10/28/2006 8:17:44 AM (GMT-5)

OK.  D.  I’ve TOTALLY been understanding what you’ve been saying.  And I’m simply disagreeing with it.  Not just fundamentally, but also, I don’t think you have understood what I’m saying (which is the reason why we fundamentally disagree) with regard to your two points.  Let me use this analogy.

The movie Shrek.  Now, that movie did not get a lot of good criticism from Christian reviewers, because by the end of the movie (I think it was the second film) Princess Fiona and the Org decide that the best possible existence for themselves would be to remain Orgs.

Now most Christian reviewers saw the problem with this from a teleological point of view right off the bat.  They realized that God ultimately wants to make us beautiful Princes and Princesses.  But the other more important point that I have been trying to stress is what I have read in Orthodox and Reformed circles.  That we are “less human” as a result of negative relational connectivity i.e. either bad connectivity or no connectivity at all (even Greg mentions this is SATPOE).  That we are Orgs.  That we are ugly, ugly, UGLY creatures AS A RESULT.  What I’m saying is that as we relate to others rightly we become MORE HUMAN and LESS Org.  And if someone doesn’t believe this all they need to do is watch a couple of the flicks that I pointed out earlier on the other thread, such as “Monster” and Jet Li’s “Unleashed.”  Better yet, go down to your local city jail and talk with the inmates about their upbringing.

What I’m saying is that if we ipso facto become more human and less Org AS A RESULT of human relational connectivity, would it not stand to reason that THIS connectivity is a major contributing factor to the maximization of our humanness AND LESS “Orgness?”  If this is the case, then what I’m saying is that the maximization of beaufication AND HENCE ULTIMATE AESTHETIC SATISFACTION (because how can you have less than maximal beauty and at the same time have ultimate maximal aesthetic satisfaction?  If you don’t have maximal beautification, you will not have maximal satisfaction) is “degreed”  in relation to the relational connectivity that one has with others.  Thus, I AM saying that if you WERE on an island by your lonesome or were in solidarity confinement for 20 years, YOU WOULD BE LESS HUMAN, because of the lack of connectivity and sociality with others (remember Tom Hanks in “Castaway?”  That guy went coo-coo such that when a volleyball washed ashore it became the one thing that kept him sane.  And how was that?  He planted a face on it and named it “Wilson.”  That is, Hanks “HUMANIZED” the ball.  The point here is not so much that it kept him sane (and thus “more human?”), but that there is something about humanity that DRIVES US TOWARD SOCIALITY.  As Grenz stated, WE ARE WIRED TO BOND [and not ONLY with God, but with OTHER CREATED IN OUR LIKNESS).  This, conincides with the Genesis narrative and with how I understand somewhat of heaven to be like.

Now, let’s look at three of your points to try and clear up any misunderstanding.

First off, I understand that once our dispositional urges are satisfied, that is, once we have maxed out and reached the zenith point of total beautification (fully, real and genuinely human.  That is, we reflect the image of Christ back toward God) and satisfaction that there is “no more need for any experience of a higher intensity level of beautiful experience.”  I mean, how can you have more than the maximal limit right?  What I am questioning is that this zenith point can be reach VIA SOLE EXPERIENCE WITH GOD.  I say, “No.”  IF NOT?  What does that say about God’s telos?

Secondly, you said:

What I'd been hearing you say, Brandon, is that....

1) it was possible to have this complete aesthetic satisfaction occur through solely non-God means. (ie relationships with people, relationship to our environment WITHOUT meaningfully connecting those to God)

No.  I am not saying that.  And Tom pointed this out.  I’m saying that you can’t have complete aesthetic satisfaction occur solely through God and God alone via the God-human relationship ONLY.  You have to have the human-human relationship to have the maximal beautification and aesthetic experience.  I do want to point out something else though.  I don’t think you can have COMPLETE and maximal and ultimate beautification and satisfaction occur through SOLELY human means.  But you can have a great amount of it WITHOUT A **PERSONAL CONNECTION** with God.  However, that doesn’t mean that God is not involved in bringing about much of the reflected beauty of Christ in humanity and by that, I mean NON-CHRISTIANS as well.  That’s where common grace comes into play.  And God is VERY MUCH involved in that process.  For example, when I see non-Christians socialize healthily, I see God there.  I see that this is what God would want.  When I see spouses bond harmoniously.  I see God at work and I see that they reflect to some extent the image of God.  I can honestly tell you that when I see people socialize unhealthily I see God there as well.  For example, say you have a couple who have sex outside of marriage.  This is a distortion of the image of God in them, but at the same time, that they are socializing AT ALL means that grace is at work in their lives.  Even when people have “one-nighters” I see God there too!  How?  Well, for one, I agree with Josh McDowell that most people who have one night stands are not particularly out there TRYING  to be promiscuous.  Could we not look deeper and say, that what we have on our national hands is not promiscuity but people honestly looking for genuine love in all the wrong places?  They are really looking for authentic bonding and love and hence something that will give them maximal love, beauty and satisfaction.  Yes, it WILL fall short.  But it is not to say that because we can’t have maximal love beauty and satisfaction that somehow we can’t have ANY GENUINE, love and satisfaction now and thus reflect the image of God.

You also said:

2) relationships with other human beings necessarily affect the level of subjectively-felt intensity, even AFTER a person is constantly achieving an UNSURPASSABLE intensity of loving experience with God..

Again, no, I am not saying that. You can’t have more than the maximal.  I’m saying that human beings necessarily affect the level of subjectively-felt intensity IN THE FIRST PLACE (a priori to maximal intensity of loving experience with God).  In order to achieve the maximal level of beautification and satisfaction in God, one NEEDS to be rightly related with others.  This is the way God wired us and set up creation in my opinion.  This, it seems to me to be what Jesus was referring to when he said, “For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.”  Matt 6:14

Now, I do want to look at something Tommy said about the “ad intra” life.  Basically, Tommy and yourself were saying that one can have an “ad intra” life exist apart from the  categories of others and environment such that this “ad intra” life can be maximal while the others may be “less than maximal.”

Now, if you want to talk about the height of piety?  That’s it right there.  If you want to see something of a deistic version of piety (Fee talks about this)?  That’s it right there.  This to me is like saying, I can have a right relationship with God, but my other relationships (whether with the environment and with each other) can be less than stellar.  I mean I have problems with that. 

For me, while the other categories ARE DISTINCT they are NOT wholely DISCONNECTED from the “ad intra” life.  You can’t beat and kick your dog and think that your “ad intra” life in and with God is maximally fine.  You can’t beat your wife (and in the process tear away at the reflected image of God—the bonding and sociality) and think that you can have an “ad intra” life with God that is maximally beautiful and aesthetically satisfiying.  This is not like, “Well, my “ad intra” life is over here and the way I drive my car (making sure I don’t flip the bird at someone who cut me off) is over there and I can pollute the environment over here (I mean when you pollute, don't you feel some sense of moral guilt before God?) but as long as me and Jesus are tight it’s all OK.  Sorry, but if I my brother is being oppressed by racism?  Or my sister by sexism (especially by Christians--huh)?   And I stand idly by and do nothing?  Jesus then asks, “Who is doing my will?  Who is honouring me?”  Luke 10:30-37.  When Paul says, “For me to live is Christ and to die is gain” it’s hard to imagine that he was not calling us to IMITATE that.  In other words, ALL doxology IS orthopraxis in nature.  It can’t be separate from the rest of life.  Theology and the “ad intra” life separated from the everything else is dangerous and seems to me to be dumb-down deistic version of piety.

P.S.  I know you would agree with this last part.  I’m just making criticisms with regard to how one can have a “maximally beautiful and aesthetically satisfying life in and with God” but the others categories can be “less than” and more problematic SEPARATED FROM the “ad intra” life.

Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 10/28/2006 7:36:59 PM (GMT-5)

Maybe I should clarify where I am on this too.

I think any person can reach a despair-free existence through her relationship with God (i.e., be aesthestically fulfilled) irrespective of others. But let me qualify “irrespective” here. It doesn’t (and can’t) mean a person can reach aesthetic fulfillment and continue on satisfied in that while also ignoring those human-human ralations that constitute part of  the specific occasion she’s in. That’s why Jesus said when you lay your gift on the alter and there remember some broken relationship, go and reconcile to your brother and THEN come offer your sacrifice. What human relations you have define YOU, your “self,” and that’s the “you” or “self” you bring to the altar. You can’t bring any other “you” to God. When you bring “you” to God, you bring all your relationships. So—saying a person can be aesthetically satisfied irrespective of others doesn’t mean the relationships a person has with others aren’t brought with the person to the human-God relationship. It’s not like we leave that all outside and relate to God irrespective of them.

What does “irrespective” mean? It means that once we’ve left the altar and gone to our brother and done all within our power, led by the Spirit, in obedience to God, we can come back and find aesthetic fulfillment in God irrespective of what our brother’s response is. After we’ve done what the Spirit commands with respect to others, we’ve done all we need to do with respect to the Human-Human relations that constitute our occasions and can move on unhindered by others to find fulfillment in God. Those “others” are all there with us, they define us, yes. But it’s just that we have sufficiently defined ourselves with respect to those “others” by obeying all the Spirit commanded. Whatever others may do cannot hinder our growth and satisfaction in God. The point is this: ultimate aesthetic fulfillment in God isn’t possible until we’ve done all within OUR power to reconcile to all the relations that constitute OUR world. And we can always do what WE can do. It matters not what others do in response. Once we have valued them and acted in love, others can do nothing to hinder our finding ultimate aesthetic satisfaction in God.

As well, the altar offering example Jesus tells properly places God and altar at the center of the individual's world. God alone (i.e., what being aesthetically satisfied in him MEANS) defines what brokenness in the world even means and what specific brokenness exists in our relationships. God alone guides reconciliation. God alone empowers us to do what we can. And God alone rewards us with unspeakable peace and enjoyment of himself when after we’ve have done all in our power vis-à-vis others they remain unforgiving and hateful. But what if the Human-Human relations themselves remain less than beautiful if others reject us? At that point it matters not to the human-God relationship.

Think of it this way Brandon. Think of Jesus, the ultimate human; the ONLY ultimate human. He is what defines the possibilities we face and the sort of being we’re becoming, right? Well, think of Jesus’ relationship with the Father vis-à-vis Jesus’ relationship with those who crucified him. With respect to the Father Jesus was as aesthetically fulfilled and peaceful and despair-free as ‘human being’ can possibly be. But he achieved this irrespective of what others DID. The fact that his relationship with those who crucified him was less than it should and could have been, less beautiful than it might have been, didn’t limit Jesus’ own aesthetic fulfillment in God. Was Jesus’ own total beauty-index less than it could have been? Absolutely. Jesus, as a reflector of beauty, would have reflected more beauty than he in fact did had others chosen to relate to him more beautifully and so added greater diversity to his own experience as a human being on earth. Yes, others DO have a part to play that lies outside our control, yes.

But ultimate aesthetic satisfaction in God isn’t a function of the Total Beauty index. It’s a function of the human-God index or relation. You’ll ask, But doesn’t the human-divine relationship also itself include 'others' (as I said above)? Yes, but only insofar as it lies within MY power to make the relationships of my unique occasion beautiful (as the Spirit leads and as God empowers me)—not insofar as it lies within OTHERS’ power to remain in despair with respect to how THEY choose to relate TO ME. Had others played their part in relating to Jesus differently (and so made Jesus’ own human-human experience more complex and beautiful, and so raised his human-human index and therefore his total beauty index), Jesus would not have been any more aesthetically fulfilled in the Father than he was.

Since we’re talking about what humans can achieve, we should make this entire discussion a discussion about Jesus. Once we do that I think it’s easy to see Namaste’s point—that ultimate, existential, despair-free experience and enjoyment of God may occur irrespective of what others DO to me, how others choose to relate to me (not irrespective of their defining who I am by being those with whom I have relationships and who by definition are the field of play where I work out the implications of my relationship with God).

Tom

Post Edited (TGB) : 10/29/2006 5:12:42 PM (GMT-6)