Progressive Epistemology

[minsocal]

A sobering note:

 

Madison County, Idaho was once dubbed "the reddest place in America" by Salon, but that didn't make it any less shocking when elementary school children allegedly started chanting "assassinate Obama" on the school bus.

 

Matthew Whoolery told KIKD News he found out about the chanting from his second and third graders, who had no idea what the word "assassinate" meant.

 

"They just hadn't heard anything like this before," Whoolery stated. "I think the thing that struck us was just like, 'Where did they get the word and why would they put that word and that person together?'"

 

Whoolery, a psychology professor at Brigham Young University in Rexburg, is not an Obama supporter, but he was shocked that any public official would be threatened in that way. "I don't think that the majority of people in Rexburg have extreme ideas like that, but we were just surprised that it would go that far," Whoolery told KIKD.

 

The Madison County School District has sent out an email saying that students are to be told this sort of behavior is unacceptable.

 

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Idaho_studen...ma_on_1112.html

 

There is nothing subtle here. I want to crash the the "higher level" into this ... it speaks for iteself.

[rivanna]

minsocal,

 

What’s the point of posting stuff like this on your own Epistemology topic? as a former minister surely you have something more constructive to offer.

 

I’m not a big fan of Alfred North Whitehead – seems more esthetic than spiritual. But he did consider peace the supreme value. “Peace comes as a gift….Its first effect is the removal of stress arising from the soul’s preoccupation with itself. Peace carries with it a surpassing of personality. It is primarily a trust in the efficacy of Beauty….Peace is the intuition of permanence….Peace is self control at its widest.”

[David]

Minsocal,

 

You have made several points. You have stated that any rational being must possess a strong sense of altruism and that universal altruism is a prerequisite for rationality. It seems to me that you are looking for what the language of epistemology would call “a priori”. If I understand you correctly you would state that altruism is “in the genes”. I would suggest that the potential for altruism is “in the genes” but only when experience “justifies” it does it become actual. I do not think that rationality is the source of the “justification” for values. In one sense it is “irrational” for that lady to throw herself in front of the car and save her grandchildren. But obviously this story connects to us at a deep level so something else is going on.

 

Again rationality is too often associated with the division between the subject and the object. I would suggest that only through the actual experience of “intersubjectivity” can altruism be “justified”. Within that experience there is a “deep knowing” that takes place and I would not disagree that there is a genetic component that is involved. However, knowing about genetics tends to be done via the classical separation between subject and object probably because we can only see genes as objects. Something more has to be said about all of this besides “it is in our genes”.

 

This may speak to your point that “knowledge is not sufficient to determine ultimate values”. We may know about our genes but that is not sufficient. I would suggest however that the “knowledge of intersubjectivity” is “justified” by the experience of intersubjectivity so that the more intense those experiences are, the more “justified” the knowledge becomes. In that sense such knowledge is sufficient to determine values. You can argue all day long about values based upon “rationality” and get nowhere without that “justification” based upon experience.

 

You state that epistemology lacks passion. I would suggest that passion is integral to progressive epistemology. Passion is a part of that “deep knowing” or a part of that “personal knowledge”. Passion is “justified” by the experience of passion. Passion is not passionate when it is limited to words as rationality often wants to do. Reason may not be the slave of passion but neither is passion the slave of reason.

 

Thanks for the conversation.

 

David

[David]

Let me attempt to summarize my point. There is not one epistemology that is used to support different theologies or philosophies. One can not say that if we all just agree to be rational then we can talk to each other. Being rational for a person with a foundational tendency is much different than it is for a person with a coherent tendency.

 

I have pointed to another approach that I would like to call progressive epistemology that like Progressive Christianity is a work in progress. Michael Polanyi calls it Personal Knowledge which is based upon the personal participation of the knower in all acts of understanding. Unlike Descartes Polanyi would argue that our deepest, most true knowledge is not a result of the separation of subject and object.

 

I like the word intersubjectivity. Different thinkers have different words for what we are talking about but I sense that they are all basically talking about the same thing and that is an alternative to foundationalism and coherentism both of which assume that some separation between the subject and the object is necessary for knowledge.

 

It seems to me vitally important that before you start talking theology with someone that you determine whether that person is a foundationalist or a person who knows via personal knowledge or intersubjectivity. Without some basic agreement on epistemology words fly by each other but there is no communication.

 

I do not see much in common between Progressive Christianity and foundationalism. The importance of this observation can not be overstated. Because fundamentalist theology is consistent with foundationalism progressives react to fundamentalism. That reaction is typically based upon “rationality”. Such a reaction is not effective because for foundational thinking fundamentalism is rational. If the Bible is seen as the foundation by one person but is seen as part of a coherent unit by another then attempts to communicate about the Bible tend to be futile. This is even more true, dare I say absolutely true, for any attempt at communication between foundationalism and personal knowledge.

 

P.S. For those who are interested in the terminology of epistemology it is possible for a belief to be rational but not justified in the classical sense. I may rationally believe that a painting is beautiful without that being justified in the classical sense.

[minsocal]

David,

 

Much of what I have presented follows from Kant and his effort to reconcile a priori knowledge (rationalism) and a posteriori kowledge (empiricism). Both are forms of propositional knowledge, or knowledge that something is so. The two species of propositional knowledge do not exhaust the categories of knowledge. There is also non-propositional knowledge of something by acquaintance or direct awareness and there is knowledge of how to do something (which has been sadly neglected). When Kant finished his reconciliation, he needed a broader term for the result, and this he called "the judgment". This is mainly the product of the two species of propositional knowledge, but it accounts for all forms of "knowledge" in a coherent whole.

 

The novelty in all of this is that, at any time, I can judge an existing belief based on newly acquired knowledge, of all kinds. If that sounds "progressive", it is.

 

Jung took Kant one step further. There is a form of rational judgment that is qualitatively different form "thinking" in the ususal sense of the word. This is called Feeling Theory, and Jung added this to his model through the Feeling Function. Feeling theory is linked to emotion, but the link is too complex to explain here. In short, the idea is that emotion is interpreted in consciousness and then turned into propositions and stored in memory, leading to the common expression "I feel that (X) ..." versus "I think that (X) ...". For Jung, these are both rational judgments. There is a large body of feeling theory in both philosophy and psychology.

 

Kant also wrote a great deal on the subject of rationality. There are two froms of rationality. Theoretical rationalty which has to do with beliefs, and practical rationality which brings together knowledge and volition (action). Volition brings together knowledge and affect. The difference between theoretical and practical rationality has problably confused the discussion. I erred in not making the distinction.

 

Now back to intersubjectivity. We are in full agreement as to it's importance. When I talk about Nativism (innatedness) I am really asking two questions. In the case of intersubjectivity I am asking whether this is just an abstract concept to be learned or whether there is a biological substrate upon which a more sophisticated intersubjectivity is built. In other words, I am looking for evidence that intersubjectivity is more than a theory and whether intersubjectivity fits within Kant's reconciliation of rationalism and empiricism (see also Nativism following). The evidence indicates that the answer to these questions is "yes".

 

Wherever I talk about Nativism, I am talking about a rather simple concept. If I say, for example, that we are born with certain aptitudes or capacities which we develop over time into skills or competencies, I don't think this statement is very problematical. Reasoning is such a capacity. Intersubjectivity is such a capacity. Aptitude and capacity are nothing more than the modern terms for archetype and differentiated function. Understanding the development of skills from aptitudes answers a "how" question.

 

The ambiguity here is that the potential (aptitude) is "built into the system" ... however, this is a language game. To go from potenial to actual you have to add something ... but that is not how it works. The first time potential becomes actual, potential is no longer the same due to memory. We now have a new potential ... waiting for a new actual and so on. It's called process.

 

In the case of intersubjectivity, I use "how" knowledge to explain the "how" foundation of intersubjectivity. Here's how it works:

 

In our brains, and the brains of all mammals, there is a small structure called the amygdala. Actually, there are two of them, one in each hemisphere of the brain. It's about the shape and size of an almond. It is a highly complex structure. It has two primary functions: 1. to generate certain primary emotions (read innate) and 2. To read and interpret the emotions of other humans (read innate). Is modern science the first to recognize this dual relationship? No, it goes right back to Charles Darwin.

 

Also, the amygdala has a two-way communication pathway to where? The pre-frontal cortex where reasoning occurs!

 

Emotion, in my opinion, counts as knowledge. At this level (the basic level), it is non-propositional, but a direct awareness of the other. Because we share the same emotions, the other is "not me" but is "like me". Emotions are "subjective", so we now have a dialogue between "subject and "subject" and non-verbal at that. Three points:

 

1. How important is this form of intrinsic intersubjectivity? Well, if the social cognition function of the amydala is damaged, autism results.

 

2. In evolution, emotions evolved before the higher level function of reasoning. Nature played a joke on the philosopher and got there first (to intersubjectivity).

 

3. Intersubjectivity, just as Jung hypothesized, is a principle derived from nature (archetypal). The semantic trick of the philosopher is to separate humans from nature. But, if I am part of nature, I learn from my own nature. There are, of course, individual differences, so I have to learn about yours if you'll learn about mine. Intersubjectivity is: One person to one person? One person to their in-group? One person to all of creation? (Conservatives use intersubjectivity also, but quess which category)

 

As to foundationalism and coherentism. There can never be an either-or. This can be researched empirically, and it has. It has to do with how people store knowledge in memory. Most people use both strategies and neither is purely conscious. In fact, the two are only abstract concepts and other features of memory have beeen pointed out (with empirical evidence). In other words, foundationalism and coherentism are two aspects of memory structure, but only two that philosophers have abstracted from the whole of what is called memory.

 

A further point, research indicates whether we like it or not, there are innate differences between "liberals" and "conservatives". Progressives are a third category.

 

minsocal

 

Otherwise know as Myron (in Southern California)

[minsocal]

The overall criticism of philosophy and theology is very simple. Why, in fact, should the ideas of philosophy and theology mean anything to me? I have a brain and I can reason.

 

davidk,

 

You assume that no human individual has free will. My challenge to you, davidk is simply this; "prove humans have no free will". That is it davidk. Prove your hypothesis.

 

Give me your answer in propositional content please. No other format wiil be sincere. If you do not understand what I mean, exclude yourself from the converstion.

 

minsocal

[David]

Minsocal,

 

Thank you for all of the information.

 

I would not want to say that the statement “I feel therefore I am” is much different than the statement “I think therefore I am”. Emotion based upon a sizable split between the subject and object does not come any closer to what I am talking about than reason/thinking with that same large split.

 

What matters to me is an epistemology that is based upon that “meeting ground” between subject and object. Your statement that “emotion counts as knowledge” is associated with the statement that this is a relationship between subject and subject. That is not what I am talking about when I am talking about “personal knowledge” and again it is not based upon the “meeting ground” between subject and object. What I am talking about is the dance and the dancer, the song and the singer, etc. When the dancer dances, when the singer sings something happens in that “meeting ground” between subject and object. The singer becomes the song. The dancer becomes the dance. The song becomes the singer. The dance becomes the dancer.

 

Passion (emotion?) is certainly at the heart of this process but the dynamic is between subject and object (one can see the dynamic between composer and singer as subject to subject but the passion is not focused there when the song is sung). Perhaps I need to drop the word “intersubjectivity” since it may imply a subject to subject relationship. Let me go to “personal knowing” instead. Intersubjectivity is a word I picked up from Wilbur to describe the subject/object dynamic. Maybe he should drop the word also.

 

It seems to me that the “subject to subject” relationship can be based upon the subject/object dynamic that I am talking about. The singer becomes a part of a chorus. The chorus has an audience. Those “subject to subject” relationships however are dependent upon the subject/object relationship that I am talking about. Nothing happens if the songs are not sung and sung well in that “meeting ground” where the subjective and objective meet. The objective force (the song sung well) is what keeps the whole process from dissolving into a totally subjective experience of sounds.

 

I think that all “subject to subject” relationships also have a similar “subject/object” dynamic. The only question is whether there is that split or not.

 

So what does all of this have to do with Progressive Christianity? My two favorite topics are epistemology and ecclesiology. How we organize is directly related to how we know. It seems to me that it is obvious that the Christian Church has organized based upon foundational and coherent epistemologies. What would it look like if we organized based upon personal knowledge? (by the way I agree with you that these tendencies are not mutually exclusive and often exist within the same person).

 

David

[minsocal]

Minsocal,

 

Thank you for all of the information.

 

I would not want to say that the statement “I feel therefore I am” is much different than the statement “I think therefore I am”. Emotion based upon a sizable split between the subject and object does not come any closer to what I am talking about than reason/thinking with that same large split.

 

What matters to me is an epistemology that is based upon that “meeting ground” between subject and object. Your statement that “emotion counts as knowledge” is associated with the statement that this is a relationship between subject and subject. That is not what I am talking about when I am talking about “personal knowledge” and again it is not based upon the “meeting ground” between subject and object. What I am talking about is the dance and the dancer, the song and the singer, etc. When the dancer dances, when the singer sings something happens in that “meeting ground” between subject and object. The singer becomes the song. The dancer becomes the dance. The song becomes the singer. The dance becomes the dancer.

 

Passion (emotion?) is certainly at the heart of this process but the dynamic is between subject and object (one can see the dynamic between composer and singer as subject to subject but the passion is not focused there when the song is sung). Perhaps I need to drop the word “intersubjectivity” since it may imply a subject to subject relationship. Let me go to “personal knowing” instead. Intersubjectivity is a word I picked up from Wilbur to describe the subject/object dynamic. Maybe he should drop the word also.

 

It seems to me that the “subject to subject” relationship can be based upon the subject/object dynamic that I am talking about. The singer becomes a part of a chorus. The chorus has an audience. Those “subject to subject” relationships however are dependent upon the subject/object relationship that I am talking about. Nothing happens if the songs are not sung and sung well in that “meeting ground” where the subjective and objective meet. The objective force (the song sung well) is what keeps the whole process from dissolving into a totally subjective experience of sounds.

 

I think that all “subject to subject” relationships also have a similar “subject/object” dynamic. The only question is whether there is that split or not.

 

So what does all of this have to do with Progressive Christianity? My two favorite topics are epistemology and ecclesiology. How we organize is directly related to how we know. It seems to me that it is obvious that the Christian Church has organized based upon foundational and coherent epistemologies. What would it look like if we organized based upon personal knowledge? (by the way I agree with you that these tendencies are not mutually exclusive and often exist within the same person).

 

David

 

David,

 

The simple fact is that theory left Descarte behind long ago. Darwin was not a philosopher, and he recognized that there is no sizeable split between subject and subject. In order to communicate with my cat, I have learned to read his emotions and body language. Over the years, it has worked out pretty well. If I get it wrong, he lets me know in no uncertain terms. If he gets it wrong, he reads my body language and offers a cat apology. I accept and peace prevails.

 

To "think" and to "feel" is to abstract oneself from the "object" during the period of deliberation. Deliberation, decision, or judgment is of limited duration. It is not the grounds for having a "self", it is when the self as agent must choose. Choice presupposes a responsible self with free will. Otherwise, everyting is deterministic and any further discussion is moot. My comments, in this respect, were aimed at intersubjectivity and agency. Both are required.

 

To be clear, I reject subject-object language and I am not alone. the term is often arbitrary, and one has to read a theory very closely to determine what is meant by "object". "Object" is an artifact of philosophical gyrations, and usually does not have the same meaning in psychology.

 

As far as my own experience is concerned, my church is already organized on personal knowlege. And, by the way, the theory is very old. George Boree calls it the epistemic perspective and notes that of all the options, it is the most time consuming. In my opinion, many Progressive Christians are willing to take on the task where others opt for less rigorous solutions.

 

Myron

 

BTW, Boree does a very good job in ranking the various perspectives in acending cognitive "load". Foundationalism ranks fairly low and coherentism is significantly more demanding. The epistemic (personal) is the most demanding of all, and few are willing to go there.

[davidk]

The overall criticism of philosophy and theology is very simple. Why, in fact, should the ideas of philosophy and theology mean anything to me? I have a brain and I can reason.

 

davidk,

 

You assume that no human individual has free will. My challenge to you, davidk is simply this; "prove humans have no free will". That is it davidk. Prove your hypothesis.

 

Give me your answer in propositional content please. No other format wiil be sincere. If you do not understand what I mean, exclude yourself from the converstion.

 

minsocal

 

The challenge is why you have mistaken me for someone else, for I have not hypothesized man as not having a free will.

 

 

--

 

After Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, and Kierkegaard the whole of epistemological concept changed. Before them, in epistemology, man always thought of the methodology of epistemology in terms of ("a" is not "non-a")- anitihesis. That is if something is true, its opposite is not true. Following Kant, Hegel developed his famous triangle where; everything is a thesis, setting up an antithesis, where the answer is always synthesis. That's when the whole world changed in the area of morals, political science, and in the area of knowing itself. To these 4 rationalistic men the knowledge we can know with our reason is only a math formula in which man (downstairs) is only a machine. Apart from reason, they hoped through some sort of mystical experience to provide the optimistic universal (upstairs).

 

From here we feel the drift of the 1960's drug movement. Man hopes to find something in his own head because he cannot know for certain that anything is "out there". This is where we are. Before these 4 men, man had a romantic hope that on the basis of rationalism he was going to find a meaning to life, and put universals over particulars. But after Kiekegaard, rationality is seen as leading only to pessimism. We can have "mathematical" knowledge (downstairs), but any kind of optimism one could have concerning meaning (upstairs) would have to be in the area of non-rational. They have left us no longer believing in the hope of truth as truth and with nothing having any real meaning, specifically man is a zero. And we wonder why we are treated like a number.

 

So man makes his leap "upstairs" into all sorts of mysticisms in the area of knowledge, totally separated from all rationality, being only semantic mysticisms dealing only with words that have nothing to do with what is there, simply concerned with what is in one's own head.

We are in a situation known as rational positivism for scientific fact (mathematical) with man as a machine; and in the non-rational area we find the non-rational mysticisms.

---

Along comes Michael Polyani's book Personal knowledge, an introduction to Post-critical Philosophy where he thoroughly destroyed rational positivism by arguing that positivism is inadequate because it does not consider the knower of what is known, and that a totally innocent, objective observer is utterly naive; but it revealed the dilemma that even though no scientist does not feed knowledge through which he sees and finds, science cannot exist without an observer. Polyani says the observer is never neutral; he has a grid, he has presuppositions through which he feeds the thing which he finds.

 

Linguistic analysis filled the vacuum in positivism's absence. Positivism had left everyone not with knowledge but statistical averages and approximations, with no certainty of continuity in the things that were there. This seems to be related to the stream of consciousness psychology that ends up with nothing but a stream of concsiousness, because it is not sure that an "I" is there.

 

That leads us to Ludwig Wittgenstein who argues that down here in the world you have facts: the propositions of natural science. This is all that can be said; for it is all that you can put into language. But as Bertrand Russel emphasized, Wittgenstein was a mystic who put silence in the "upstairs" because you could not talk about anything outside of the known world of natural science. This left Wittgenstein with a dilemma that while he observed man's desperate need for values, ethics, meanings to all, there was only silence.

 

From there he later plunged into linguistic analysis, which is at this time the dominant philosophy all over the world and born from the inadequacies of positivism.

What that has left us with is an anti-philosophy, because everthing that makes life worhwhile, or gives meaning to life, or binds it together beyond just isolated particulars is in total silence.

[davidk]

The overall criticism of philosophy and theology is very simple. Why, in fact, should the ideas of philosophy and theology mean anything to me? I have a brain and I can reason.

 

davidk,

 

You assume that no human individual has free will. My challenge to you, davidk is simply this; "prove humans have no free will". That is it davidk. Prove your hypothesis.

 

Give me your answer in propositional content please. No other format wiil be sincere. If you do not understand what I mean, exclude yourself from the converstion.

 

minsocal

 

The challenge is why you have mistaken me for someone else, for I have not hypothesized man as not having a free will.

 

 

--

 

After Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, and Kierkegaard the whole of epistemological concept changed. Before them, in epistemology, man always thought of the methodology of epistemology in terms of ("a" is not "non-a")- anitihesis. That is if something is true, its opposite is not true. Following Kant, Hegel developed his famous triangle where; everything is a thesis, setting up an antithesis, where the answer is always synthesis. That's when the whole world changed in the area of morals, political science, and in the area of knowing itself. To these 4 rationalistic men the knowledge we can know with our reason is only a math formula in which man (downstairs) is only a machine. Apart from reason, they hoped through some sort of mystical experience to provide the optimistic universal (upstairs).

 

From here we feel the drift of the 1960's drug movement. Man hopes to find something in his own head because he cannot know for certain that anything is "out there". This is where we are. Before these 4 men, man had a romantic hope that on the basis of rationalism he was going to find a meaning to life, and put universals over particulars. But after Kiekegaard, rationality is seen as leading only to pessimism. We can have "mathematical" knowledge (downstairs), but any kind of optimism one could have concerning meaning (upstairs) would have to be in the area of non-rational. They have left us no longer believing in the hope of truth as truth and with nothing having any real meaning, specifically man is a zero. And we wonder why we are treated like a number.

 

So man makes his leap "upstairs" into all sorts of mysticisms in the area of knowledge, totally separated from all rationality, being only semantic mysticisms dealing only with words that have nothing to do with what is there, simply concerned with what is in one's own head.

We are in a situation known as rational positivism for scientific fact (mathematical) with man as a machine; and in the non-rational area we find the non-rational mysticisms.

---

Along comes Michael Polyani's book Personal knowledge, an introduction to Post-critical Philosophy where he thoroughly destroyed rational positivism by arguing that positivism is inadequate because it does not consider the knower of what is known, and that a totally innocent, objective observer is utterly naive; but it revealed the dilemma that even though no scientist does not feed knowledge through which he sees and finds, science cannot exist without an observer. Polyani says the observer is never neutral; he has a grid, he has presuppositions through which he feeds the thing which he finds.

 

Linguistic analysis filled the vacuum in positivism's absence. Positivism had left everyone not with knowledge but statistical averages and approximations, with no certainty of continuity in the things that were there. This seems to be related to the stream of consciousness psychology that ends up with nothing but a stream of concsiousness, because it is not sure that an "I" is there.

 

That leads us to Ludwig Wittgenstein who argues that down here in the world you have facts: the propositions of natural science. This is all that can be said; for it is all that you can put into language. But as Bertrand Russel emphasized, Wittgenstein was a mystic who put silence in the "upstairs" because you could not talk about anything outside of the known world of natural science. This left Wittgenstein with a dilemma that while he observed man's desperate need for values, ethics, meanings to all, there was only silence.

 

From there he later plunged into linguistic analysis, which is at this time the dominant philosophy all over the world and born from the inadequacies of positivism.

What that has left us with is an anti-philosophy, because everthing that makes life worhwhile, or gives meaning to life, or binds it together beyond just isolated particulars is in total silence.

[McKenna]

Perhaps comprehension is not just my problem. To discuss is to examine or investigate by reasoning or argument by presenting various sides, an exchange of views, debate.

 

The thread is entitled "replying to Progressive Epistemology". I am replying.

 

Er, not to be picky, but I thought I'd just point out that the thread is actually just titled "Progressive Epistemology." It says "Replying to Progressive Epistemology" when you are replying to the thread. So actually the point of the thread was to define Progressive Christian Epistemology from within, not to debate it from the outside.

 

Anyway, carry on.

[minsocal]

The challenge is why you have mistaken me for someone else, for I have not hypothesized man as not having a free will.

--

 

After Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, and Kierkegaard the whole of epistemological concept changed. Before them, in epistemology, man always thought of the methodology of epistemology in terms of ("a" is not "non-a")- anitihesis. That is if something is true, its opposite is not true. Following Kant, Hegel developed his famous triangle where; everything is a thesis, setting up an antithesis, where the answer is always synthesis. That's when the whole world changed in the area of morals, political science, and in the area of knowing itself. To these 4 rationalistic men the knowledge we can know with our reason is only a math formula in which man (downstairs) is only a machine. Apart from reason, they hoped through some sort of mystical experience to provide the optimistic universal (upstairs).

 

From here we feel the drift of the 1960's drug movement. Man hopes to find something in his own head because he cannot know for certain that anything is "out there". This is where we are. Before these 4 men, man had a romantic hope that on the basis of rationalism he was going to find a meaning to life, and put universals over particulars. But after Kiekegaard, rationality is seen as leading only to pessimism. We can have "mathematical" knowledge (downstairs), but any kind of optimism one could have concerning meaning (upstairs) would have to be in the area of non-rational. They have left us no longer believing in the hope of truth as truth and with nothing having any real meaning, specifically man is a zero. And we wonder why we are treated like a number.

 

So man makes his leap "upstairs" into all sorts of mysticisms in the area of knowledge, totally separated from all rationality, being only semantic mysticisms dealing only with words that have nothing to do with what is there, simply concerned with what is in one's own head.

We are in a situation known as rational positivism for scientific fact (mathematical) with man as a machine; and in the non-rational area we find the non-rational mysticisms.

---

Along comes Michael Polyani's book Personal knowledge, an introduction to Post-critical Philosophy where he thoroughly destroyed rational positivism by arguing that positivism is inadequate because it does not consider the knower of what is known, and that a totally innocent, objective observer is utterly naive; but it revealed the dilemma that even though no scientist does not feed knowledge through which he sees and finds, science cannot exist without an observer. Polyani says the observer is never neutral; he has a grid, he has presuppositions through which he feeds the thing which he finds.

 

Linguistic analysis filled the vacuum in positivism's absence. Positivism had left everyone not with knowledge but statistical averages and approximations, with no certainty of continuity in the things that were there. This seems to be related to the stream of consciousness psychology that ends up with nothing but a stream of concsiousness, because it is not sure that an "I" is there.

 

That leads us to Ludwig Wittgenstein who argues that down here in the world you have facts: the propositions of natural science. This is all that can be said; for it is all that you can put into language. But as Bertrand Russel emphasized, Wittgenstein was a mystic who put silence in the "upstairs" because you could not talk about anything outside of the known world of natural science. This left Wittgenstein with a dilemma that while he observed man's desperate need for values, ethics, meanings to all, there was only silence.

 

From there he later plunged into linguistic analysis, which is at this time the dominant philosophy all over the world and born from the inadequacies of positivism.

What that has left us with is an anti-philosophy, because everthing that makes life worhwhile, or gives meaning to life, or binds it together beyond just isolated particulars is in total silence.

 

An interesting comentary. I have already pointed out that Kant is not a rationalist. His work is a synthesis of rationalism and empricism. As to Hegel, I have a problem with the proposition that "the whole world changed". That is an opinion, and opinions are not universally shared. For example, Hegel's work had little influence in England. Perhaps you would provide a comparison of Kant's notion of "synthesis" to Hegel's? I would find that interesting and productive in the context of this thread. I would also be interested in a comparison of your history to the modes of thought defined by Janet more that 100 years ago.

 

Your last comment leaves me completely confused. Much of what I have been presenting here owes a debt to several prominent fugures in the philosophy of language who fully contradict your claims.

[minsocal]

Language frequently fails in the same manner that propositions fail. Take the example "God loves us". This is not a full proposition. It could be revised to say that "I believe God loves us", but this is a full proposition including the word "that". The two forms are:

 

God(loves us) In this case I cannot reduce God to a full proposition. Reciprocally, there is "I love God", or

Love(God).

 

and ...

 

Bel(that God loves us)

 

The difference between the two is all important. Our feeling of love is very different from our analysis of what love is. I was fortunate enough to have been taught this as a child, and it has stuck with me all my life. This is but one example of over emphazing full propositional content with truth conditions. This is a point I have made several times in various threads on this board. Love cannot be reduced to rational analysis. And, if God is Love, then God cannot be reduced to rational analysis with full propositional content. That is what Whitehead points out in the final chapter of "Process and Reality". Whitehead literally states that love is not rational, and is "just a bit amoral".

 

If, as davidk claims, the Bible is the word of God expressed in verbal propositions we have a second problem. In order for the proposition to be "true", the sender and the receiver would have to be in perfect accord with each other. In other words, God's intentions would have to perfectly map to the intentions implicit in what is written. That requires a person with perfect knowledge of God. Unless, of course, God wrote the Bible without a human translator. No matter what, there must be a perfect match, not only of content, but of shared knowledge of intentions on both parties. What psychology has shown is that it is impossible for this perfect transfer to occur. This drives some people into following the philophers angst and despair.

 

I say .... so what. It only means we have to try hard to ensure we grasp the wider meaning. It takes work. That's it. Let the philosophers despair, as they always have.

 

Language gives us a powerful tool. But, it needs to be used with care, rather than despair. Our friends the philosophers have made numerous mistakes. It's time we accept them as human for those mistakes and stop elevating them to a god-like status. This applies to psychology as well. Freud developed a highly regarded theory. As a theory, it's not bad. The only problem is that it has failed to match the facts in the real world. But there are Freudians who cannot accept that fact.

 

Let's move on into the future and enjoy the process.

 

As a final comment, let me say that there have been many instances where non-rational intuitions have led to new discoveries that have entered into the rational world of facts.

 

davidk,

 

In your history of epistemolgy, you left out the powerful emphasis major thinkers placed on intuition.

[davidk]

Er, not to be picky, but I thought I'd just point out that the thread is actually just titled "Progressive Epistemology." It says "Replying to Progressive Epistemology" when you are replying to the thread.

You are quite correct. Thank you.

 

So actually the point of the thread was to define Progressive Christian Epistemology from within, not to debate it from the outside.

 

Anyway, carry on.

I appreciate that. I agree progressive epistemology needs to be defined.

--

An interesting comentary. I have already pointed out that Kant is not a rationalist. His work is a synthesis of rationalism and empricism. As to Hegel, I have a problem with the proposition that "the whole world changed". That is an opinion, and opinions are not universally shared. For example, Hegel's work had little influence in England. Perhaps you would provide a comparison of Kant's notion of "synthesis" to Hegel's? I would find that interesting and productive in the context of this thread. I would also be interested in a comparison of your history to the modes of thought defined by Janet more that 100 years ago.

 

Your last comment leaves me completely confused. Much of what I have been presenting here owes a debt to several prominent fugures in the philosophy of language who fully contradict your claims.

minsocal,

I do not mean to diminish the importance of Kant to modern thinking. But it was Hegel that was the one who actually changed the rules of the game in two areas: epistemology and methodology. Prior to Hegel (including Kant who's system broke upon his trying to find a way, any way, to bring the phenomenal world of nature into relationship with the noumenal world of universals {his synthesis}. It is during this time when we find nature is now really so autonomous that determinism began to emerge and applied to people. Despite this effort man still had an intense longing for human freedom. However, freedom was also seen as being autonomous. The individuals freedom is not only as freedom without the need of redemption, but as absolute freedom. Rousseau's philosophy had carried it to an extreme, but Kant had wrestled over the exhausted rationalistic possibilities), all philosophies went something like this: someone draws a circle which would encompass all of thought and all of life. The next man said that wasn't the answer and drew another circle. Then the next man... well you get the idea. It's no wonder the study of the history of philosophy can be no joyful endeavor.

 

Hegel picked it up here and developed his methodology of synthesis (everything is a thesis, setting up an antithesis, where the answer is always synthesis) that was more profound than the endless circles being drawn. It is this very method in the approach to the question of truth and knowing that changed the world. His thinking led to this: all things are relativized.

Rationalistic man changed out of desperation and not because he wanted to, because rationalistic thought had failed. So the new choice was being made and it consisted of holding on to rationalism at the expense of rationality.

Hegel was often classified as an idealist. He hoped for a synthesis which would somehow have some relationship to reasonableness and he used religious language in his struggle. This only ended in religious words rather than a solution.

It was Hegel that opened the door to what is now characteristic of modern man: truth as truth is gone, and synthesis, with its relativism, reigns!

 

The basic principle of man in rebellion against God is that man is at the center of the universe, autonomous. Here lies man's rebellion. Man insists on keeping his rationalism and his rebellion. Man insists on total autonomy or partially autonomous areas, even if it means giving up his rationality.

--

In your last comment, are you saying your authorities disagree with the idea of Linguistic Analysis being dominant, or that it is an anti-philosophy (one that provides no answers for 'meaning')?

Language frequently fails in the same manner that propositions fail.

This comes right out of the Linguistic Analysis' playbook. Me thinks you may not be familiar with the philosophy of Linguistic Analysis, with its roots in the philosophical thinking of Wittgenstein; and is not just the academic analysis of grammar or literary texts.

-Either way, however, "God loves us." is most assuredly a fully propositional statement.

-Whitehead made 2 propositions to which I concur; the forefathers of modern science believed the universe was created by a reasonable God and therefore the universe could be found out by reason. 2nd; it must be spoken to be known.

-We have a problem with your "...second problem.": ie; My mechanic told my daughter what the situation was with the car, and she wrote it down to give to me. She was accurate in what she wrote, but has no idea what he was talking about.

-I would just as well as you leave the philosopher despairing in his own juices. Unfortunately these despairing philosophies have worked their way through the culture, only lastly to reach religion.

-The problem with the philosophy of "intuition" is simply that it is man trying to find something in his own head because he cannot know certainly that anything is "out there".

[minsocal]

You are quite correct. Thank you.

I appreciate that. I agree progressive epistemology needs to be defined.

--

 

minsocal,

I do not mean to diminish the importance of Kant to modern thinking. But it was Hegel that was the one who actually changed the rules of the game in two areas: epistemology and methodology. Prior to Hegel (including Kant who's system broke upon his trying to find a way, any way, to bring the phenomenal world of nature into relationship with the noumenal world of universals {his synthesis}. It is during this time when we find nature is now really so autonomous that determinism began to emerge and applied to people. Despite this effort man still had an intense longing for human freedom. However, freedom was also seen as being autonomous. The individuals freedom is not only as freedom without the need of redemption, but as absolute freedom. Rousseau's philosophy had carried it to an extreme, but Kant had wrestled over the exhausted rationalistic possibilities), all philosophies went something like this: someone draws a circle which would encompass all of thought and all of life. The next man said that wasn't the answer and drew another circle. Then the next man... well you get the idea. It's no wonder the study of the history of philosophy can be no joyful endeavor.

 

Hegel picked it up here and developed his methodology of synthesis (everything is a thesis, setting up an antithesis, where the answer is always synthesis) that was more profound than the endless circles being drawn. It is this very method in the approach to the question of truth and knowing that changed the world. His thinking led to this: all things are relativized.

Rationalistic man changed out of desperation and not because he wanted to, because rationalistic thought had failed. So the new choice was being made and it consisted of holding on to rationalism at the expense of rationality.

Hegel was often classified as an idealist. He hoped for a synthesis which would somehow have some relationship to reasonableness and he used religious language in his struggle. This only ended in religious words rather than a solution.

It was Hegel that opened the door to what is now characteristic of modern man: truth as truth is gone, and synthesis, with its relativism, reigns!

 

The basic principle of man in rebellion against God is that man is at the center of the universe, autonomous. Here lies man's rebellion. Man insists on keeping his rationalism and his rebellion. Man insists on total autonomy or partially autonomous areas, even if it means giving up his rationality.

--

In your last comment, are you saying your authorities disagree with the idea of Linguistic Analysis being dominant, or that it is an anti-philosophy (one that provides no answers for 'meaning')?

This comes right out of the Linguistic Analysis' playbook. Me thinks you may not be familiar with the philosophy of Linguistic Analysis, with its roots in the philosophical thinking of Wittgenstein; and is not just the academic analysis of grammar or literary texts.

-Either way, however, "God loves us." is most assuredly a fully propositional statement.

-Whitehead made 2 propositions to which I concur; the forefathers of modern science believed the universe was created by a reasonable God and therefore the universe could be found out by reason. 2nd; it must be spoken to be known.

-We have a problem with your "...second problem.": ie; My mechanic told my daughter what the situation was with the car, and she wrote it down to give to me. She was accurate in what she wrote, but has no idea what he was talking about.

-I would just as well as you leave the philosopher despairing in his own juices. Unfortunately these despairing philosophies have worked their way through the culture, only lastly to reach religion.

-The problem with the philosophy of "intuition" is simply that it is man trying to find something in his own head because he cannot know certainly that anything is "out there".

 

The history of the development of Progressive Christianity begins, to a large degree, with Kant. It also owes a considerable debt to Whitehead. To my knowledge, Hegel played only a minor role, if any. My concern here is only with the history and development of Progressive Christianity and its evolving epistemology. As I have already noted, Hegel had little influence in England where Moore and Russell mounted a successful counterattack. I remind you of this from Whitehead (1929. p. 166), "In the place of Hegelian hierarchy of categories of thought, the philosophy of organism finds a hierarch of categories of feelings." This is the only technical reference Whitehead makes to to Hegel in "Process and Reality."

 

Progressive Christianity is more in line with Whitehead who stated so clearly that "the ideas these men intorduced into the philosophic tradition must be construed with limitations, adaptations, and inversions, either unknown to them, or even explicitly repudiated by them. A new idea introduces a new alternative; we are not less indebted to a thinker when we adopt the alternative which he discarded."

 

As to intuition, I am using it here in the technical sense following Kant and Whitehead. I do not intend to launch into a lengthy explanation. Anyone interested can simply do the research on their own.

 

As to Linguistic Analysis I invite you read the current work of John Searle, a major source I have used for many of the points I have already made. It is Searle, like Whitehead, who is saying that the old traditional categories no longer serve us very well, and its time to "give them up".

[minsocal]

You are quite correct. Thank you.

I appreciate that. I agree progressive epistemology needs to be defined.

 

If I may be so direct to point out what I have already asked ... why is it that conservatives use this tactic on so many message boards? The only relevant definition here has to do with the word "progress". See, its so simple. Progressive means change. Progressive means change. Change is a process, a transition from one era to another. If you want to nail down a static progressive epistemology, you simply do not have a grasp of what that entails. Some people just cannot tolerate change ... and some cannot tolerate the acquisition of new facts about the real world. Too bad. It's all about a personality that can positively engage change and a personalty that resists change.

[davidk]

minsocal,

 

The request to define progressive epistemology is from McKenna's initial question. She was trying to get us back to that. I had only agreed with her intent to have someone define it. If that search is what constitues conservatism, so be it.

 

You have defined progressive as meaning "CHANGE". That's fine. And you have more than explained the importance of Kant's philosophy of change (through synthesis) as well as implied his emphasis on intuition. That's fine, as well. The self-criticisms of his own work inhabited some of his later writing, and others called his work problematic and an unsolved mystery. Sighting for example: man being the originator of experience; and simultaneously arguing determinism and free will.

Most importantly regardless of all of his changing and intuitions, Kant always believed that the rational structure of the mind reflected the rational structure of the world. That the "operating system" of the processor, by modern analogy, matched the operating system of reality. Or that science can only deal with conditioned realities. Making it very difficult for most later philosophers to take Kant's overall system seriously. Something many progressives have a tendancy to overlook.

 

My only emphasis on Hegel is on his Synthesis in his approach toward truth, which is most profound.

---

Others may or may not agree with your perspective on change, perhaps because "CHANGE" does not intrinsically mean right or wrong. Even so, some calling themselves progressives can't define those terms either. That's OK, too.

 

This is what dialogue is all about. Talking about what we each consider to be important in our walk through this life and into the next(?). Civil discourse is sometimes difficult to maintain when personal thoughts, that have taken an entire lifetime to form, are called into question.

---

I believe 'static' a poor word to describe what McKenna is asking for, by your implication: stagnation. She is looking for something she can "hang her hat on". I could very well be wrong but she seems to be looking to see if progressive epistemology has anything that can be counted on or based upon. ie; an absolute.

---

I'm sure as you say, there must be people who refuse new facts and want no change at all. Maybe it's just that I don't know any of them. There is change worth resisting- change for the worse.

-----------

Just a re-hash on an unanswered question:

(A)re you saying your authorities disagree with the idea of Linguistic Analysis being dominant, or that it (has left us with) an anti-philosophy (one that provides no answers for "meaning")?-Dk

 

I was hopeful you'd give a simple answer of one or the other, I don't really need to read the man's entire work!

[JosephM]

I keep seeing the word 'epistemology' thrown around on these boards, but I don't know if I've seen a cohesive definition of what exactly a progressive epistemology would be.

 

On what do progressives base our knowledge? How do we "know" what we know?

 

How does reason fit in? Or revelation? The Bible? Jesus? Personal experience?

 

...

 

I have pretty well, up to now, avoided this topic because it is my view that Progressive Christianity has no epistemology. Epistemology is to the best of my understanding a branch of philosophy that is mostly based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods. Though a Christian may leave so called fundamentalism because of his/her critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs which indeed comes under the word philosophy, it seems to me the progressive is continually advancing or moving forward in a different direction and is more guided by his/her practical experience not with reasoning as much as with intuition or spiritual insight which is most difficult to categorize or explain.

 

It seems to me we do not base our knowledge on a philosophy that mostly remains stagnant once a critical analysis has been made and a statement formulated. Rather it is my experience in Progressive Christianity that uncertainty by these means are accepted as the normal and there is a continued openness to a more clearer or concise subjective understanding from means that transcend such seemingly absolute answers by a reasoning mind whose nature is highly subjective and conditioned. In fact some of us have realized that the human creature itself can never know Truth except to glimpse it by subjective experience. Yet at the same time, there is an essence or underlying layer that encompasses this very nature of the creature and in it, there is found no need to ask "how do we "know" what we know? by virtue of being That.

 

In such a case, reason has no place, nor revelation, nor the Bible , nor the continuing need for Jesus or personal experience. Nor for the label Progressive Christianity for that matter.

 

Just another input for those reading to consider in regard to the question posed.

 

Love Joseph

[minsocal]

davidk,

 

The word "change" is unsatisfactory for many Progressive Christians. I ask you this very simple question. What is wrong with seeing Christianity in a new, meaningful and vibrant way? The art of "progress" (read progressive) is to preserve order in the midst of change and change in the midst of order. Change, in this sense, is the future oriented "how" of epistemology, not the "what" of true or false beliefs (read propositions). To know "how" is very different from knowing "that".

 

minsocal

[Guest wayfarer2k]

...It seems to me the progressive is continually advancing or moving forward in a different direction and is more guided by his/her practical experience...

 

This is what I find intriguing (and frustrating) about progressive epistemology. I'm not as intelligent as many on this board so I'd just define epistemology in layman's terms: how do we know what is real?

 

On this subject, the subject of reality, Christians and secular philosophers have a wide range of responses. Naturalists and many humanist claim that only what can be perceived with the senses is real. Matter, energy. On the surface, this seems logical, until we stop to think that our five senses are extremely limited and biased in perceiving what we call reality. For instance, if a creature existed that had no sense of sight, how could you convince him of the reality of light waves, of a visible universe. Scientists are forever finding things that are "invisible" to our senses that, so they say, influence reality greatly.

 

One of the hot topics in science is the notion of multi-verses, alternate realities. Christians typically dismiss this notion are pure fantasy, pure conjecture. Oddly enough, they will, at the same time, blow their horns about the existence of an unseen "spiritual reality" that overlays or intersects with the natural universe. In fact, many Christians insist that the natural universe sprung from the supernatural universe. So while Christians deride the notion of multi-verses, they claim that the spiritual, supernatural plain is "more real" than anything we can experience with our senses.

 

So how do we decide what is real? As you say, Joseph, progressive concepts tend to focus more on practical experience. I have never had a mystical experience of God whereby I know that I know that I know God is real. So I am probably an agnostic who respects alot of what Jesus said and did. My wife, on the other hand, is a Southern Baptist and even if I proved to her that the bible is unreliable, that the church is often wrong, that Jesus may just be a fictional character, she would still claim that God is real because she has "experienced" him. I envy her that. I respect her experiences although I don't share them. She is convinced that God is real while I am not. But we both agree that "being good" is the goal of our human journey. She sees a relationship with God as key to that process where I see it as the better part of humanism. Who is right? Does it matter? Isn't the proof in the pudding?

 

bill

[JosephM]

This is what I find intriguing (and frustrating) about progressive epistemology. I'm not as intelligent as many on this board so I'd just define epistemology in layman's terms: how do we know what is real?

 

On this subject, the subject of reality, Christians and secular philosophers have a wide range of responses. Naturalists and many humanist claim that only what can be perceived with the senses is real. Matter, energy. On the surface, this seems logical, until we stop to think that our five senses are extremely limited and biased in perceiving what we call reality. For instance, if a creature existed that had no sense of sight, how could you convince him of the reality of light waves, of a visible universe. Scientists are forever finding things that are "invisible" to our senses that, so they say, influence reality greatly.

 

One of the hot topics in science is the notion of multi-verses, alternate realities. Christians typically dismiss this notion are pure fantasy, pure conjecture. Oddly enough, they will, at the same time, blow their horns about the existence of an unseen "spiritual reality" that overlays or intersects with the natural universe. In fact, many Christians insist that the natural universe sprung from the supernatural universe. So while Christians deride the notion of multi-verses, they claim that the spiritual, supernatural plain is "more real" than anything we can experience with our senses.

 

So how do we decide what is real? As you say, Joseph, progressive concepts tend to focus more on practical experience. I have never had a mystical experience of God whereby I know that I know that I know God is real. So I am probably an agnostic who respects alot of what Jesus said and did. My wife, on the other hand, is a Southern Baptist and even if I proved to her that the bible is unreliable, that the church is often wrong, that Jesus may just be a fictional character, she would still claim that God is real because she has "experienced" him. I envy her that. I respect her experiences although I don't share them. She is convinced that God is real while I am not. But we both agree that "being good" is the goal of our human journey. She sees a relationship with God as key to that process where I see it as the better part of humanism. Who is right? Does it matter? Isn't the proof in the pudding?

 

bill

 

You make good points Bill,

 

Oddly enough my wife also considers herself a Baptist and I am okay with that. It seems to me that each one of us is on a conditioned path being neither 'right' nor 'wrong'. Everything is just as it is. There is no need to judge another or their path. Some have had a genuine experience yet are stuck in tradition. It is what it is. When we have had our fill of stagnation, we will be open for further evolving and it seems to me the right circumstances and wisdom will always present itself.

 

It seems to me there is no need to be concerned about not having mystical experiences. One cannot make them happen. To me there is much truth in the saying "no one can come to God except the spirit draw them". God is your very life force whether you can feel that presence or not. Why should we fear God whose very essence is the substrate of our existence? Whether God slay me or raise me up to sit in high places is of no concern as I am always at his mercy whether in life or death. Life is more than this physical existence and even if one thought this not to be so, what does it matter in the scheme of things. Shortly this body will pass to dust and only my essence in God remains. It is the holding on to that which perishes that brings forth suffering and anguish in this life. One who has surrendered to this has nothing to suffer or fear.

 

Just some words on the matter to consider.

 

Love Joseph

[minsocal]

davidk,

 

I have a few simple questions. (1) This thread seeks to define Progressive eptistemology... (2) If you are not a Progressive Christian... (3) Why should any Progressive Christian here take you seriously? Does anyone here really need your conservative guidance? If so, why? Please spell it out exactly.

 

minsocal

[Guest wayfarer2k]

Why should we fear God whose very essence is the substrate of our existence? Whether God slay me or raise me up to sit in high places is of no concern as I am always at his mercy whether in life or death.

 

That's where, for me, progressive epistemology enters the picture. My religious and spiritual roots are in "the God of the Bible", as you well know. If anyone has ever read that book, then one knows that there is PLENTY of reason to fear God. There is PLENTY of reason to expect God not to have mercy. After all, the God of the bible is often an angry deity and either commits wholesale genocide, commands his people to, or, through the person of Jesus, threatens humans with unending torture. This "God" is one to be feared, one who does not promise mercy.

 

If all Christianity can offer is this God, the God of the bible, then it has, in my opinion, nothing but fear and superstition to peddle.

 

Progressive epistemology, the best of it (IMO), says that as humanity matures, our understanding of what we call God needs (in fact, requires) reinterpretation, even recasting. The God I believe in today, if indeed I do, bears almost no resemblance to Yahweh. And it doesn't even look much like the father of Jesus.

 

I hate to digress back to labels, but labels are shorthand. If we didn't need them, we wouldn't have them. Progressive Christians do, in fact, claim to be Christian. And they claim to be progressive. But, just like me, their understanding of God, Jesus, the bible, salvation, etc. does not look very much like what the bible itself presents, what historical, traditional Christianity offers.

 

That is, to me, a good thing.

 

But it also leaves us wandering in a no-man's land where all of our definitions are nebulous and, perhaps, in the birthing process. As you say, it is what it is. But I doubt it is Christianity.

 

bill

[JosephM]

That's where, for me, progressive epistemology enters the picture. My religious and spiritual roots are in "the God of the Bible", as you well know. If anyone has ever read that book, then one knows that there is PLENTY of reason to fear God. There is PLENTY of reason to expect God not to have mercy. After all, the God of the bible is often an angry deity and either commits wholesale genocide, commands his people to, or, through the person of Jesus, threatens humans with unending torture. This "God" is one to be feared, one who does not promise mercy.

 

If all Christianity can offer is this God, the God of the bible, then it has, in my opinion, nothing but fear and superstition to peddle.

 

Hi Bill,

 

My religion roots are no different than yours should i choose to identify with them. However, I also do not choose to limit the limitless to a book or a religious label. Nor can i find a place in God where fear is present.

 

Progressive epistemology, the best of it (IMO), says that as humanity matures, our understanding of what we call God needs (in fact, requires) reinterpretation, even recasting. The God I believe in today, if indeed I do, bears almost no resemblance to Yahweh. And it doesn't even look much like the father of Jesus.

I have no problem with that statement.

 

I hate to digress back to labels, but labels are shorthand. If we didn't need them, we wouldn't have them. Progressive Christians do, in fact, claim to be Christian. And they claim to be progressive. But, just like me, their understanding of God, Jesus, the bible, salvation, etc. does not look very much like what the bible itself presents, what historical, traditional Christianity offers.

 

That is, to me, a good thing.

 

The Bible has no lock on the label or word Christian. In it , it states in Acts 11:26 they (his followers) were first called Christians in Antioch. The New Testament Bible didn't even exist at that time so believing what it says had nothing to do with being called a Christian. Jesus did not call himself a Christian and it merely meant follower of Christ. If you follow Christ (the logos), you may call yourself a Christian. The churches interpretation of it is their business. If you are not stagnant and moving forward in your walk with Christ you may call yourself a Progressive Christian. In my view all labels do you an injustice and personally i don't need one but if one must, Progressive Christian is as good as any.

 

But it also leaves us wandering in a no-man's land where all of our definitions are nebulous and, perhaps, in the birthing process. As you say, it is what it is. But I doubt it is Christianity.

 

I guess it really doesn't matter then. Does it?

 

Joseph

[minsocal]

davidk,

 

I would like to engage in an experiment in communication. It is a communication of both "fact" and of "value". Facts are either true of false, but not all facts have equal value. Genocide is a fact. It has taken place or it has not. Genocide also has a value. Value has two components, polar and scalar. The polar component is multi-binary and not singular as commonly portrayed by many philosophers. The questions raised by both Jung and Whitehead have to do with the relative value of concurrent facts, states of affairs, etc. and how psychological values fit within any eptisemological system. Genocide is both a fact and a state of affairs. The enormity (emotional intensity) of genocide casts our discussion into the realm of value. Unfortunately, genocide is "positive" in some forms of thought. This is the ugly head of Social Darwinism, a notion that early Progressive Christianity fought against. It is a notion that Jesus battled against long before the concept was invented. Score one for Jesus on this account. Also score one for the followers of Jesus. Genocide, under almost all possible circumstances, has negative value for Progressive Christians. By extension, protracted poverty imposed by the state or by the church is a form of genocide. You might think this is trivial, but I recently monitored a debate on another message board where the entering premise was that "overweight" people should not be offered access to universal health care. Note the oxymoron, "universal" is no longer universal. The proponent of the argument actually said that we would be better off if these "fat people" died before they could procreate. I doubt whether Jesus would accept that "proposition", but it remains a proposition in need of a judgment.

 

Point number 1. Progressive Christianity rejects Social Darwinism, and accepts the fact that the Bible anticipated this rejection. The early Bible represents the Social Darwinistic view still present amongst us, and the Prophetic view represents the progressive view still present amongst us. Both views predate rationalism. Score one for the Bible.

 

The early accounts of God are that of a God of Wrath and later, that of a God of Love. These are two very different emotions. It was the prophets who facilitated the transformation of both fact and value regarding the nature of God. In this sense, score one for the Bible. The larger progressive context subsumes the smaller. In addition, the prophets did what they did long before the Western conception of rationalty developed philosphically. This point cannot be ignored. What, exactly, prompted the transformation? It had, in a very important sense, to be "prerational". Call this universal moral intuition. Also note that it destroys any "East - West" dualism. Universal and absolute must be just that. Period. Nothing absolute can be Christian only.

 

To answer this last question, we turn to empirical research. Whether we like it or not, research indicates that we do not come into life as morally "corrupt" individuals. Score one for science. (Unexpected, huh?) Here is a second assumption generally accepted by Progressive's and often rejected by conservatives, evolution could not have led to a self destructive species. This is another way of symbolizing the transformation of a God of Wrath into a God of Love. In this sense, the Bible anticipates the theory of evolution.

 

"Change" is not a satisfactory term for Progressive Christians. The word fails to denote the difference between determinism and indeterminism. The genious of Kant was to allow for both. Jung followed this path, as did Whitehead. What is called "bottom-up" processing is deterministic. Top-down processing is indeterministic. The later includes the possibility of free will without any guarantee.

 

There are two notions of free will that must be considered. The first comes from Thomas Reid. An agent with free will must have two options. I must be free to act or not act, believe or not believe, etc. Augustine, in a moment of resignation, said of the Trinity "Iwould not believe it if the church did not require me to believe it." This is the dogma of an institution called the church, but an institution called the church is a different set of facts (Searle).

 

Point number 2. Progressive Christianity generally accepts the transformation of the concept of a God of Wrath (Hate) into a God of Love. Neither is rational, both are emotional. This is the core of Whitehead's perspective. It is, as he puts it, the consequent nature of God. Love, in this respect. is unconditional, where wrath was previously conditional. This change is most important. It is what I learned in Sunday School fifty years ago. It is the Progressive roots out of which my personality emerged. In psychology, this became the core assumption of Carl Rogers. If, as a human, you cannot reach the absolute of unconditional love, then practice the notion of an unconditional positive regard towards the "other".

 

If it were so simple! We are left with a host of moral dilemas to work out, individual and collective. Do I love mine enemy? Do I maintain a positive regard towards a person who molests children? When your beloved pet dies, will you cook it and eat it for dinner? If you see an adult strike an innocent child in anger ... is your first response rational? Better yet, whose side do you naturally take? The innocent child? The bothered adult?

 

Point number 3. Love is your first "absolute", but absolute love is seldom fully attained by humans. It is a goal, a purpose and not a "fact". It is a scalar value moving towards an absolute contained in (God). It is a value taught by Jesus. You can, with rational gyrations, turn it into a full proposition, but a full proposition is not the feeling of love. Love, as I am using the term here, has no truth value.

 

Point number 4. Love is not rational. A God of Love is not rational in the Western sense of the word. Unconditional love is inclusive. Progressive Christianity is primarily inclusive and not exclusive. Conservatives tend to make "Christiainity" an exclusive dogma, Progressives tend to make "Christian" a term describing a set of attitudes and behaviors. The difference is

all important. In the later sense, a person who follows the general principles taught by Jesus is "Christian" even if they never read the Bible or heard of Jesus.

 

Point number 5. Western thought does not supervene on all thought (Jung). Whitehead should have been more careful regarding this notion. Christian epistemology does not supervene on all epistemology.

 

Here, we have to make a clear distinctions concerning words. If, for example, you translate the Bible to say that we have "dominion" over the the natural world that is one thing. It is different to say that we must care for the natural world in which we live. The later is a Progressive value. These values are not subject to the truth value of a proposition. The proposition is subject to the value. This is the core of Whitehead and Jung. The alternative language has to do with the difference between a belief and a desire. To enterain the Bible as a set of beliefs is one thing, to see the Bible as a set of ultimate desires is quite another. Do you, or should you, want to see an end to poverty and human suffering? Again, score one for the teachings of Jesus. Epistemology is not just about "knowing that", it is about "knowing what" is desired and how to get there. That is practical reasoning. Facts, in isolation, are useless. For Progressives, values can exceed fact.

 

Epistemic Reality is what a private person judges to be "real". It is, as Whitehead puts it, a matter of Private Fact. What is "real" for the experiencing person is not limited to physical objects in a material world. Materialism is wrong on this point. For Kant, the judgement is based on "imperitives" imposed on the rules of thought. He did not realize that those "imperitives" concern more than the rules of logic. The persistent view that epistemology is exclusively linked to the rules of logic and "verbalized propositions" is simply false. The "proposition", verbalized or not, plays a role in a much larger process. In fact, current research indicates that "propositions" may not be necessary or even sufficient for reasoning. If this be the case, then Whitehead is correct. That is, there is evidence that we can (and do) form concepts without language. In this case, Kant was correct in placing intuition and concept formation prior to establishing the proposition. In the Kantian model, intuition is required to form concepts and concepts are required to form propositions. Whitehead and Kant agree on this if the discussion is limited to "bottom-up" cognitive processing. Bottom-up cognitive processing is the normal day-to-day mode of function for the brain-mind system. It is what Husserl called "the natural attitude".

 

To be very clear about this, my interest in Kant and Whitehead is based on the degree to which their philosophy converges with what we now know about the human brain. The mind that functions within that brain, is that of the structure and function of the brain, which requires "bottom-up" processesing and supports "top-down" processing when needed.

 

This brings me to a very important point. The early roots of Progressive Christianity are in the relationship of religion to the State and to the Enlightenment in general. (figure it out from here).