tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post1547098339078467765..comments2023-12-08T04:43:40.135-06:00Comments on The Fire and the Rose: The varieties of divine transcendenceUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post-37562268472596918412010-12-10T09:04:24.352-06:002010-12-10T09:04:24.352-06:00(Geoff from my phone)
Yes, I do agree with you on ...(Geoff from my phone)<br />Yes, I do agree with you on that account which is also why I think some forms of apocalyptic live close to some versions of mystical/apophatic.<br /><br />I guess we just disagree with what our accounts of transcendence mean for the churcn ;-).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post-67739543031399959082010-12-10T08:42:49.879-06:002010-12-10T08:42:49.879-06:00"Strong" and "weak" works a li..."Strong" and "weak" works a little better, only if one recognizes -- as I believe -- that the stronger the transcendence, the more it coincides with a radical immanence. It is precisely this paradoxical identity of absolute transcendence with total immanence that Barber and Kotsko and others are incapable of seeing or affirming.David W. Congdonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03009330707703611224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post-43066690617404305352010-12-10T08:39:08.443-06:002010-12-10T08:39:08.443-06:00your confusion i'm sure rests in my quick reca...your confusion i'm sure rests in my quick recategorization. I wasn't really trying to place them all perfectly, just showing how you list might change.<br /><br />It is probably just as problematic, but we could use "strong" and "weak" for different types of transcendence. I put apocalyptic in the first category b/c I see it usually affirming a strong transcendence even if non-ontologically or non-metaphysically (even if historically it is connected to a dialectical-eschatological type).geoffrey holsclawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00315656374467205541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post-69087732282515167112010-12-10T08:28:42.000-06:002010-12-10T08:28:42.000-06:00Geoffrey:
For the most part, I agree with you. Es...Geoffrey:<br /><br />For the most part, I agree with you. Especially the bit about versions of immanence between transcendence in disguise.<br /><br />But I confess confusion regarding how you came up with that division between good and bad types of transcendence from my list. For instance, the apocalyptic type, as I expressly state in my post, is related to the dialectical-eschatological model. And the non-competitive model is too ambiguous to locate, though I would argue it fits better with the "good" forms of transcendence, even if Tanner's theology itself has problems. Likewise, I think there are serious problems with the Maqom model of Moltmann.David W. Congdonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03009330707703611224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post-53066794923292099322010-12-10T08:20:30.923-06:002010-12-10T08:20:30.923-06:00David,
I don't agree with Dan's conclusi...David, <br /><br />I don't agree with Dan's conclusion regarding immanence, but I understand and appreciate the alternative placement of emphasis regarding transcendence and immanence. Certainly, with you, there are different types of transcendence. But I hear Dan's concern that the true difference is not between these different types, but rather between transcendence itself as other than the world/cosmos/existence. <br /><br />I take from your typology that metaphysical, mythical, reformational, mystical, dialetical-analogical, analogical-ontological, non-competitive, and apocalyptic all probably fall in this category is some manner.<br /><br />The types of post-metaphysical, I-Thou, eschatological, dialectical-eschatological, Maquon, wonder, and religionless may or may not fall into the category of true/actual transcendence depending on how they are inflected (and I'm sure that Dan could agree that some of these don't fall prey to ideology, but then he would probably follow that up by saying those versions have actually given up on transcendence w/o admitting it).<br /><br />My dual concern (and perhaps Dan's) is that there are many versions (maybe some in your post) of transcendence that really just theories of immanence in disguise, but also more to my concerns, there are theories of immanence disguised as transcendence. <br /><br />Don't know if that cleared things up or not. But you are right that I prefer to stand on the side of transcendence (in some form) which is why I end up arguing most vigorously with others committed to transcendence (like you I guess) while I prefer not to engage much with those who have given up on it. <br /><br />But for me, I would like to turn the tables on Dan and ask via Hegel, not "How can we make the unhappy consciousness happy again?" (how can we reconfigure transcendence such that it doesn't unnerve/trample the subject?), but rather, "Why is the unhappy consciousness so unhappy in the first place?" (how can we reconfigure the subject such that transcendence is not violence but freedom?).geoffrey holsclawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00315656374467205541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post-26201833424981942932010-12-09T18:28:00.193-06:002010-12-09T18:28:00.193-06:00Geoffrey:
I don't know Desmond's works we...Geoffrey:<br /><br />I don't know Desmond's works well enough to say one way or the other, but from my very cursory interaction with him I think you're probably right.<br /><br />I'm not sure you actually agree with Dan on anything. As I understand Dan, he doesn't even want a self-transcending immanence, but perhaps that's a point he didn't articulate well enough. In any case, insofar as you side with Badiou over Deleuze, you and I agree over against Dan's position.David W. Congdonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03009330707703611224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post-7545453284194553952010-12-09T18:20:44.934-06:002010-12-09T18:20:44.934-06:00David,
Curious where you would place William Des...David, <br /><br />Curious where you would place William Desmond? The "analogical-ontological transcendence" I would assume. <br /><br />On the issues between you and Dan, I kind of agree with both of you. You that "transcendence" need not be linked to the Big Other.<br /><br />But with Dan that there is still an issue of transcendence that cuts across your typology, what I might call "actual transcendence" and "self-transcending immanence." It seems that main in your list don't postulate (desire especially not to) an actual transcendence (be it metaphysical, apocalyptic, mystical, apophatic, etc). Dan, and many who still use the term "transcendence" don't want another world/place.<br /><br />The problem reminds me of two saying:<br /><br />Franz Wright: "there is another world/ and it is this world"<br /><br />Badiou: "There are only bodies and language, except that there are truths!"<br /><br />either can be read as "actual transcendence" via a complicated relationship or "self-transcending immanence" via an alternative yet equally complicated relationship.geoffrey holsclawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00315656374467205541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post-16176987336922367052010-12-07T21:58:09.733-06:002010-12-07T21:58:09.733-06:00David,
Thanks. That's what I was thinking, bu...David,<br /><br />Thanks. That's what I was thinking, but wasn't sure how you would distinguish your approach from his.<br /><br />I favor TFT here :-).Bobby Growhttp://growbobby.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post-17181878243299807592010-12-07T21:38:39.130-06:002010-12-07T21:38:39.130-06:00TFT falls in the dialectical-analogical camp, mean...TFT falls in the dialectical-analogical camp, meaning that he's a mix between the radically dialectical position that I advocate and an analogical-ontological metaphysics.David W. Congdonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03009330707703611224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post-49663013823216933892010-12-07T21:31:49.565-06:002010-12-07T21:31:49.565-06:00@David,
Where would you place TFT on your list of...@David,<br /><br />Where would you place TFT on your list of "transcendences?"Bobby Growhttp://growbobby.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post-58597818795202606682010-12-07T13:58:29.688-06:002010-12-07T13:58:29.688-06:00What if God came to me and told me that He is? Wha...What if God came to me and told me that He <em>is</em>? What if *my* statement is conditioned by the <em>IS</em> in the first place?<br /><br />Aren't you appealing to something outside of yourself, outside of the conditioning in order to assert that everything is conditioned; thus making statements about conditioning <em>conditioned</em> and thus only semantic gestures devoid of any <em>unconditional</em> referent and thus un-intelligible?<br /><br />Aren't you necessarily appealing to something that is unconditioned or "determinate" in an <em>ultimate</em> sense?<br /><br />I don't plan on winning this argument, Dan; but I should say, along with David, I believe in God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit etc. I don't have the kind of time or concern to play with "language games" right now; life is a little more pressing than that at the moment :-).<br /><br />pax.Bobby Grownoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post-20828412792070226422010-12-07T13:50:35.620-06:002010-12-07T13:50:35.620-06:00Dan: You're quite right about the conditioned ...Dan: You're quite right about the conditioned nature of all God-talk. I'm in complete agreement on that point. But where we depart (and where the incommensurability lies, if there is one) is in the axiomatic belief that God is the acting agent/speaker who establishes the truthfulness of God-talk. Thus Barth's language of commandeering within the analogy of faith or Bultmann's understanding of Christ's paradoxical identity with the kerygma. The divine name is indeed unspeakable, unless God is the one who makes that name speakable anew. Something along those lines is what I mean when I speak of the fact that God (not my God-talk) conditions everything else I can and must say.David W. Congdonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03009330707703611224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post-80136730404290436892010-12-07T13:40:10.100-06:002010-12-07T13:40:10.100-06:00Regarding (1): But the statement is not the same a...Regarding (1): But the statement is not the same as that to which the statement refers. (This, it should be noted, is the point of the impossibility of saying the divine name.) So even if what your statement refers to, "God," conditions everything else, the statement that refers to God (as well as the claim that that "God conditions everything else") is conditioned.dbarbernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post-75951620530680000782010-12-07T13:31:53.230-06:002010-12-07T13:31:53.230-06:00@Dan,
1) Since He is.
2) I am just curious. Ther...@Dan,<br /><br />1) Since He <em>is</em>.<br /><br />2) I am just curious. There is no gain for me.Bobby Grownoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post-41260036968841789412010-12-07T13:21:55.697-06:002010-12-07T13:21:55.697-06:00Bobby, to be precise, the point that i was calling...Bobby, to be precise, the point that i was calling into question was not whether it is possible to believe in a determinate God; it was, more precisely, whether it is possible for a belief in a determinate God to be that which conditions everything else. To take, for example, your question as to whether I'm a theist: this concept, "theism," is one that emerges out of very many conditions; it is the effect of various other factors, so how could it be that which conditions the very factors that engendered it?<br /><br />A question for you: What is gained, for you, by the knowledge of whether or not I'm a theist?dbarbernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post-84469561043378733272010-12-07T00:40:05.223-06:002010-12-07T00:40:05.223-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.Bobby Growhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06831009618873548948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post-6057728205674505792010-12-06T22:06:53.099-06:002010-12-06T22:06:53.099-06:00Dan can answer that question himself, but I believ...Dan can answer that question himself, but I believe he answered it.<br /><br />I take it that the general AUFS position follows people like Zizek and Altizer in claiming that if there ever was a God, that God died in Jesus such that the only way to be a "Christian" today is to be an atheist.David W. Congdonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03009330707703611224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post-66720737017495181052010-12-06T22:01:05.451-06:002010-12-06T22:01:05.451-06:00Okay, since I don't follow AUFS; I was under t...Okay, since I don't follow AUFS; I was under the impression that dbarber was a Christian. Given your comment to barber, David, the one where you say "since I believe in God;" now I'm wondering if this means that dbarber doesn't?<br /><br />Seriously, is dbarber a non-theist? Just looking for a little clarification.Bobby Growhttp://growbobby.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post-41025358326333699802010-12-06T14:59:01.518-06:002010-12-06T14:59:01.518-06:00"But perhaps it is here that the incommensura..."But perhaps it is here that the incommensurability dawns."<br /><br />Precisely.<br /><br />(As for Deleuze, I like him very much, and I enjoy reading him. But I agree with Badiou on the issue of the event.)David W. Congdonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03009330707703611224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post-42603587683107889322010-12-06T12:10:14.262-06:002010-12-06T12:10:14.262-06:00Regarding Badiou's critique: Have you read muc...Regarding Badiou's critique: Have you read much Deleuze? Not that people aren't entitled to their opinions, but in my mind Badiou's book was a pretty egregious misreading of Deleuze. So I don't accept that. (As for Rubenstein, I'm not sure what critique you're speaking of -- if you're implying that I'm a "secularist," I'm not; again, I've written an essay precisely on the relation between immanence and secularism in the new volume on Continental Philosohpy of Religion.)<br /><br />Regarding incommensurability: If you think there's an incommensurability, that's fine. I should say, though, that I do not see how your claim to "believe in God" / "to have faith in a particular event, known as Christ," is able to "condition everything else." Such a belief, along with the concepts believed in (God, Christ, event), along with the role of "faith" ... all these things are _extremely_ conditioned. That is, they are the effects of long, complex processes or series of mediation. So, I'm not trying to be polemical here, but I don't see how the claim to have this faith in God / event of Christ as what conditions everything else makes sense. But perhaps it is here that the incommensurability dawns.dbarbernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post-11172085501740144622010-12-06T07:17:17.116-06:002010-12-06T07:17:17.116-06:00All right, that clears things up. But I think Badi...All right, that clears things up. But I think Badiou already exposed the inability of Deleuze and others like him to offer any real grounds for radical politics. And I also think you fall under Rubenstein's critique as well. So we'll just have to disagree on that point.<br /><br />As for immanence/transcendence bit, we disagree there because I happen to believe in God, i.e., I actually happen to have faith in a particular event, known as Christ. That conditions everything else. Wouldn't that qualify, at this point, as an incommensurable? I have no intention of jumping to that prematurely, as you accused me of doing before. But would you be willing to agree that this is the appropriate place for such a notion?David W. Congdonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03009330707703611224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post-84401175805613958302010-12-06T01:47:37.152-06:002010-12-06T01:47:37.152-06:00David, you misunderstand me, which may be my fault...David, you misunderstand me, which may be my fault. However, I'm not sure how to answer your questions without repeating myself. What I'm trying to say is that God, or whatever you want to call it, is nothing other than the world. This is immanence. Anything else is transcendence. That is how i am using the terms. If you want to put it in terms of relation, what I am saying is that the related terms mutually constitute one another. Anything less than this mutual constitution creates a situation in which one term grounds the other. The fact that you say that this ground is "unobjectifiable" doesn't change that.<br /><br />As for your following threat "to find your position incoherent and self-contradictory" ... well, go for it if you like. I've written a dissertation as well as an additional book on this, though to be fair they're not yet published. That said, plenty of my articles are on this (you can find references on AUFS), including the one to which Kerr's piece, which you cite, is a response. (Strangely, when trying to argue against me in that piece Kerr basically quotes arguments from Milbank that I'd already argued against.) Also, you seem shocked at the link between univocal production of the same and radical politics -- don't they make you read Deleuze, or Hardt & Negri (or even Spinoza) at your Seminary?dbarbernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post-8404681503030482762010-12-05T19:18:05.046-06:002010-12-05T19:18:05.046-06:00Do you really want univocal production of the same...Do you really want univocal production of the same? Seriously?<br /><br />If so, then you cut yourself off from "a politics that would allow us to make an exodus from the present state of things," which is explicitly what you claim to desire.<br /><br />Have you read Rubenstein's piece? How do you claim to counter her rejection of the secularist? Do you think she's also guilty of the Big Other?<br /><br />Unless you can cogently argue for how your univocal immanence also allows for a politics of the new, I have no choice but to find your position incoherent and self-contradictory.David W. Congdonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03009330707703611224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post-33379486927871560542010-12-05T19:14:26.714-06:002010-12-05T19:14:26.714-06:00"I'm saying you haven't."
But t..."I'm saying you haven't."<br /><br />But that's precisely what you have failed to show. You can't simply assert that I haven't shown that; you actually have to argue it. Demonstrate that some of the more radical versions of transcendence offered in this post (particularly Rubenstein's version, if you dare) are still Big Others. Assertion cannot replace argumentation.<br /><br />"...transcendence denies that the cause of beings is constituted by the effects of that cause."<br /><br />Are you saying that transcendence brings in a causal agent/agency that is not immanent within history? If so, then you clearly have not read the blog post, for then you'd quickly see that many of the alternatives provided here, including especially the dialectical-eschatological and Rubenstein's wonder, reject any such external ground or agent as the basis for beings-in-the-world.<br /><br />"...the big other, or ideology, or whatever, requires, in order to emerge, a strict distinction between world and what is not of, or is outside of, world."<br /><br />Fantastic, because I'm not arguing for anything "outside of the world." Everything you are rejecting falls within the category of metaphysical transcendence and its subcategories, including especially analogical-ontological transcendence.<br /><br />So, again, how are you not just playing a trick with language? What is your actual substantive argument against my position(s)?David W. Congdonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03009330707703611224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post-32141913749572866972010-12-05T19:12:04.272-06:002010-12-05T19:12:04.272-06:00Also: I _do_ want univocal production of the same!...Also: I _do_ want univocal production of the same!dbarbernoreply@blogger.com