 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > Trinity as "Eternal Love Song": Hey...Why Not? | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 5/16/2008 11:58 AM (GMT -6) |   | | Oh my gosh!!! This SO MUCH describes my life these days!!! Brings me to tears. I know y'all can't understand everything I have in mind... but my gosh! This hit me so deeply I'm weeping.
Kierkegaard's Silentio contrasts the knight of faith with the other two, knight of infinite resignation (infinity) and the aesthetic "slaves". Kierkegaard uses the story of a princess and a man who is madly in love with her, but circumstances are that the man will never be able to realize this love in this world ever. A person who is in the aesthetic stage would abandon this love, crying out for example, "Such a love is foolishness. The rich brewer's widow is a match fully as good and respectable." A person who is in the ethical stage would not give up on this love, but would be resigned to the fact that they will never be together in this world. The knight of infinity may or may not believe that they may be together in another life or in spirit, but what's important is that the knight of infinity gives up on their being together in this world; in this life.
The knight of faith feels what the knight of infinity feels, but with exception that the knight of faith believes that in this world; in this life, they will be together. The knight of faith would say "I believe nevertheless that I shall get her, in virtue, that is, of the absurd, in virtue of the fact that with God all things are possible." This double movement is paradoxical because on the one hand it is humanly impossible that they would be together, but on the other hand the knight of faith is willing to believe that they will be together through divine possibility.
Before God, in grace, we will with all our power to be that which He shows us we are. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/16/2008 12:10 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/16/2008 2:56 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
So I understand that you, D, are disagreeing with the EO tradition here (as embodied in Maximus and Pseudo-Dionysius). This is a bit confusing, because all along you’ve been arguing that your Loderian Neo-Chalcedonian view of divine-human relationality is essentially THE EO view, and you’ve often quoted Maximus as chief proponent of your view. Now you’re agreeing with Moore that Maximus stands on one extreme end of a continuum (Origen at the other), and you and Loder are in the middle holding to the correct/balanced view.
and...
So let me understand. You’re now DISAGREEING with Maximus and offering a correction on the EO? So how did your EO priest friend reassure you that your view was nothing other than what all the Fathers had envisioned? Does that include Maximus and Pseudo-Dionysius? Maximus is a father. He’s like the chief cornerstone, systhesizer for EO theology, dude. Come on. I clearly disagree with Maximus, but that’s not news. You, however, have advertised your view as THE EO view and supported it by appealing to Maximus. Now you agree with Moore that Maximus went too far and was wrong?
Tell you what I’d like, D. I’d like to hear you say “Maximus was fundamentally wrong in his view of the goal of human being.” Can you say that for me?
What I'm saying, Tom, is that I believe that Moore would find a corrective to the issues that he sees with Maximus in Loder's work, specifically with the bi-polar assymetrical relational unity concept. Maximus is right that there is a reciprocal relationship between the human ego and Divine Presence, such that the Divine Presence can be expressed in and through the human ego via the Holy Spirit. This DOESN'T have to be seen as "elimination" of the ego into non-existence, however...or the absorption of human particularity into total universality. So, as I see it, Maximus is essentially right in what he's trying to say.
Whoever knows and recognizes how near God’s Kingdom is to him may say with Jacob, “God is in this place, and I knew it not.”
Meister Eckhart, "The Nearness of the Kingdom"
Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the Kingdom of God is within you.
Post Edited ("I am-in-I Am") : 5/16/2008 2:59:31 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/16/2008 3:10 PM (GMT -6) | | D: What I'm saying, Tom, is that I believe that Moore would find a corrective to the issues that he sees with Maximus in Loder's work, specifically with the bi-polar assymetrical relational unity concept. Maximus is right that there is a reciprocal relationship between the human ego and divine presence, such that the Divine Presence can be expressed in and through the human ego. This DOESN'T have to be seen as "elimination" of the ego, however...or the absorption of human particularity into total universality. So, as I see it, Maximus is essentially right in what he's trying to say.
Tom: The question is, do we NEED to find a corrective to Maximus. You seem to be saying yes AND no. Which is it? Moore would disagree with you that Maximus retains a reciprocal/interpersonal relationship between God and the human ego. You either agree with Moore's assessment of Maximus and with him look to correct Maximus, or you argue that Maximus is essentially right (as you say), in which case you disagree with Moore. Which is it?
T | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/16/2008 5:40 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
The question is, do we NEED to find a corrective to Maximus. You seem to be saying yes AND no. Which is it? Moore would disagree with you that Maximus retains a reciprocal/interpersonal relationship between God and the human ego. You either agree with Moore's assessment of Maximus and with him look to correct Maximus, or you argue that Maximus is essentially right (as you say), in which case you disagree with Moore. Which is it?
It's both/and...but I won't be able to explain it well yet. I wish I could.
*******************************
How about this, Tom?
I'm pretty much just wanting to say that human beings are non-divine hypostatic unities (intelligible/sensible) that are self-conscious, self-choosing theophanies (divine self-disclosures via divine energies). Actually, I'd like to say that Creation itself is one big Theophany in which we participate. Doesn't the Incarnation of the Logos (and the activity of the Theotokos besides) blatently demonstrate to us that human beings, in their very constititution and context, are fundamentally "images" of divine reality who are created with the capacity to "bear" the "indwelling" of the Logos in their creaturely being via the Holy Spirit's work in them?
We are contingent expressions of God at least in that way.
Can we agree on that?
"The glory of God is the human being fully alive."
Whoever knows and recognizes how near God’s Kingdom is to him may say with Jacob, “God is in this place, and I knew it not.”
Meister Eckhart, "The Nearness of the Kingdom"
Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the Kingdom of God is within you.
Post Edited ("I am-in-I Am") : 5/16/2008 5:49:07 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/16/2008 7:10 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom: The question is, do we NEED to find a corrective to Maximus. You seem to be saying yes AND no. Which is it? Moore would disagree with you that Maximus retains a reciprocal/interpersonal relationship between God and the human ego. You either agree with Moore's assessment of Maximus and with him look to correct Maximus, or you argue that Maximus is essentially right (as you say), in which case you disagree with Moore. Which is it?
D: It's both/and...but I won't be able to explain it well yet.
Tom: Gimme the not-so-well explanation then.
What I hear you saying is that Moore is correct in saying Maximus was wrong and also incorrect in saying Maximus was wrong; that Moore is both right and wrong about the same thing with respect to Maximus.
It’s not that difficult. Moore makes a clear, matter-of-fact claim about Maximus. Moore is a Greek Orthodox professor who did his doctoral work on Maximus. That’s gotta count for something. Are you more familiar with Maximus than Moore? OK then. Moore says Maximus missed the mark on this matter. And you’re saying that Moore is BOTH right and wrong in the same respect about Maximus’ missing the mark? Come on. You can’t mean THAT. I can either agree or disagree with Moore about Maximus’ being wrong, or I can say I’m not sure. But to say that Moore is BOTH right and wrong? That makes no sense dude.
T | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/17/2008 7:14 AM (GMT -6) | | |
From Moore’s Origen of Alexandria And St. Maximus the Confessor…
“The two extreme forms of eschatology explored in this study are those of Origen of Alexandria and St. Maximus the Confessor. The former approaches the eskhaton creatively, in the manner of a self-determining intellect meeting God in a peculiar fashion in the midst of history, for this reason, Origen is to be understood as a proto-Existentialist. The latter, however, conceives of the eskhaton as a completion of a process initiated by God, in which human participation makes no difference—for this reason I have come to consider Maximus as an anti-humanist theologian, one of the originators of the intellectual decline of Christian philosophy in Byzantium….”
“Eschatology, the doctrine of the end times, the summation of humanity’s historical partnership with God, has always held a central place in the Christian theological tradition. But the various ideas concerning eschatology, especially in the patristic era, have been widely divergent. This study deals with two such divergent eschatological shemas, both highly influential—those of Origen of Alexandria, and St. Maximus the Confessor.
“Origen believed that salvation is open to all, and that the eskhaton will include every soul generated by God, including the devil himself ; for Origen believed that God’s love is so powerful as to soften even the hardest heart. He also held the human intellect in very high esteem, refusing to consider any soul capable of knowingly choosing oblivion or evil over the enlightening presence of God. St. Maximus, on the other hand, suspended judgment regarding universal salvation (though he surely hoped for it); further, and more problematically, his vision of the eskhaton involved a loss of self-hood, of a personal ego, which he believed would be replaced by the absolute presence of God. In this, he differed widely from Origen, who held that the soul will remain unique, differentiated, and related to God on its own terms, feasting on the fruits of the divine intellect.”
-----------------------
So D...
Setting aside the whole UR question, I see myself as an ‘Origen’ and I see you as a ‘Maximus’. I know you think you’ve found that perfect place of balance and truth between the two (with Loder, etc.), but though you SAY the human ego/person remains and is not absorbed through transcendence by the divine, I can’t SEE the human person in your scheme doing anything that defines it as a unique, unrepeatable person over and against every other human being. I hear you SAY the human person is there, but I don’t see its unique function, place, irreducibility, powers of choice, creativity, etc.; none of the things that uniquely define ‘person’ relating interpersonally (as you say) are performed by the human ego in anything I’ve heard you say. In addition, you’ve repeatedly questioned what I imagine my personal identity to be and wherein it resides (via your brain transplant analogy), not the sort of response I would expect from somebody who admits that human beings are (or do become) non-divine persons, with unique identities, who relate interpersonally with God.
I'm not saying Origen dudn't need to be corrected at points. I'm sure he does. But you see the differences between you and me. Nothing you've described (including Loder) comes close to capturing (and Origen emphaszied it--freedom and creativity) the essential interpersonal relatedness and free creativity of fulfilled human being in Christ in the eschaton. Until I can see your 'relocated human ego periphery' engaging in THIS type of activity, I'm not going to grant it the status of 'person' or agree with you that it 'relates interpersonally' with God.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 5/17/2008 7:20 AM (GMT -6) | | I read two words: maximus and neoplatonic.
I have to say I was not shocked. I already knew that the language of the time was used to a very non-neoplatonic end.
I was a bit disappointed in the contemporary author trying to 'make hay' by scandalizing, though. (Things can be read any way you want to.)
And I think it is germain to reading Maximus to realize that with the imagery of uniting stuff that he should not be read in a fundamentalist or literalist manner.
I don't find myself reacting. (I'd read Thunberg instead. Or Maximus himself.)
Thanks.
(o)Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 5/17/2008 7:58:39 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 5/17/2008 7:24 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/17/2008 8:05 AM (GMT -6) | | Moore FOLLOWS Louth and Thunberg in their appraisal of Maximus on this point. He (Moore) isn't offering this view of Maximus as his own unique contribution to the conversation. It's at least shared by the other two (Louth and Thunberg). So that says something.
And of course I haven't cut and pasted the praise that Moore has for Maximus. That's assumed. As far as I can tell he has great admiration for Maximus. He's just establishing the context in which Maximus wrote and the tradition he was heir too (and influenced by, and not always able to escape from--as is the case with us all).
But it does open my eyes a bit to the diversity within the EO, and I 'like' that.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/17/2008 8:17 AM (GMT -6) | | You, Tom...liking diversity? Really? Ha! 
Anyways, man. I don't think that I can explain this well...at all. It's in my head...but I can't formulate it in a way I know that you'll accept. I'm at a loss right now.
Whoever knows and recognizes how near God’s Kingdom is to him may say with Jacob, “God is in this place, and I knew it not.”
Meister Eckhart, "The Nearness of the Kingdom"
Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the Kingdom of God is within you.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/17/2008 8:40 AM (GMT -6) | | Diversity and me? Yeah baby! I own that! ME...diversity, differentiation, distinction, yes! I'm the one arguing for our personal 'distinction' from God, and for an eschatological unity with God that doesn't seek/desire to erase the self-determining, freely creative capacities of non-divine persons. I read YOU on the other hand as being much less comfortable with this. Remember, you named yourself ONE. I named myself MANY. So yeah, I get to hog the diversity/differentiation. ;o)
Bro, you don't have to formulate it in a way you'll know I'll accept. Just formulate it in a way I'll understand. We're still just talking about whether you agree with Moore's criticism of Maximus' view of eschatology, right? That's all I'm on right now.
T | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/17/2008 8:51 AM (GMT -6) | | Let me add this Bro. I'm not trying to disprove your view or push it outside the boundaries of Orthodoxy. I mean, how could I do that? Maximus champions your view (or your end of the spectrum). And there ain't gonna be no disfellowshipping of Maximus. He da man! All I want to do is see if (and hopefully demonstrate that) there is room for ME in Orthodoxy. It looks like this is Moore's project as well, which is why I'm so glad I ran accross him. He has another article entitled something like "What defines Orthodoxy?" or "What's it mean to be Orthodox?" where he addresses the question of how critical we can be of tradition. Obviously he feels there are different approaches to theosis that are compatible with Orthodox tradition, even if Maximus enjoys first place. Even Russell delineates as many as FOUR different understandings of theosis within tradition (nominal, analogical, ethical, and realistic--the realistic especially characteristic of the Alexandrian tradition and the ethical of the Cappadocian).
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/17/2008 10:26 AM (GMT -6) | | Really quick.
Corey, the "positive third" is the created human "self" is in relationship to it's grounding interiority from whence it's "subjectivity" and the whole self-relating process springs. That "ground of being" is the Absolute Unity of Being, inseparable from the Omnipresent Divine Presence, inseparable from the Holy Spirit of God. The self that has itself so "grounded" is the "self-as-spirit" that Kierkegaard talks about. The self CANNOT sustain it's self-relationship BY ITSELF. The attempts to do so (in defiance and/or weakness) are "despair" and "sin" before God. But when the self "rests transparently in the Power that created it" it IS "spirit." All this is REVEALED to us in the God-Human, Christ. I can't say this any better than Loder does in "Knight's Move"...pg 292
"...it is evident that the self cannot be itself without its centered grounding beyond itself, but it must be a participant in that ground such that its life is preserved and its integrity as spirit (I am's note: HUMAN SPIRIT) is sustained by that ground. Thus, the ground also participates in the self in such a way that both ground and self are sustained as such from the standpoint of the self. In other words, there is a coinherence of the whole patterned activity of the self in and with its ground, and of the ground in and with the self. In essence, the self is spirit when the pattern governing it is perichoretic."
This, Corey, is what happens for a human being when (Loder's words) "the self is perichoretically related to the Divine Presence, and the Divine Presence is able, in turn to indwell the self via the Holy Spirit." When God's Spirit works in, with and for the self to remain "spirit"...and the divine life is manifested in human existence. This is when "mundane ecstasy" (which is EXACTLY what the "Knight of Faith" experiences) occurs.
Whoever knows and recognizes how near God’s Kingdom is to him may say with Jacob, “God is in this place, and I knew it not.”
Meister Eckhart, "The Nearness of the Kingdom"
Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the Kingdom of God is within you.
Post Edited ("I am-in-I Am") : 5/17/2008 10:29:14 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/17/2008 10:33 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
Diversity and me? Yeah baby! I own that! ME...diversity, differentiation, distinction, yes! I'm the one arguing for our personal 'distinction' from God, and for an eschatological unity with God that doesn't seek/desire to erase the self-determining, freely creative capacities of non-divine persons. I read YOU on the other hand as being much less comfortable with this. Remember, you named yourself ONE. I named myself MANY. So yeah, I get to hog the diversity/differentiation.
No, you don't. BOTH OF US have been talking "unity-in-diversity"/"oneness-in-differentiation". Even GREG'S WORK was on that. We've just focused on the "poles" distinctly. You on "Many/HumanHypostasis/differentiation". Me on "One/Imago Dei/oneness"
Whoever knows and recognizes how near God’s Kingdom is to him may say with Jacob, “God is in this place, and I knew it not.”
Meister Eckhart, "The Nearness of the Kingdom"
Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the Kingdom of God is within you.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/17/2008 12:10 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom, I bet that we will agree on this.
We will both say that both "oneness" and "differentiation" are essential aspects of ultimate reality. Neither is existent without the other. They are coinherent. We see this in the 3 co-equal Persons of the Trinity.
I think we can ALSO safely say that there is an ASSYMETRY between "oneness" and "differentiation". We also see this in the Trinity with the pre-eminence of God the Father as "Source" in the Trinity. (Even Zizy says this.)
Would you agree with that?
Whoever knows and recognizes how near God’s Kingdom is to him may say with Jacob, “God is in this place, and I knew it not.”
Meister Eckhart, "The Nearness of the Kingdom"
Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the Kingdom of God is within you.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/17/2008 12:32 PM (GMT -6) | | Ok, Corey. Let's work backwards...
Actual quote of SK:
"This then is the formula which describes the condition of the self when despair is completely eradicated: by relating itself to its own self, and by willing to be itself, the self is grounded transparently in the Power which posited it."
Show me the "positive third" here, from the way you understand it.
Whoever knows and recognizes how near God’s Kingdom is to him may say with Jacob, “God is in this place, and I knew it not.”
Meister Eckhart, "The Nearness of the Kingdom"
Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the Kingdom of God is within you.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/17/2008 12:41 PM (GMT -6) | | Oh, I see. I did mess up. The "positive third" is the "self" that relates itself to itself. The third movement of the "positive third" is the relationship with its ground. Sorry for the confusion.
Whoever knows and recognizes how near God’s Kingdom is to him may say with Jacob, “God is in this place, and I knew it not.”
Meister Eckhart, "The Nearness of the Kingdom"
Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the Kingdom of God is within you.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/17/2008 12:41 PM (GMT -6) | | Right.
Whoever knows and recognizes how near God’s Kingdom is to him may say with Jacob, “God is in this place, and I knew it not.”
Meister Eckhart, "The Nearness of the Kingdom"
Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the Kingdom of God is within you.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/17/2008 12:42 PM (GMT -6) | | The "positive third" cannot maintain itself as such with participation in its ground...right?
Whoever knows and recognizes how near God’s Kingdom is to him may say with Jacob, “God is in this place, and I knew it not.”
Meister Eckhart, "The Nearness of the Kingdom"
Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the Kingdom of God is within you.
| | Back to Top | | |
| 688 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:39 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|