Let me put it this way, B.

I've tried to say that I DON'T think that gender resides in God.  That doesn't even make sense to say.  I have been saying that what WE call "femininity" in animal beings is a REFLECTION of what we see in God's eternal activity. And there is a significant "affinity", in my mind, between what we call the "feminine" and the Holy Spirit.

That's all.

Are you buggin' out because I called the Spirit a "SHE"?  Instead of "he" or "it" or "the Spirit"?  Are you really tripping over that?

Post Edited (Namaste) : 11/15/2006 6:25:43 AM (GMT-6)

Namaste: I'm saying that the Holy Spirit is the definitional dispositional reality within the Father that deals with

Tom:: “Within the father”? What happened to the Spirit’s being the ‘social disposition’ constitutive of the Father/Son relationship? Social dispositions aren’t definitional dispositions of persons.

Namaste: And this dispositional reality forms the POWER...the movement from possibility to actuality...that eternally begets the Son.

Tom:: That’s the problem then. How is the Spirit the Father’s own definitional disposition that begets the Son AND the social disposition that proceeds from the Father and Son disposing toward/in each other in love?

Namaste: As this definitional dispositional reality of the Father is actualized…

Tom:: OK, then. You’re seeing Spirit as a definitional disposition of the Father. Hmm. Maybe you’re right, I just haven’t viewed it that way.

Namaste: …it becomes the SHARED DISPOSITIONAL LIFE of the Father and Son.

Tom:: The Spirit can’t BE both a definitional disposition of the Father and also BE the shared dispositional life of the Father and Son? In the later, the Spirit proceeds from the mutuality of the Father/Son relationship. But in the former sense the Spirit is independent of this shared life as a definitional disposition of the Father. You’re saying it’s both?

Namaste: Remember, Tom:, that Greg says very plainly that there it is the DISPOSITION that renders causation intelligible. There MUST be a dispositional reality that mediates between possibility and actuality. And according to Greg, the Father has actuality AND dispositional reality.

Tom:: Yeah, I got that. I don’t deny that the Father has dispositional reality.

Namaste: I believe that this "dispositional reality" of the Father is the Holy Spirit.

Tom:: This is what I’m not sure about. I prefer to view Spirit as the SOCIAL disposition of Father/Son relationality. But social dispositions aren’t the definitional disposition of any single member of the society.

Namaste: This dispositional reality ALSO exists within the Son...for the Son is an exact representation of the Father. So, the dispositional reality of both Father and Son is the SAME disposition...that self-disposes reciprocally between Father and Son.

Tom:: Now you’re getting closer to what I was thinking.

Namaste: Through this process, a social dimension is eternally generated such that the social disposition is an EXPANSION of the ONE disposition of God the Father. So, the disposition of God (the Holy Spirit) is not only the dispositional reality within the Father and Son...it is also the social dispositional reality that forms the bond BETWEEN Father and Son. The Holy Spirit of God not only forms the POWER that actualizes (births) God's "self-perception"...but also forms the "tie that binds" them together in it's own reality.

Tom:: I’ll need 20 years to think on it, but this is better.

Namaste: It is true that the SOCIAL dimension of the Holy Spirit would not exist without the Son...but it is also true that Son would not be brought forth without the actualization of the INDIVIDUAL dimension of the Holy Spirit, the Father's definitional disposition for self-communication. So the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father...but also, in the eternal dispositional actualization process, proceeds from the Father AND the Son as a social disposition.

Tom:: Get started on that thesis bro.

Namaste: The Spirit of God is the definitional dispositional reality of the Father WITHOUT WHICH the Son would not be "begotten." The Spirit of God is that which had the real, but not actual AGENCY to bring the desire of the Father into being...eternally begetting the Son. And the Spirit of God is that which is the UNIFYING BOND of loving sociality between the Father and Son.

Tom:: I can get with this for the time being.

It’s important probably to note that this is still MAP. I can see POW drinking extra-strength caffeine just to make it through our posts! I can appreciate the EO’s warning to keep all such talk within the realm of God’s energies and to just shut our mouths in silence when it comes to God ad intra. I don’t entirely buy this, though I think we have to constantly remind ourselves that we’re ‘mapping’ a reality, not delimiting the reality itself.

Namaste: Holy Spirit of God = "Mom"

Tom:: I prefer to say women reflect that in God which is the Spirit and then to describe THAT, rather than the reverse. So it’s not the Holy Spirit = Mom. It’s that Mom ‘looks like’ Spirit, ‘reflects’ Spirit. It’s important to put the human FIRST and that which it bears the image of SECOND. And we can never put an equals sign between the two, right?

Namaste: I've tried to say that I DON'T think that gender resides in God.  That doesn't even make sense to say.  I have been saying that what WE call "femininity" in animal beings is a REFLECTION of what we see in God's eternal activity. And there is a significant "affinity", in my mind, between what we call the "feminine" and the Holy Spirit. That's all.

Tom:: Totally agree.

Namaste: This is in a note from Page 386 of Greg's dissertation. Talking about the Father. He talks about how he agrees with Edwards over and against Sang Lee on one point. Sang Lee said that the "Father is...the primodially actuality of true beauty" But Edwards (and Greg's) conviction was that (quoting Edwards)

"One alone...cannot be excellent...In a being that is absolutely without any plurality there cannot be excellency, for there can be no such thing as consent or agreement. And "if God is excellent, there must be a plurality in God."

Tom:: I agree with Greg, but I can see Lee’s point so far as logical priority is concerned. In other words, the father IS fount and source of divinity/beauty. The Son is the image/reflection of this beauty and the Spirit the communication of it. But it’s not actualized apart from the three. It’s all this that constitutes the excellence that God is, but God IS primordial *source *self-perceived and *communicated. If Lee’s point is just that the Father is the source and fount of this, then there always remains a sense in which should recognize the Father’s priority.

 
Namaste: It took the Father's actuality AND dispositional reality (which actualizes) to create the beauty of the One eternal God.

Tom: Change ‘create’ to ‘actualize’ (as you do in the next sentence) and I’m OK. Create has a LOT of other meanings that can’t be here present.

Namaste: The actualization of the "perfect idea" of the Father ONLY COMES by the power of the definitional dispositional reality within God to self-communicate. And PLEASE REMEMBER: A disposition is an enduring reality that is the MEDIATION between possibility and actuality AND is the seat of CREATIVITY.

Why does it not make sense that THIS "dispositional reality" in God...is the SPIRIT of God?

Isn't the dispositional reality in human beings their "spirit"?

Tom: Yes.

Post Edited (TGB) : 11/15/2006 10:08:04 AM (GMT-6)

Thanks, Namaste!

Tom, you said, "I don't like saying the Holy Spirit 'begets' the Son. Doesn't feel right." I didn't say that, did I?

Starkman

He seemed very interested in the idea.

Heh.

Can I get a "what, what!", Tom???  

Post Edited (Namaste) : 11/15/2006 3:05:12 PM (GMT-6)

Here’s the thing about history…

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. I mean, we have to take into consideration what’s preceded us. We’d be insane to ignore what others have said or learned about God. But tradition can blind us to possibilities. We’re stupid to ignore history. But we’re also stupid to not think outside the box. Whole revolutions have turned on the novel, intuitional leaps of single individuals. Then their discoveries become a new tradition that is redefined generations later when someone else, standing in a new perspective, leaps out in a new direction. To make these kinds of leaps, to move in novel ways, is by definition to refuse the admit non-negotiables.

The Church is founded upon the Apostles. There are non-negotiables. The fundamental story—triune creator God, fallen sinful creation, incarnate redeemer God, etc.—is non-negotiable.

It’s like this. Picture the non-negotiable ship of the fundamental truths just described as moving through water, weathering all the storms of life. Nice picture. She’s a beautiful ship. But as it travels through the seas, it picks up barnacles, extra weight. Things that get attached to the hull and impede its travel. Eventually you have to dry-dock that baby and clean it up and refit it for the water. It’s like each generation, or every so often we have to dry dock the Church and figure out again what’s non-negotiable HULL, the Church founded upon the Apostles, the real deal (on the one hand), and all the barnacles and crap that’s gotten attached. Sometimes its hard to tell where barnacle ends and hull begins.

That’s where the Church is today. It’s dry-dock time. And like generations before us, we’ve got people who simple don’t want to dry-dock for fear of damaging the hull. Just hang sailors over the edge while we’re afloat and let them scrape away at the problems as they surface. Other people know there are deeper issues that have attached themselves to the hull beneath the surface that only serious work can solve, but they’re also afraid to change damaging the hull. So they just sail on. Others are ready to dry-dock that baby and go to work. History tells us that dry-docking does occur from time to time (the Reformation is a good example). And we come out of it fine.

It’s time for another reformation, another dry-dock.

I was once on a trans-Atlantic flight. A gentleman took the seat next to me. In his 60’s, well-dressed, intelligent looking (not like me!). We got to talking. Turns out this guy was the curator of Smithsonian’s National Art Gallery in D.C. He was just returning from Rome where he’d been overseeing the restoration of the Sistine Chapel. What a convo we had! Amazing. He talked about the preparation for restoring the Chapel to its original vibrancy, the creative process his committee went through to find a way to remove the grime of centuries. I mean, you could still see Michelangelo’s work in spite of the grime and dirt. The beauty still shone through enough to inspire tourists! But they knew it wasn’t as beautiful as it could be. Eventually they invented a chemical wash (or a series of washes) which when painstakingly applied would remove JUST the grime and leave the original colors. If you view before and after shots of the Chapel—oh my! Soooo beautiful.

That’s what we need.

Another friend of mine told me about meeting a physics scholar on one of his flights. This guy talked about a final exam he once took (and which established his unique contribution to physics). The prof posted three mathematical problems for the student to solve. It was a take-home test. They had three days to work on the problems and then return their work. The catch was this—these were heretofore unsolved mysteries, longstanding mathematical conundrums that nobody had managed to unravel. The prof actually said, “Look, you’re not gonna solve these. They’re unsolvable. I’m just gonna grade you on how far you get and how innovative you are.” Well, our guy on the plane was late. He missed the part about the problems being unsolvable. He just picked up the sheet with the problems and thought he had three days to solve them.

You know what happens, baby. ‘Ats right. The guy solved one of the problems. He was sure he’d failed the course because he only solved ONE! Turns out the guy found a way though. What did the other students do? No breakthroughs of course. They told themselves ahead of time “I won’t solve these. They’re unsolvable.” See how it works?

I really think that Church history and tradition is a blessing—because we’re part of a community with a history and others have thought long and hard on the same issues we have. But it’s also a curse—because novelty is antithetical to tradition. It threatens our security because WE DON’T KNOW where it will take us. So we say things like “If it’s new it’s wrong” or “If nobody in the early church every said it then it can’t be biblical” and such things.

Time to dry-dock. It’s time to very patiently, with love and respect for the original beauty and the colors underneath, apply the washes to remove the grime and let the full beauty shine through.

Tom

D-

Check it out: http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/aris-eth.htm

Aristotle on ‘dispositions’. Yep.

Third, fourth, & fifth paragraph:

…first we need to notice that another kind of influence may be at work when you recall what Aristotle says about habit, and another kind of medicine may be needed against it. Are you thinking that no matter how we analyze the effects of habituation, we will never get around the fact that Aristotle plainly says that virtues are habits? The reply to that difficulty is that he doesn't say that at all. He says that moral virtue is a hexis. Hippocrates Apostle, and others, translate hexis as habit, but that is not at all what it means. The trouble, as so often in these matters, is the intrusion of Latin. The Latin habitus is a perfectly good translation of the Greek hexis, but if that detour gets us to habit in English we have lost our way. In fact, a hexis is pretty much the opposite of a habit.

The word hexis becomes an issue in Plato's Theaetetus. Socrates makes the point that knowledge can never be a mere passive possession, stored in the memory the way birds can be put in cages. The word for that sort of possession, ktÎsis, is contrasted with hexis, the kind of having-and-holding that is never passive but always at work right now. Socrates thus suggests that, whatever knowledge is, it must have the character of a hexis in requiring the effort of concentrating or paying attention. A hexis is an active condition, a state in which something must actively hold itself, and that is what Aristotle says a moral virtue is.

Some translators make Aristotle say that virtue is a disposition, or a settled disposition. This is much better than calling it a habit, but still sounds too passive to capture his meaning. In De Anima, when Aristotle speaks of the effect produced in us by an object of sense perception, he says this is not a disposition (diathesis) but a hexis. (417b, 15-17) His whole account of sensing and knowing depends on this notion that receptivity to what is outside us depends on an active effort to hold ourselves ready.

Fourth paragraph from the end:

…Aristotle resolves them by looking to the beautiful: it is a beautiful thing to do favors for someone freely, without expecting a return (1163a, 1, 1168a, 10-13); even in cases of urgent necessity, when there is a choice about whom to benefit, one should first decide whether the scale tips toward the necessary or the beautiful thing (1165a, 4-5 ); to use money to support our parents is always more beautiful than to use it for ourselves (1165a, 22-4); someone who strives to achieve the beautiful in action would never be accused of being selfish (1168b, 25-8). These observations culminate in the claim that, "if all people competed for the beautiful, and strained to do the most beautiful things, everything people need in common, and the greatest good for each in particular, would be achieved ...for the person of moral stature will forego money, honor, and all the good things people fight over to achieve the beautiful for himself." (1169a, 8-11, 20-22)

Last paragraph:

This structure of the motionless first mover is taken up in Book XII of the Metaphysics, where Aristotle argues that the order of the cosmos depends on such a source, which causes motion in the manner of something loved; he calls this source, as one of its names, the beautiful, that which is beautiful not in seeming but in being. (1072a, 26-b, 4)

---------------------------------

What d’ya think: “disposition” (diathesis) or “disposition” (hexis). Perhaps both capture what we’re talking about.

I told you Aristotle had been here before us.

Tom