1

Meta-Theological Reflections on the Putative TheologicalCondition?

A Working Paper in Meta-Theology:The Ongoing Self-Rectification of a Theological Discourse?

*

(With a Concise Course in Meta-Theology in 100Propositions**)

0. Preface: Advertisement

Given that more than half the population of thisplanet subscribes to some form of a theological discourselet us evaluate, in theoretical, practical and criticalterms of reference, the putative nature of this type ofdiscourse. Let us do so in meta-philosophical/meta-theological terms of reference and in so doing possiblycontribute to a clarification of its stylistic character,whilst, furthermore, in the process help contribute to itsown ongoing self-rectification in the formal and informalcourts of public opinion. Also, in the course of thisclarification, let us set out how we think we might beable to assist the theist in forming for themselves arelatively existentially oriented approach in valueformation and an authenticity in self-identification… aswell as finding a degree of accommodation in a parallelsecularization of society. (0)

1. Introduction

This essay is divided into topic, discourse,appreciation and supplement. It will conclude with a setof provisional conclusions. (1)

Under the heading Theological Topic, on the putativenature of the Divine, I will outline how we might go aboutexamining this central aspect of this theological

2

discipline. The semblance of the Divine being apparentlyengaged in and through numinous types of experience…regarded through a spiritual lens… in whatever form thatmight be formally defined or informally intimated…suggested or alluded to. (2)

Under Theological Discourse, I will examine thephenomenal-phenomenological/textual andhermeneutical/meta-textual aspects of this type ofdiscourse. (3)

Under Theological Appreciation, I will examine theexistential/non-textual nature of this theological mode oflife. (4)

In Provisional Conclusions to this essay-paper I willproffer a tentative, progressive, non-conclusive, open-ended summary of suggestions as indicated and outlined inthis text. (5)

* Latest version:www.homestead.com/noelshomepage/noelsrelphil.html** This text can be read in conjunction with itsparallel concise exposition.

3

2. The Theological Topic

Central to this type of discourse is the topic of theputative nature of the Divine. Let me examine this underthe headings of context, viability, prerequisites,theological ‘work’ (in value-formation and identity-formation) and as a series of defining problems. (6)

While some theologians question the Divine nature/sothers question the very presuppositional existence of thesame. (7)

Is it possible to put forward ways in which the verypossibility of the Divine could be accepted as apossibility, with a potentiality to exist? Where there issmoke… some might say… there is fire..??1 If the conceptcan be illustrated, or, rendered tenable in theory thenlet its non-self-contradiction support the hypotheticalacceptance of its actuality (if only to be polite [as asecularist] or to dispute its formulation [by anothertheist])? (8)

In neutral terms of reference we could say that thetheological focus in spirituality, is in its (theoretical,practical and critical) engagement with some semblance ofthe numinous, which through extrapolation is to be treatedas the Divine qua ‘Divine’ (rather than defining thisterritory through an appeal to divinities, gods, God,Godhead, Universal Spirit, etc., etc.). Hence this neutralexpression of the ‘Divine’. (9)

Now, a natural theologian (working in a natural theology)might argue that the world has a certain degree ofintegrity about it that cannot be reduced merely to itsmaterially-oriented basis. Thence the existence, to this

1 Some might question whether there really is any smoke? Somemight say there is a lot of noise. Others might infer that this topichas a certain integrity and logic that cannot be reduced to a secularvision of the world. Thence a hypothetical theological discursive difference in thesense that there are theological discourses and non-theologicaldiscourses but neither can be reduced to the other or merelylegislated into or out of existence.

4

extent, that there is a theological difference. I.e., in naturalterms, that between a world (as lived) with a certaindegree of integrity and the world (as lived) perceivedwith no self-integrity or little self-integrity thisdifference can be referred to as natural theological difference.(10)

Some might argue further that this difference is morepronounced and that although without a Divine sense ofpersonality this integrity acts with a certain degree ofintegrity in the world (as if it were some form of karmiccomputer, karmic stabalizer, some form of an autonomousinstigator of non-personal points of intervention, etc.,etc.). Hence a trans-natural theology based upon a putativetrans-natural theological difference. (11)

But a traditional theology usually defers to a senseof the Divine with the semblance of a Divine personality.Hence a trans-personal theology with a putative trans-personaltheological difference. (12)

This difference, moreover, in whatever manner itfinds its articulation, can be further defined asqualitatively different to the degree of epistemologicalorganization demonstrated by the nature of our being asubject; as a person possessing a language/set oflanguages, engaging the world through actions andreflections, etc. Thence this essential distinction thatthe ‘Divine’ is ‘that which must possess a greater degreeof epistemological organization’ than that merely entailedin and through human subjectivity, organizations andcommunities, and, intentional artifacts that demonstrateconsiderable degrees of intentionally constructedcomplexity (such as clocks, computers, etc.) (and thencesome putative semblance of the trans-personal?). (13)

Theological ‘evidence’ will be primarily written and readin theological terms of reference in a theological contextthrough hermeneutic utilization of the adoption andadaptation of theological genres of textual behaviour. (14)

5

Some theologians might argue that theologicalevidence is self-evident, others that it is evident,whilst most might argue that only in a religious-experiential context can this concept be done justice tosome degree or other… and not outside the same (and henceassociated calls for faith or similar, etc.) (whilstapparent ramifications are influential and sometimesdecisive for the theist in this regard). (15)

Some might argue that as the universe seems todemonstrate an ever present fractal symmetry (in itsdisposition of galactic clusters along cosmic filamentsaround relatively empty voids, etc.) that that is evidenceof its integration, integrity (and possible intelligence,etc?) through chaotic self-organization (and re-self-organization)? (16)

Others might argue that only towards the end of thespectrum in epistemological organization can (the traceof) the Divine be found more pronounced (in itsentracement) (upon the human psyche, e.g., etc.)? (17)

For a variety of reasons I would argue that arelatively viable theological context would, and should,co-opt a process theology given this implication of chaoticself-organization (through re-self-organization, etc.)(and given the requirement of a certain numberprerequisites being in place in order to proffer a viabletheology [in and through a harmonious set of viabletheologies given that no one theology could entirely co-opt all fields of theological interest]).2 (18)

Extending upon such a minimum theological framework Ihave discussed elsewhere six pre-requisites for a viabletheology,3 namely:

2 A process theology would also suggest that creationism would bebetter bypassed for a vision of continual, ongoing re-creationism…with an existential situatedness… and a sense that the world is aplace or stage for positive and profitable forms of recreation.3 In the essay-paper titled ‘Theodicy’, etc., and, in the ninthsection of my Meta-Theological Investigations (where themes introduced in theformer are expanded upon).

6

i. Insistence on relational reciprocity (as exemplifiedin the ‘love-of-the-Divine’),ii. Propose phenomenal-phenomenological participation,iii. Perform theological work,iv. Define the relatively good and the relatively evil,v. Proffer an engaged theology,vi. Proffer a positive theological semblance ofinvestment. (19)

That: the meta-theologian examines and interrogatesthe theologian, or their representative texts, or theircongregations, or, neutral or non-neutral observers ofthat same cultural context, etc. [1]4 (20)

The genitive expression ‘love of God’ can and shouldbe treated as both an objective genitive and a subjectivegenitive. A theologian needs to account for both and beable to sensibly interrelate the same. I.e., articulatethe imputed 'love the Divine has for their devotees andall forms of human subjectivity, etc.', and, the'demonstrated love the human subject, individually andcollectively, has for their vision of the Divine'. {Ineffect demonstrating an inherent need for relationalreciprocity}. [2] (21)

A viable theology needs to recognize that arelationship must exist between the existence of thiselement of the Divine and their audience, i.e., thephenomenal (as experienced in phenomenological experience)otherwise what does not exist for us may as well not existfor us! For a theologian to propose a non-relationship inthis regard is to automatically render such a theology asnon-viable (for all parties concerned). [3] (22)

In the same vein, a theology must have theological‘work’ to do otherwise it is little more than merefanciful speculation. This ‘work’ can be seen as that

4 This set of seven paragraphs is taken form the essay-paper:‘Theodicy’ – The Problem of ‘The Problem of Evil’.

7

existential richness that persists after theological andnon-theological actors are subtracted from that overallinteracting equation being proposed between the same.I.e., asking to what extent that the theology in questionappears to work? Therefore, such an enterprise must berelatively coherent, non-self-contradictory,phenomenologically rich in descriptions and prescriptions,and, existentially relevant. The relative fruitfulness ofthat theological enterprise being demonstrated through theapparent work such a construction appears to proffer inassisting us in our navigation between the objective inthe inter-objective dimension and in our negotiations onsubjective and inter-subjective levels of enaction. [4](23)

A viable theology must be able to define its visionof the phenomenon of apparent evil in the world, defineits response towards the same, and, respond to meta-theological criticism of such constructions in such amanner so as to critically maintain the viability of itstheological constructions in that regard. And, in the samemanner, re-construct an ongoing re-consideration of thephenomenal-phenomenological nature of our experience ofgoodness and its reasonable modes of emulation. [5] (24)

An engaged theology must also be able to articulate bothits perception of its encountered-recognitions and themanner of its embracement/s (i.e., note the roles played byembodiment/s, embeddededness/es and embankment/s as previouslydefined elsewhere). [6] (25)

Lastly, I would like to note that as a list ofprerequisites for the proposition of a theologicalperspective on this World-of-Life, (as noted in the nextsection, in our Context of this Exploration, in this centralpaper5) we should add and demand of the theologian that

5 Note: The first prerequisite of the objective/subjectivegenitive reading of the ‘love of God’ is an example of the type ‘x ofthe Divine’ where by ‘x’ we can substitute other traditional and/ornon-traditional concepts/practices such as ‘compassion’, ‘justice’,‘sacrifice’, ‘sight’, ‘insight’, ‘revelation’, etc., etc. In Section 9of my second volume in hypothetical theology: Finding a Place for the Idea of

8

they proffer a suitable reason, or a set of reasons, as toboth why we should invest in their theologicalperspective, and, what value such investment has for theindividual in that specific religious setting (in termsthat are amenable to both those within that setting andoutside that setting?). Of course, this form ofrationalization, justification or recommendation is partof the theologians’ profession, and, it behooves eitherthe religious or the non-religious person to appropriatelyquestion, politely interrogate, such claims as well ascomparatively evaluate, when and where possible, thecogency of other similar interpretations of this Life-World. Such evolutions in both evolving belief and mutualunderstanding need to occur in, without undermining, theopenness of our Contemporary world as currently lived.Undoubtedly a type of dialogue that needs to occur on anInter-Faith level of interaction and between both thereligious and secular worlds in a mature democracy thatneeds to be inclusive of a diversity of non-extremeattitudes, beliefs and practices as may be voiced in thisplethora of minor life-worlds. [D] (26)

Now, so called proofs of the existence of the Divinecannot achieve their objective. They either take amisguided absolutist tack,6 a relativist state ofindecision, legislation in and through some form of apriorism, or, find a mere probability in an establishedsynthetic mode. The first cannot be thought, the second isof no use to either theists or non-theists, the third isuseful for defining a frame of reference only, while thelast could be useful if the theologist were able to supplywhat might count as acceptable evidence (in order toestablish a high probability for a verified form ofimputation).

(27)

God: Volume II: An Extended Essay Exploring Theological Identity, Work and Value in OurPhenomenological Investigations of the Life-World a commentary on theseprerequisites explores in depth both their overall interrelation andramifications.6 The reader might like to refer to my recent essay Contra Absolutism and Contra Relativism.

9

However, the following is suggested as a complex (setof) problem/problems the theist or theologist7 might wishto resolve and, therein and thereby, determine theparameters of their (re-)constructed theology?8 (28)

The overall argument is for integration through re-integration defined in and through an integrated-differentiation (centered in the overall transcendentalsuspension/overall hermeneutic circle of comprehension [asexamined elsewhere]). (29)

The broad overall argument, in four parts, runs likethis: in a relationship the relational facticity of thatrelationship, the extent an emergent relationship cannotbe reduced to its pre-relational material basis, is inexistence through ongoing resolution of dissonance‘experienced’ in that relational field. This process ofresolution establishes the essential flavour of thatrelationship and is present throughout the entire ambit ofthat relational field with that same flavour albeit fromits own material point/s of view. It would follow from anacceptance of the first two prerequisites that from theinteraction of all relationships in the world of allpotentially differentiable relationships, the acceptanceof the theological dimension granted, that a theologicalcomplexion, should also be imprinted upon that overallessential flavour as well as any specific instance of thesame. This is the first problem, namely, should and doesthe putative theological dimension imprint itself on thecomplex relational nature of all relational experience,etc., and if it were to do so how might we tell atheological contribution (or set of theologicalcontributions) apart from a relatively non theological(set of) contribution(s). Hence the problem of non-differentiation. (30)

7 Defining the ‘theologist’ as a ‘theoretical theist’ or‘theologian’ (the latter being more as a professional who has acongregation).8 Quoting a section of the extended essay in meta-theologicalinvestigations: Finding a Place for the Idea of God: Volume II: An Extended EssayExploring Theological Identity, Work and Value in Our Phenomenological Investigations of theLife-World (cited in square brackets).

10

But the next problem is this: if we were able todifferentiate this holistic imprinting of the Divinecomplexion from the relatively non-Divine then it couldonly be done through the apposite formulation andthematization of a meta-textual frame/s of reference (as ahermeneutic genre or set of genres of interpretation)?Hence the problem of framing. (31)

But if all things were to be treated as equal,impartially (as dialectical preparation for the criticalexercise of the overall transcendental suspension, e.g.)it would follow that we would not be able to differentiatea theistic frame from a non-theistic frame in the realityof our experience, in the (intentional) reality of such(intentional) experience. Hence the problem of equivalence.(32)

But a theologian needs to positively demonstrate thata theological difference actually makes a difference (as ameta-theological difference) (in their construction of a viabletheology and its application in practice and in andthrough critical reflection). I.e., that such a constructor conceptual edifice is efficacious, i.e., actually doespositive theological work. Hence the problem ofdifferentiation. (33)

{Now}, first let me re-state these {four primary}theological problems. Second, let me collapse the same,respectively, into two sets. Third, let me then collapsethese two sets into one set (under the problem oftheological integration {through integrated-differentiation}). Last, let me examine the ramificationsof this complex approach; i.e., present implications andfuture consequences (as outlined under our ongoing,tentative and provisional resolution of this overallproblem of theological integration). [1442] (34)

‘Non-differentiation’ is the problem (for thephilosophical theist) where the essential nature of theputative theological complexion of the Life-World is so

11

closely overlaid upon the nature of the world as livedthat it is perceived as not able to be disentangled fromthe latter (especially without an apposite frame ofreference for doing this). [1443] (35)

‘Framing’ is the problem (for the philosophicaltheist) where the essential nature of the putativetheological complexion of the Life-World is so closelyoverlaid upon the nature of the world as lived that itneeds and can only be ‘perceived’ in and through anapposite frame of reference. So, the question now becomeshow do we define a frame of reference that actually helpsthe theist to make that form of discrimination? [1444] (36)

‘Equivalence’ is the problem (for the philosophicaltheist) where the essential nature of the putativetheological complexion of the Life-World, at face value,could be read in either a theistic or a non-theistic frameof reference with no good reason as to why one or otherstyle of interpretation should be chosen (except as amatter of personal preference, linguistic habit and/orcultural education). [1445] (37)

‘Differentiation’ is the problem that for a theology to betruly viable it should demonstrate that ability for it toboth work and work in such a fashion so as to successfullydifferentiate itself from a non-theistic interpretation insuch a manner so as to add a positive surplus in valueformation for that practicing theist. In other words, thetreatment of a putative theological difference can be seento make a positive theological difference in the life ofthe devotee (through noting the ramifications of thisdouble differentiation entailed in this meta-theologicaldifference). [1446] (38)

‘Integration’ is the recognition that through formsof existential dialogue a theological difference can beboth positively demonstrated and lived. But, first let meoutline how this conclusion can be argued for, practicallyreached and critically appreciated. [1447] (39)

12

Now, keeping this ‘mapping’ on the same page let menote how these problems collapse into two sets of two andthen one overall set with its named form of resolution. [1448](40)

Non-differentiation and framing become ‘hermeneuticnon-differentiation’ with a resolution through ‘de-non-differentiation’. [1449] (41)

Equivalence and differentiation (through a re-statedtheological difference) become ‘existentialdifferentiation’ with a resolution through ‘re-differentiation’. [1450]

(42)

Then, our two sets of problems can be jointlyresolved by examining how integration through ongoing re-integration can be achieved. In this instance, carving outa theological space where hermeneutic de-non-differentiation and existential re-differentiation can beconnected through phenomenological re-integration in andthrough the auspices of the appositely and adequatelyenacted ongoing overall transcendental suspension.However, to get there let me revisit these variousproblems and their proposed solution in order to arrive atthis final semblance of resolution through re-integrationand its utilization of a sense of an integrated dialoguein order to make sense of a theological approach as to howthe theist might wish to engage with others in and throughsuch an open frame of reference in this world as livedwhere we must live together in a form of harmoniccooperation (in a form already outlined through theapparent implicit cooperation of minor life-worlds aspreviously noted elsewhere9).

[1451](43)

Now, just let us have some fun as we wander over thislandscape thematizing problems and articulating possibleforms of resolution. Hopefully, my reader can take some

9 Transformation through Re-Self-Organization, Part LVI, e.g.

13

delight in examining and working though these challengesas outlined before us… [1452] (44)

The problem of non-differentiation is just how couldwe determine the putuative input/s of a theologicaldimension/the theological dimension/s given that theessential nature of this contribution to essentialphenomenological experience so indiscriminately overlaysall forms of relational interaction from the objective tothe inter-objective, from the subjective to the inter-subjective, from the communal to the trans-national, fromthe atomic to the cosmological, from the local to theglobal, from the particular to the universal, etc., etc? Ahermeneutic problem compounded by the fact that throughwhat frame or frames of reference do we have to hand,i.e., meta-textual genres of discernment, that might allowus to perform and appreciate this degree ofdifferentiation (between the relatively theological andthe relatively non-theological in orientation)?

[1453] (45)

But this problem of finding a frame of reference isalready rendered non-problematic in the sense that tounderstand this problem as a problem qua problem implieswe already have to hand a frame of reference, if not a setof such frames of reference, that merely need to becritically re-adopted and re-adapted in the light of thiscurrent problematic task to hand…. (46)

Schematic Representation of this Argument for Re-Integrated Differentiation (47)

1. Non-differentiationa. Hermeneutic non-differentiation (A. De-

non-differentiation)2. Framing

x. Integration (X.Re-integration)

14

3. Equivalenceb. Existential differentiation (B. Re-

differentiation)4. Differentiation

In other words, problems 1. and 2. become problem a.with a resolution in the form of A. (48)

Then, problems 3. and 4. become problem b. with aresolution realized in the form of B. (49)

Finally, problems a. and b. and their resolutions A.and B. combine to form the overall problem of integrationor integrated-differentiation through re-integration,i.e., re-integrated-differentiation…. (50)

Now, it is for the theologian (or theist, theologist,meta-philosopher, meta-theologian, devotee, congregation,etc.) to utilize this format in order to flesh out theirown individual solutions, as resolutions, of this complexproblem (and its implication of a need for a dialogicalintegration through re-integration.) (51)

Hence the archetypal outline of our topic (from atheoretical perspective). (52)

15

3. The Theological Discourse

In our phenomenal-phenomenological investigations thetheological discourse itself, obviously, is a moreconvenient point of focus for examination. It also servesas a medium for thematizing and recording enaction and thepractical consequences of such a discursive dimension.(53)

The theological discourse, in general, and in fact asa plethora of theological discourses, operates within thetheological mode of life. That mode of life, essentially,is a minor mode of life, but, effectively, in somesocieties in some periods of time has operated as a majordiscourse in a major mode of life. We should no longertreat this mode of life in the Contemporary era as runninga major discourse given multi-culturalism, respect forindigenous life-worlds, polyvalency or poly-politicalpluralism, etc., even though it is natural for suchdiscourses often to treat themselves in such an attitudeof non-openness. (54)

How does a discourse operate? Through the invocationof an apposite (set of) meta-textual genre(s); e.g., inthe adoption and adaptation of a theological genre (in aform appropriate to the current positioning of thetheologian, devotee, etc., etc.). Now, the adoption andadaptation of the genre/s in question will control whatphenomenal-phenomenological (textual) elements areexercised in the course of that discourse… what processesof enaction might be called for and to what extent theymight or might not be exercised in an existentiallyoriented attitude (as non-textual processes of enaction),etc., etc. This mix of the hermeneutical, phenomenal-phenomenological and existential is centered in theongoing exercise of the overall transcendental suspensionand the dialectical economy of text, meta-text and non-text; the deposition of texts ensuing from suchdeliberations (whether they be critically engaged or non-critically engaged).

(55)

16

Treating a discourse (in general, particular orspecific terms of reference) as an economic question of‘circulation’ (with thematization, dissemination,communicative alignment, criticism, enaction, speculation,value formation, identity formation, etc.) allows us tooversee to what degree such deployment should be enactedwithin the limits of those same terms of reference. Inother words, we need to be observant as to what extent anydiscourse can operate without abusing the natural limitsentailed in that mode of disquisition. In this we can saythat not all modes are equal in the depths of theirconstructed formulation but that all modes are limited intheir construction and this fact should be ever observed!Let me illustrate this fact… (56)

We are ever inclined to read the world in and throughan absolutist lens. We see things and take them to be asthey appear to present themselves. We read texts and takethem, too, at face value. Such imputations may work in anon-philosophically oriented mode, but, in a criticalmode, all things are not as they seem. We need to realizethat the existential economy is ‘a swirling vortex ofsignificance-generation hovering over an abyss of sheerabsolute unknowable emptiness’! That the only value thatis there for-us is that realized in and through engagementand then only in terms of its apparent ongoing, relative,limited existential enrichment. Engagement through re-engagement and nothing else..! (57)

So, what ground do we have to walk upon when thereare no grounds to walk on?! In this, a theologicaldiscourse is no different from any other discourse! Alimited contrivance for the hopeful realization of somesmall modicum of value without absolute certainty! Still,all the same, it is through our existential co-option ofsuch that value formation and identity formation can beengaged… so, let us examine how a discourse operates inorder to assess what we are entitled to and what we arenot entitled to..! (58)

Intentional thematization is a discursive,

17

epistemological phenomenon. It operates through theexercise of a (set of) discourses in both internal andexternal senses without an absolute distinction betweeneither orientation. Our thoughts are deposited as texts inthis world as lived be that as thoughts, re-arrangementsof brain chemistry and structure, re-configuration of ourenvironment, deposition in more classically oriented formslike speech, written notes, letters, emails, etc. Centralto every discourse is this vortex of the overallsuspension also to be known as the overall hermeneuticcircle of comprehension (in tri-modal form and so named todistinguish it from bi-modally configured hermeneuticcircles, etc.). Then central to each genre is a cluster ofreasonably integrated metaphors and rules that controlthat type of discourse (in so far as what can be exercisedand what cannot be exercised therein). Discourses alsochannel modes of enaction in keeping with the same. In atheological discourse practices dealing with devotion,ethics, prayer, theological topics, etc., being judgedappropriate to the extent that such practices areexercised by that participant in keeping with theirinvoked genre. Such genres, through common usage, allowinga number of individuals to co-participate in shared formsof enaction as well as to disseminate information inkeeping with that type of discourse, etc. (59)

However, all forms of discourse have their limits andnaturally deconstruct when those limits are approached andtried to be surpassed… when leaned upon, exposed,misappropriated, subjected to over-commitment, and, whenexercised in an improper, inappropriate and/or invalidmanner, or, just merely exercised through some form ofunder-commitment... But, before such limits are sounprofitably or profitably tested, processes of engagementcan be enacted that contribute to both value formation andidentity formation.10 Let me briefly explain. (60)

In judgment, various type of value are engaged inkeeping with the genre of appreciation being invoked. Ihave examined this process in an ordered philosophy where10 Exposure can be profitable in the sense that limits need to be known.

18

value is progressively built up from the gathering of acore-nucleus of internal consistency, to externalaesthetic coherence, de-ontological propriety, pragmaticappropriateness, hermeneutic possibility and an arrival atdeterminations of factual actuality. In parallel with suchordered value e/valuation we also have associated forms ofidentity formation. Obviously, e.g., if an individualattempts to lead their life with an eye on the de-ontological and sensibly conforms to its re-directions,albeit in a balance with our other forms of ordereddetermination, then that individual is engaging in anexistential orientation in keeping with their embracementin a world of embodiment, embeddedness and embankment (aswell as maintaining a healthy relationship between thesame in keeping with this spirit of overall embracement).(61)

How, then, is the existential attitude profitablyengaged, and, how can we do that when immersed in atheological discourse when its construction might beantithetical to such a course of existential impartiality?(62)

All discourses, authentically or inauthenticallyconstructed, oriented and enacted are centered within theexistential economy, itself, in turn, centered in theoverall transcendental suspension… itself hovering abovethis swirling vortex of meaninglessness itself wellrepresented at the core of contradictions; aporias;paradoxes; all forms of over-commitment; absolutist andrelativist practices, habits and dispositions; as well asbeing resident in inauthentic patterns of value andidentity formation be they mis-directed or non-directedthrough under-commitment.... But, this same threat ofpsychic engulfment lurks closely beneath the surface ofeven authentic patterns of value and identity formation…Their descent from the attentive attunement of a pro-relational stance… to the ordinary everydayness of merehabit… to the intentional senselessness of the ill-thematized… and on to the chaos of disintegration… is buta short breath away… if it were not for the intentionalmind to seek patterns of encountered-recognition, seek

19

insurance and find assurance… be such processes ofrectification well-founded, ill-founded or unfounded….11

(63)

But, there is hope, for by what we fall… by that wemay also rise… through a process of re-orientation, i.e.,re-existentialization through an existentialization of therelatively non-existential! Regardless of the nature ofthe discourse we have adopted. Its adaptation can alwaysbe re-existentialized as long as we do not adhere to itsstrictures, any strictures, in an absolutist mode ofliteral conformity. Even the well-meaning should not beconformed with… since it is only through its suspensionthat the spirit of that well-meaningfulness can be trulyrecovered should it be present as indicated. (64)

Thence our attention to the witting and/or unwittingperformance of the overall transcendental suspension atvery center of all intentional processes and all processesof appreciation be they pre-intentional (like motor-sensory, impressions-mood), intentional and/or trans-intentional (judgments of value and identity, etc.).Whatever promotes this suspension, and the suspension ofthe same, etc, promotes the existentialization of ourlived experience (as lived-experience), and, our alignmentwith the center of our being, perhaps, to some extent,even the very center of Being itself..!?12 (65)

In finding a re-existentialization of attitude, inwhat is already to hand (in our current set of discoursesin play), how do we know we have made such progress inthis process of positive re-orientation and enactive re-direction through reversion, etc? (66)

11 Encountered-recognition/recognized-encounters are enacted inprocesses of engagement. Insurance states that in genre controlledprocesses of sequentialization we can virtually reverse a process ofsequentialization to a point considered valid and then reverse suchreversal through a process of assurance where each new stage is testedin its validity, viability, etc.12 Through the deconstruction of discourse, or whatever was adoptedand adapted, given the equal need both for the suspension and itssuspension in turn, etc!

20

In an appreciation of the ramifications that appearto flow from such a stance we find a comparatively greaterrelease of existential value formation and parallelexistential identity formation! This process, whenproperly attended to, can also be self-rectifying, i.e.,able to re-head us in an existential direction (even inthe midst of our exercising an inauthentically orienteddiscourse, be that theological or otherwise). (67)

How, then, should theological appreciation beappositely and adequately enacted even in the midst of arelatively defective theological discourse? Through theskilful utilization of the overall transcendentalsuspension, through the unlocking of value and identitycentral to the overall hermeneutic circle, in essence,invoking a pro-relational stance and its ensuingexistentialization… or ‘spiritualization’?? (68)

4. Theological Appreciation

In examining the imputation of a theologicalcomplexion co-extensive with the World-of-Life let usexamine our central topic and its modes of discursivedissemination from meta-philosophical/meta-theologicalpoint/s of view (given that such treatment/retreatmentencourages such a critical perspective). (69)

Now the central question was asked how do weexistentially engage a process of theological/meta-theological reflection? (70)

The simple answer is in the very same way we were toengage it in the first place! I.e., through thesuspension… and its suspension, etc! (71)

A more complex answer answers for us a number ofproblematic issues along the way that will need to beasked and answered in order to make better sense of thisquest for verification, self-verification, rectificationand self-rectification… (72)

In my opinion it makes no sense for a person with

21

little sympathy and empathy for a theological mode of lifeto be invited to participate in that lifestyle unless theywere to later find such a need. So, it is not ruled out,but, would be relatively inappropriate to the way thatperson might see their vision of the world. However, intheir secular attitude there is just as much room for anexistential orientation as for the person who inhabits atheologically oriented life-world. As noted, alldiscourses, theological and non-theological, hover overthe same ongoing overall transcendental suspension centralto the existential economy and its directly associatedvalue and identity formation. But such a center, itself,should never be sought lest we identify ourselves with thesenselessness of that vortex of meaninglessness muchbeloved by both absolutists and relativists, or, thoseinsistent bores who wish to forever re-write the worldthrough an a priori lens or set of lenses or take anunrelenting ignorant delight in its pointless reduction toan equal and miserable semblance of nothingness..! (73)

By ‘verification’ is meant a positive return on ourpsychic investments in this world as lived through theongoing richly delivered discovery of an existentialrichness in the form of a well deserved surplus of value,an excess of value, whose comparative amplificationrewards our efforts in seeking to find an effectivealignment with this world as lived. Such alignment beingdelivered through ongoing re-alignment that recognizes itsown re-aligned alignment as a closer ‘fit’ with thisvision and version of reality as so engaged. (74)

By ‘self-verification’ is meant that this process ofverification has a life of its own capable of re-directingits own verification in existential terms. The theologicalper se, i.e., some form of the Divine, is never itselfverified… only the existential value realized in how thattheological discourse itself, apparently, is verified andself-verified. (75)

By ‘rectification’ is meant the ability of thetheological discourse itself to correct its own mis-interpretation, waywardness, non-existentially directed

22

patterns of enaction, etc. In other words, theramifications of rectification are such so as to moreadequately re-direct the discourse in question in a moreapposite direction given its intentional objectives, etc.(76)

By ‘self-rectification’ is meant this ability of thetheological discourse in its exercise to appositely andadequately reinforce its positive ramifications, i.e., befound to possess for that theist positively amplifiedpresent implications and positively amplified futureconsequences. In essence, a theological discourse, or anyother discourse for that matter, although they can bedeconstructed, ineffectively or effectively, cannot per sebe absolutely reduced. That a discourse, whether non-theological or theological in tenor, cannot be absolutelyreduced despite some degree of deconstruction (therelative ease of deconstruction often reflecting therelative lack of authenticity involved in the course ofits construction). (77)

Then, we can set out to appreciate the point of viewof the theist. There are many way this can be attempted.E.g., through taking a total linguistic approach, albeittentatively and provisionally, and ‘seeing’ the Divinetotality through parts of speech without privileging orexcluding some grammatical form of comparison… (78)

Treating the Divine topic as a nominative albeitwithout the limitations that surround the relativity offinite things? (79)

As an accusative in the sense of an objective to beapproached through integration and its ensuing self-re-alignment? (80)

Or, as an instrumental in order to let it assistyourself in and through a more pragmatic approach? (81)

As a dative of purpose in the sense that if atheological discourse works for you then let it supplymeaning for you as long as it is tempered in and through

23

an existential lens (and its insistence on anexistentialization of the relatively non-existential).(82)

Along the lines of a genitive as in the objective andsubjective readings of the imputed love-of-God; or someother attribute that can serve a similar reciprocatedsense of purpose. (83)

Perceiving an ablative in the sense that interventioncan occur within the Divine relationship through chaoticmoments of bifurcation… perhaps from within any level inepistemological organization? (84)

Invoking a locative… but taking a stand that sees thedevotee within the Divine and not the other way round…giving deference to that which deserves the same? (84)

Or as a problematic vocative, in treating thenominative as a vocative… as a point of address. Or, as averb involving enaction through intervention within orbetween points of chaotic re-self-organization asmomentary points of bifurcation. Or, that figure of speechthat can never be pinned down… shape-shifting betweennoun… to verb… to adverb… to adjective… to be read as apronoun… as words and sentences… as beyond the crampedpages of any religious book… and so on..?? (86)

5. Provisional Conclusions

Appreciation of the theological discourse can beappreciated but can such appreciation itself beappreciated in order to reveal its topic per se? Or, can thetopic of any discipline, well organized or not so wellorganized, be understood and engaged apart from its modeof introduction and explication? The value discovered inand through a theological discourse may well be animportant source of value for that theist who exercisesthat discourse (and, in turn, is ‘exercised’ by that samediscourse) but can the putative theological conditionitself be directly appreciated? In this the answer canonly be “no!” For it is only through that frame of

24

reference that the topic can be approached. (87)

On the other hand, in a relationship we are in adirect relationship with that which is in thatrelationship with us, albeit with whatever that might be.The theist would claim that they stand in some form of arelationship with the Divine and that that must be thecase even though the nature of that objective is such thatwe can never know in itself whether that objective isDivine, or only Divine in some limited sense be suchcircumscription merely constructed, natural, trans-naturalor trans-personal… or even beyond our most earnestmetaphorical thinking in that regard? (88)

But, then, again, the essential nature of arelationship, of whatever manner, is imprinted on ourexperience of that essential nature. That such anunderstanding of our ‘theological condition’, albeit asdiscerned through a theological discourse and itsdiscursive frame of reference, brings us back to the fourproblems introduced and only briefly discuss in ourconsiderations of the theological topic (the putativecentral subject matter of a theological discourse). Ofcourse, some might say that we cannot answer thisconundrum but only subject it to continual deferral. But,such deferring need not be a vicious cycle but can becomea virtuous circle. We are beholden to the existentialeconomy and its endless circulation… whose mindlessreduction can only sink us into a swirling vortex where wecan only drown in a destruction of all sense, meaning andmeaningfulness, i.e., value, and, thereafter, all positiveparallel identity formation… (89)

Suffice to say that the apparent integrity of theoverall world is stamped upon our being and our becoming aperson in this world as lived… but how is such integrityto be discern?13 Still, we are the stuff that stars are

13 Echoing our four problems in paragraphs 28-51 whose tentativesolutions, or resolutions, replace all imperfect proofs with aproductive problematicity that helps to motivate us to find a sense ofintegration in this world as lived through viable forms of re-integration….

25

made of, and, although as puny as worms upon a stage, yetwe can look up into the heavens and admire such a sight,as a vision of wonder… and even if a gardener would notbother to name the worms working in their garden, still,they might appreciate their continual labour and say tothemselves… that my garden can grow a plethora of produce…that things here are beautiful, other things that aregoodness itself, some things that are useful, other thingsresplendent with meaning with still other things redolentwith meaningfulness… bypassing doubt… and surpassing allmanner of thought..?!

6. A Supplement in Ten More Paragraphs

An open discourse is ever open to supplementaryconsiderations just as the overall preservational andconservational treatment of regular relationships is moreclosely viewed through our investment and divestment of our ‘interest’as in irregular relationships, etc.14 An open discourse is notexhausted in a mere list of inscriptions expressed aseither descriptions and/or prescriptions. E.g., in aregular relationship, one that persist for us over areasonable period of time can be existentially evaluatedin terms of its preservation and conservation (in anamplification of value through non-chaotically redirectedaugmentation and chaotically re-directed enhancement). Ifwe were to see a small, untended child about to fall intoa pond, normally, we would try to prevent that child fromfalling in and drowning. Thence our sudden investment ofinterest and concern in this relationship hitherto notentered into. When the child is prevented from drowningand returned to its parents or guardian/s then we have anappropriate time for a divestment in interest. By‘interest’ is meant concern that notes past, present andfuture configurations of e/valuation, etc., in existentialterms of reference. Thence this deeper way of exploringthis issue of ethical e/valuation (as an exemplification

14 The reader might like to refer to: Finding a Place for the Idea of God:Volume II: An Extended Essay Exploring Theological Identity, Work and Value in OurPhenomenological Investigations of the Life-World ; Section 9, paragraph 1520(document: 2theok.doc).

26

of the fact that no set of propositions is going todiscursively exhaust the potential of any one discourse).(91)

Given that the imputation of the Divine demandsrelational interaction it follows that its presence and/orabsence, intervention and/or non-intervention, etc.,occurs in this same phenomenal-phenomenological world aslived in by-ourselves and that this ‘fact’ of confrontationalequality should not be overlooked! We may not have a divinelike appreciation of the world, but, still, given thistheological imputation (in trans-natural or trans-personalform and format) it is the same world that is beingentered into, through imputation, by this direct and/orindirect semblance of Divine presence (or absence?). (92)

However, given the pre-condition of superiorepistemological organization it follows that Divineappreciation cannot be reduced to non-Divine forms ofappreciation without absolutely ruling out their non-coincidence hence appreciative inequality. All appreciationbeing conducted in the same manner of its appreciativeenaction. (93)

That through attuned existential receptiveness to ourembracement/s in our relationships it implies that wecould, as a hopeful possibility, more closely mirror thisimputation of the Divine. Hence our ability to practice aform of emulation by entertaining, hypothetically, aDivine perspective on that currently of concern; i.e.,interest. (94)

Thence the practicalization of a theologicaldiscourse through the discursive practicalization of thetheological however that might be envisaged, etc. Notheoretical approach to the configuration of a discourseis without practical ramifications and neither can itescape some degree of critical appreciation. (95)

That the nature of the transcendental versus the natureof the non-transcendental mirrors dialectical equalityversus non-dialectical inequality, and, this is reflected in

27

our appreciation of the theological complexion wheneverdiscerned in our phenomenal-phenomenological appreciationof the Life-World as lived. So, theological possibility isconfigured as a transcendental possibility and thence itsdialectical configuration. In contrast, transcendentalactuality, etc., is configured through non-dialecticalnon-equivalence. (96)

Intervention in a theological discourse must co-optthe objective, inter-objective, subjective and inter-subjective dimensions (thence the co-option and possiblemodes of intervention through subjects either individuallyand/or collectively, etc., in whatever tentative, viablemanner that might be envisaged by theologians, etc; suchintervention/s being expressed through these individualdimensions but not absolutely escaping their collectiveconfiguration (in both individual and collective senses ofself-identity [and other-identity?]). (97)

Given the co-existence of ideal dialecticalpossibilities thence the paralleling of all theologiessuch as, e.g., those of light versus darkness, surplusesversus emptinesses, feminist theologies versus non-feministtheologies, etc. This would include other theologies suchas devotionalism, communicative significance, etc.15 (98)

The imputation and exposition of a theologicaldifference and a meta-theological difference implies theneed for a theoretical thematization, practical enactionand critical appreciation of the same. In this world aslived theologians et al need to invoke a theologicaldifference that makes a difference in the lives of boththeists and non-theists, etc., in terms of both valueformation and identity formation. (99)

Although, from the transcendental perspective, let usrealize that can be no theological difference in any formwhatsoever, however, for those theists who cannotunderstand this point, merely insist such a ‘difference’should be engaged from an existential point of view! Thetenor of transcendental possibility is dialectical

15 Refer to ibid., e.g., paragraph 1498.

28

equivalence and a theoretical balance of all propositionalexpressions of such. Transcendental actuality is a non-equivalent stressing of the same albeit in accordance withthe point of view that that semblance of positioning seemsto align with in the non-transcendental realm of non-dialectical non-equivalence. However, should not theimputation of the Divine be configured in the same way,and, if a traditional form of theological configuration isnot to be found, for what purpose then has the traditionaltheologian and their theological discourse/s. In thinkingthrough theological possibility, effectively, we aretaking ourselves to the very edge of philosophical andmeta-philosophical thought, practice and critique. In sodoing we should be able to better clarify those limitsbeyond which further efforts should not and cannot bedeployed. The world is not without its mystery, and, richtexts are not without their je ne sais quoi. If artisticproduction cannot be adequately reduced and analyzed thenwhat hope have we to resolve this question as to thestatus of theological imputation other than to recognizeour limits and know when the non-viable is beingdisseminated. There are some, no doubt, who would stronglycontend that theological expression is not much more thanhot air, noisy at best and signifying nothing, and, who,happily, would also quickly consign all such writings to awagon, indeed, a train of wagons, and head them in thedirection of the local tip or incinerator. However, alldiscourses are disciplines whose exercise reveals theexistential reality of our World-of-Life as lived tovarious levels of depth and with varying degrees offruitfulness. It is wrong of us to dismiss such insightsgiven that such ‘insights’, most assuredly, are insights;ways and means that walk us along the pathways of theworld that no one discipline, indeed, any otherdiscipline, could alone successfully guide us therein.Regardless of the confirmation, or otherwise, of thisimputation of the Divine, in the lives of many millions itoffers hope and proffers ways of emulation that enrichthis world as lived. In this recognition let us join withtheologians and their congregations to ensure thatdissemination concerns itself with the viable, the

29

fruitful and the existentially verifiable. In the processensuring that theological texts find forms ofrectification and self-rectification in this process ofexistential alignment; i.e., through our reasonableinterventions and our becoming aware in what mannerrelatively non-viable aspects of theological discoursesshould find themselves brought into an existential re-alignment with the preservation, conservation, investmentand divestment of our overall ‘interest’ in a mutualenrichment of this world as lived..!! (100)

Noël Tointon,Sydney, 31.1.14,/10.2.15.

30

Concise Course in Meta-Theology in 100 Propositions

Theoretical topic, practical discourse, criticalappreciation, provisional conclusions. (1)

The central topic in a theological discourse is the Divineviewed through the same, albeit utilizing a number oflenses that could be, e.g., traditional, spiritual,numinous, devotional, phenomenological, hermeneutical,hypothetical, natural, hypothetical, etc. (2)

A discourse being textual, meta-textual and non-textual in(discursive) construction. (3)

Appreciation examining apparent ramifications; i.e.,present implications and future consequences; with anexistential (non-textual) dimension in mind. (4)

Provisional conclusions through tentatively addressingmultiple misrepresentations as a work in progress withvarying degrees in coherence and cogency. (5)

Examining the putative nature of the Divine under variousheadings, e.g., context, viability, prerequisites,theological ‘work’ (in value-formation and identity-formation) and as a series of defining problems. (6)

While some theologians question the Divine nature/s othersquestion the very presuppositional existence of the same.(7)

If the concept (of the Divine) can be illustrated, or,rendered tenable in theory then let its non-self-contradiction support the hypothetical acceptance of itsactuality? (8)

We could say that the theological focus in spirituality iswith some semblance of the numinous hence this neutralexpression of the ‘Divine’.16 (9)

16 After Rudolf Otto (in his book the ‘The Idea of the Holy’).

31

A natural theologian argues that the world has a certaindegree of integrity about it that cannot be reduced merelyto its materially-oriented basis thence the existence of anatural theological difference. (10) Some might argue this difference is more pronounced,although without a Divine sense of personality, thencethis putative trans-natural theological difference. (11)

But a traditional theology defers to a sense of Divinepersonality, thence a putative trans-personal theologicaldifference. (12)

That the ‘Divine’ is ‘that which must possess a greaterdegree of epistemological organization’ than that merelyentailed in and through human subjectivity, organizationsand communities, complex intentional artifacts, etc. (13)

Theological ‘evidence’ will be primarily written and read in atheological context through hermeneutic adoption and adaptationof theological genres. (14)

Some might argue that theological evidence is self-evidentor merely evident, whilst most might argue that only in areligious-experiential context can this concept be donejustice to some degree… hence associated calls for faith,etc., in the light of its apparent ramifications. (15)

Some argue that as the universe demonstrates an everpresent fractal symmetry that that is evidence of itsintegration, integrity… through chaotic self-organizationand re-self-organization (and thence a theologicaldifference)? (16)

Others argue that only towards the end of the spectrum inepistemological organization can the Divine be foundentraced (upon the human psyche, e.g., etc.)? (17)

A relatively viable theological context should co-opt aprocess theology given this implication of chaotic self-organization through re-self-organization, etc., theobservance of certain prerequisites, and, the acceptance

32

of the construction of a set of viable theologies. (18)

Entertain six pre-requisites for a viable theology, namely,relational reciprocity, phenomenal-phenomenologicalparticipation, theological work, moral differentiation,engagement and investment. (19)

That the meta-theologian examines and interrogates thetheologian, or their representative texts, or theircongregations, or, neutral or non-neutral observers ofthat same cultural context, etc. (20)

The representative expression ‘love of God’ can and shouldbe treated as both an objective genitive and a subjectivegenitive ‘demonstrating’ an inherent need for relationalreciprocity. (21)

A viable theology needs to recognize that a relationshipmust exist between the imputation of the Divine and thephenomenal otherwise what does not exist for us may aswell not exist for us! (22)

A theology must have theological ‘work’ to do otherwise itis little more than mere fanciful speculation, and,therefore, such an enterprise must be relatively coherent,non-self-contradictory, phenomenologically rich indescriptions and prescriptions, and, existentiallyrelevant. (23)

A viable theology must be able to define its vision of thephenomenon of apparent evil, and, in the same manner, re-construct an ongoing re-consideration of the phenomenal-phenomenological nature of our experience of goodness andits reasonable modes of emulation. (24)

An engaged theology articulates through encountered-recognitions and the manner of its embracement/s (i.e., notethe roles played by embodiment/s, embeddededness/es andembankment/s). (25)

That the theologian should proffer a suitable reason, or aset of reasons, as to both why we should invest in their

33

theological perspective, and, what value such investmenthas for the individual in that specific religious setting.(26)

Proofs of the existence of the Divine cannot achieve theirobjective being misguided imputations throughabsolutistism; relativism, with a state of indecision;legislative a priorism; or, as an insufficient probability.(27)

But demonstrations could be indicated through complexarguments in the construction of a theology or a set oftheologies. (28)

E.g., the following overall argument, with four basicproblems, for integration through re-integration; definedin and through an integrated-differentiation (centered inthe overall transcendental suspension/overall hermeneuticcircle of comprehension). (29)

This is the first problem, namely, should and does theputative theological dimension imprint itself on thecomplex relational nature of all relational experience,etc., and if it were to do so how might we tell atheological contribution apart from a relatively non-theological contribution; hence the problem of non-differentiation. (30)

But the next problem is this: if we were able todifferentiate this holistic imprinting of the Divinecomplexion from the relatively non-Divine then it couldonly be done through which meta-textual genres; hence theproblem of framing? (31)

But if all things were to be treated as equal, impartially(as preparation for the critical exercise of the overalltranscendental suspension, e.g.) it would follow that wewould not be able to differentiate a theistic frame from anon-theistic frame in the reality of our experience; hencethe problem of equivalence. (32)

But a theologian needs to positively demonstrate that a

34

theological difference actually makes a difference as ameta-theological difference; hence the problem of differentiation.(33)

Now, these four primary theological problems collapse intotwo sets which then can be collapse into one problem underthe problem of theological integration through re-integrated-differentiation. (34)

‘Non-differentiation’ is the problem (for thephilosophical theist) where the essential nature of theputative theological complexion of the Life-World is soclosely overlaid upon the nature of the world as livedthat it is perceived as that which is not able to bedisentangled from the latter (especially without anapposite frame of reference). (35)

‘Framing’ is the problem where the essential nature of theputative theological complexion of the Life-World is soclosely overlaid upon the nature of the world as livedthat it can only be ‘perceived’ in and through an appositeframe of reference, so, how do we define a frame ofreference that assists the theist in that regard? (36)

‘Equivalence’ is the problem where the essential nature ofthe putative theological complexion of the Life-World, atface value, could be read in either a theistic or a non-theistic frame of reference with no good reason as to whyone or other style of interpretation should be chosen(except as a matter of personal preference, linguistichabit and/or cultural education). (37)

‘Differentiation’ is the problem that for a theology to betruly viable it should demonstrate that ability for it toboth work and work in such a fashion so as to successfullydifferentiate itself from a non-theistic interpretationhence its treatment of a putative theological differencemust be seen to make a positive theological difference inthe life of the devotee (through noting the ramificationsof this double differentiation). (38)

‘Integration’, as our ultimate problem, is the recognition

35

that through forms of existential dialogue a theologicaldifference can be positively engaged? (39)

Note how these problems collapse into two sets of two andthen one overall set (of integration) with its named form ofresolution (through re-integration). (40)

Non-differentiation and framing become ‘hermeneutic non-differentiation’ with a resolution through ‘de-non-differentiation’. (41)

Equivalence and differentiation (through a re-statedtheological difference) become ‘existentialdifferentiation’ with a resolution through ‘re-differentiation’. (42)

Then, our two sets of problems can be jointly resolved byexamining how integration through ongoing re-integrationcan be achieved; where hermeneutic de-non-differentiationand existential re-differentiation can be connectedthrough phenomenological re-integration in and through theauspices of the appositely and adequately enacted ongoingoverall transcendental suspension. (43)

Defining and redefining our theologies through anexploration of such resolutions. (44)

The problem of non-differentiation is just how could wedetermine the putuative input/s of a theologicaldimension/the theological dimension/s given that theessential nature of this contribution to essentialphenomenological experience so indiscriminately overlaysall forms of relational interaction. (45)

But this problem of finding a frame of reference isalready rendered non-problematic in the sense that it isalready thought through a requisite frame of referencethat merely needs merely to be re-adopted and re-adapted?(46)

Non-differentiation and Framing become Hermeneutic non-differentiation resolved through De-non-differentiation;and, Equivalence and Differentiation become Existential

36

differentiation resolved through Re-differentiation; allbecoming Integration resolved through Re-integration… (47)

Resolving our first two problems by invoking a reversal ofnon-differentiation through invoking insurance and assurance(that the sequential can be reversed and more correctlyre-written in accordance with genre). (48)

Resolving our last two basic problems by invoking reversionthat oversees a return to the distinctive nature ofexistential formation (and its representation, etc.). (49)

Finally these two problems further collapse into theproblem of integration or integrated-differentiationfinding resolution through re-integration, i.e., re-integrated-differentiation…. (50)

Now, it is for the theologian et al to utilize this formatin order to flesh out their own individual solutions, asresolutions, of this complex problem (and its implicationof a need for a dialogical integration through re-integration.) (51)

Hence the archetypal outline of our topic (from atheoretical perspective). (52)

In our phenomenal-phenomenological investigations thetheological discourse itself, obviously, is a moreconvenient point of focus for examination, thematizing,enaction and appreciation, etc. (53)

A theological discourse operates within the theologicalmode of life as a minor mode of life given multi-culturalism, respect for indigenous life-worlds,polyvalency or poly-political pluralism, etc. (54)

How does a discourse operate – in and through phenomenal-phenomenological texts, the hermeneutical meta-texts andexistential non-texts? (55)

Treating a discourse as an economic question of‘circulation’ with thematization, dissemination,communicative alignment, criticism, enaction, speculation,value formation, identity formation, etc., enacted within

37

those same limits. (56)

We need to realize that the existential economy is ‘aswirling vortex of significance-generation hovering overan abyss of sheer absolute unknowable emptiness’, and,that the only value that is there for-us is that realizedin and through engagement… and nothing else..! (57)

That it is through our existential co-option of such valueformation and identity formation that we can finddiscursive work and its successful investment. (58)

Intentional thematization is a discursive, epistemologicalphenomenon depositing texts, channeling modes of enactionin keeping with the same… all about the central overalltranscendental suspension. (59)

However, all forms of discourse have their limits andnaturally deconstruct when those limits are approached.(60)

In judgment various type of value are engaged in keepingwith the genre of appreciation being invoked hence anordered philosophy and analysis assisted through overallembracement. (61)

How, then, is the existential attitude profitably engaged,and, how can we do that when immersed in a theologicaldiscourse when its construction might be antithetical tosuch a course of existential impartiality? (62)

All discourses, authentically or inauthenticallyconstructed, are centered within the existential economywhich, itself, in turn, is centered in the overalltranscendental suspension… hovering above this swirlingvortex of meaninglessness… the moment engagement iswithdrawn…. (63)

But, there is hope, for by what we fall… by that we mayalso rise… through a process of re-orientation orreversion, i.e., re-existentialization through anexistentialization of the relatively non-existential! (64)

38

Whatever promotes this suspension, and its suspension,etc, promotes the existentialization of our livedexperience (as lived-experience), and, our alignment with thecenter of our being, perhaps, to some extent, even thevery center of Being itself..!? (65)

In finding a re-existentialization of attitude, in what isalready to hand, how do we know we have made such progressin this process of positive re-orientation and enactivere-direction through reversion, etc? (66)

In an appreciation of the ramifications that appear toflow from such a pro-relational stance we find acomparatively greater release of existential valueformation and parallel existential identity formation!(67)

How, then, should theological appreciation be appositelyand adequately enacted even in the midst of a relativelydefective theological discourse? – through the skilfulutilization of the overall transcendental suspension,through the unlocking of value and identity central to theoverall hermeneutic circle, in essence, invoking a pro-relational stance and its ensuing existentialization… or‘spiritualization’.?? (68)

In our critical theological appreciation let us re-examinethe imputations of a theological complexion to the World-of-Life, our central topic, and note its modes ofdiscursive theological dissemination, enaction, etc, frommeta-philosophical/meta-theological point/s of view. (69)

Now the central question was asked how do we existentiallyengage a process of theological/meta-theologicalreflection? (70)

The simple answer is in the very same way we were toengage it in the first place, i.e., through thesuspension… and its suspension, etc! (71)

A more complex answer answers for us a number ofproblematic issues along the way that will need to beasked and answered in order to make better sense of this

39

quest for verification, self-verification, rectificationand self-rectification… (72)

Even for those whom a theological discourse has a positiveresonance they should note that all discourses,theological and non-theological alike, hover over the samesuspension central to the existential economy, but, thatsuch a center, itself, should never be sought lest weidentify ourselves with the senselessness of that vortexof meaninglessness about which all things defer. (73)

By ‘verification’ is meant a positive return on ourpsychic investments through finding an effective alignmentwith this world as lived. (74)

By ‘self-verification’ is meant that this process ofverification has a life of its own capable of re-directingits own verification in existential terms even though thetheological per se, i.e., some form of the Divine, is neveritself verified… only the existential value that isrealized. (75)

By ‘rectification’ is meant the ability of the theologicaldiscourse itself to correct its own mis-interpretation,waywardness, non-existentially directed patterns ofenaction, etc. (76)

By ‘self-rectification’ is meant this ability of thetheological discourse to appositely and adequatelyreinforce its own positive ramifications through emergencethrough being treated at face value and not becomesubjected to absolute reduction, etc. (77)

Then, we can set out to appreciate the point of view ofthe theist although there are many way this can beattempted; e.g., through taking a total linguisticapproach and ‘seeing’ the Divine totality through parts ofspeech without privileging or excluding some grammaticalform of comparison… (78)

Treating the Divine topic as a nominative albeit withoutthe limitations that surround the relativity of finitethings? (79)

40

As an accusative in the sense of an objective to beapproached through integration and its ensuing self-re-alignment? (80)

Or, as an instrumental in order to let it assist yourselfin and through a more pragmatic approach? (81)

As a dative of purpose in the sense that if a theologicaldiscourse works for you then let it supply meaning for youas long as it is tempered in and through an existentiallens (and its insistence on an existentialization of therelatively non-existential). (82)

Along the lines of a genitive as in the objective andsubjective readings of the imputed love-of-God; or someother attribute that can serve a similar co-purpose. (83)

Perceiving an ablative in the sense that intervention canoccur within the Divine relationship through chaoticmoments of bifurcation… from within any level inepistemological organization. (84)

Invoking a locative… but taking a stand that sees thedevotee within the Divine and not the other way round…giving deference to that which deserves the same? (85)

Or as a problematic vocative, as a point of address, or,as a verb involving enaction through intervention, or,that figure of speech that can never be pinned down…shape-shifting between noun.. to verb… to adverb… toadjective… to be read as a pronoun… as words andsentences… as beyond the cramped pages of any religiousbook… and so on..?? (86)

Can the topic of any discipline be understood and engagedapart from its discursive mode of life? – “no!” (87)

On the other hand, in a relationship we are in a directrelationship with that which is in that relationship withus, albeit with whatever that might be. (88)

We are beholden to the existential economy and its endless

41

circulation… although such deferring need not be a viciouscycle but can become a virtuous circle… thence theopenness of the theological condition!? (89)

Still, we are the stuff that stars are made of, and,although as puny as worms upon a stage, yet we can look upinto the heavens and admire such a sight, as a vision ofwonder… and even if a gardener would not bother to namethe worms working in their garden, still, they mightappreciate their continual labour and say to themselves…that my garden can grow a plethora of produce… things herethat are beautiful, other things that are goodness itself,some things that are useful, other things resplendent withmeaning with still other things redolent withmeaningfulness… bypassing doubt… and surpassing all mannerof thought..?! (90)

An open discourse is ever open to supplementaryconsiderations just as the preservational andconservational treatment of regular relationships is moreclosely viewed through our investment and divestment ofour ‘interest’ as in irregular relationships, etc. (91)

Given that the imputation of the Divine demands relationalinteraction it follows that its presence and/or absence,intervention and/or non-intervention, etc., occur in thissame phenomenal-phenomenological world as lived in by-ourselves and that this ‘fact’ of confrontational equalityshould not be overlooked! (92)

However, given the pre-condition of superiorepistemological organization it follows that Divineappreciation cannot be reduced to non-Divine forms ofappreciation without absolutely ruling out their non-coincidence hence appreciative inequality. (93)

That through attuned existential receptiveness to ourembracement in our relationships it implies that we could,as a hopeful possibility, more closely mirror thisimputation of the Divine. (94)

Thence the practicalization of a theological discourse

42

through the discursive practicalization of the theologicalhowever that might be envisaged, etc. (95)

That the nature of the transcendental versus the nature ofthe non-transcendental mirrors dialectical equality versusnon-dialectical inequality, and, this is reflected in ourappreciation of the theological complexion wheneverdiscerned in our phenomenal-phenomenological appreciationof the Life-World as lived. (96)

Intervention in a theological discourse must co-opt theobjective, inter-objective, subjective and inter-subjective dimensions (thence the co-option and possiblemodes of intervention through subjects either individuallyand/or collectively, etc., in whatever tentative, viablemanner that might be envisaged by theologians, etc. (97)

Given the co-existence of ideal dialectical possibilitiesthence the paralleling of all theologies such as, e.g.,those of light versus darkness, surpluses versus emptinesses,feminist theologies versus non-feminist theologies, etc.(98)

The imputation and exposition of a theological differenceand a meta-theological difference implies the need for atheoretical thematization, practical enaction and criticalappreciation. (99)

Although, from the transcendental perspective, let usrealize that there can be no theological difference in anyform whatsoever, however, for those theists who cannotunderstand this point, merely insist such a ‘difference’should be engaged from an existential point of view inthis world as lived..!! (100)

Noël Tointon,Sydney, 31.1.14/10.2.15.