Defining an Orthodox ontology

[Rick H.]

Defining an Orthodox Ontology





Quotation:
Originally Posted by Owen Jones http://www.monachos.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?p=47815#post47815)
The fear of being nothing -- the hole in the donut -- in the presence of God, is the fear of a false self which is proven when we actually do surrender our lives to God and experience the fullness that results. It is a theoretical fear, that is cast out by the very real and practical alternative that one knows when one puts Christian spiritual principles into practice. If left untreated, this theoretical fear leads to a clinging to things as a form of resistance. INcluded in these "things" that we cling to is the world of ideas that the intellect uses to defend itself against any threat of loss of control. The self-centered intellect revels in the world of theoretical ideas.


I find these very perceptive comments - for which, thanks.

The raising of the issue of theoretical fears and the dwelling in theoretical ideas (here using the modern sense, of 'speculative, wondering', rather than the old theological sense of much of the Greek fathers, namely a perception of genuine theoria, or the true nature of things), is helpful.

It is this realm of the theoretical, of 'what if?' questions, that so often stunts or altogether prevents spiritual advance.

The same is just as true in interpersonal relationships: one fears love for all the theoretical difficulties or problems it may pose, etc.

But theoretical intellectual wanderings ultimately prevent one from making real steps toward progress, while at the same time feeding the mind and heart with a kind of drug that distracts them from even wanting to do so.

INXC, Matthew




Dear All,

Bar none, I think the above post by Matthew S. which includes a post by Owen Jones, provides a vehicle of learning without equal here at monachos. In the above it is stated:

-- The self-centered intellect revels in the world of theoretical ideas. (OJ)

-- It is this realm of the theoretical, of 'what if?' questions, that so often stunts or altogether prevents spiritual advance. (MCS)

-- But theoretical intellectual wanderings ultimately prevent one from making real steps toward progress, while at the same time feeding the mind and heart with a kind of drug that distracts them from even wanting to do so. (MCS)

and then after constructing a kind of web of belief (whereby there is distinguishing between 'the realm of theoretical wanderings' and 'a genuine theoria'), a move is made to link the realm of the theoretical with the realm of the 'what if?'

And, then it would seem that one is to draw the conclusion that this realm of the theoretical/'what if?' is to be associated with:

1.) A drug which produces apathy in the mind and the heart

2.) A thing that stunts or halts spiritual growth

3.) A playground for the self-centered intellect


to which I must say that I am very surprised at what appears to be being said here.

Initially, it occured to me that this post could easily fit into either the Orthodox Epistemology or the Orthodox Mindset threads; but, ultimately we are not dealing with theories of knowing here in this discussion. Here we are dealing with theories of being to be sure. Here with great speed we are swept away to an ontological ground as it relates to both displaying and defining an Orthodox Ontology in the true sense of the words.

And, I'm really not sure where to even start with this; however, regardless of whether one finds the comments in the above post to be very perceptive or very short sighted, regardless of whether one views these thoughts as the product of world class scholarship, or something less than, please look at what is being modeled in the above.

In short, knowing one's ontology models one's epistemology, what if the 'what if?' question brings into view what does, *in fact*, exist in reality, but would not have been recognized by some as such, without using the 'what if?' as a vehicle . . . In this case the 'what if?' serves as a sacrament and a tool of God's Grace, and we are forced to ask here as elsewhere, who would limit or confine the Grace of God? Who would do this? For that matter, why would anyone feel the need to limit or restrict the Grace of God in any way, shape, or form? This way of being is beyond me--to move any further in this direction is to lay the groundword for a thread titled "Defining the Grace of God"--thanks but no thanks.

Or, possibly even more to the point as we consider this topic, who is it that determines the true nature of the 'what if?' question--who is it that determines, who is the judge of the motives and intentions of the one who seeks to find his way of being in the true nature of things?

I will suggest that the one who would seek to limit the Grace of God and restrict thinking/behavior, in this way, is the self-centered controller/bully of the playground, or the seller of drugs on the playground in which in the end, there is a giving up and giving in of sorts to be found at best.

So now we have achieved something here in this electronic discussion group that is again a unique thing, I think. We have moved beyond our ways of knowing here, as of today. And, in some ways, from a distance using only words we are modeling what lies at the deepest core of our beliefs as it relates to our theories of being and in turn an Orthodox Ontology. And, this is a very subtle thing for which I will be surprised if many have an appetite for at the present. But, if not now, possibly another will come along in the future and read this and pick it up, because I am convinced that bar-none, this one is a real gold mine.

In Christ,
Rick

[Owen Jones]

There really is no such thing as an "Orthodox" ontology. First, because there is no such thing as a discreet realm of ideas. An idea symbolizes an experience. Second, because if there were a discreet realm of ideas, all ideas impinge on all other ideas. Third, it is a typical "history of philosophy" term that implies that philosophy is some body of knowledge apart from the experience of philosophizing (or theologizing). As such, it is first used in that way in the late medieval Latin West, which had a penchant for categorizing everything. It puts the cart before the horse, so to speak. Christianity is a way. That is not an ontological premise. It's like saying that Orthodoxy is a religion that has certain ontological truth claims. All is lost when we begin thinking that way.

[Rick H.]

All is lost when we begin thinking that way.




Dear Monachos Community,

Well, that was quick . . . one swing of the pick and I hit the mother lode!

Possibly there are some who would have preferred that Owen not be so blunt, so brutally honest; however; he is completely correct here. This is a very true statement.

Look at this seemingly very simple statement again please:



If we even begin to think this way, then all is lost.


and, please allow me to ask you simply, why is this a true statement?

In Christ,
Rick

[Michael Stickles]

Rick,

I started this before Owen's reply, but I think it's still relevant.

In the comments on the value of the realm of the theoretical, I think Matthew and Owen are right, and I also think you are right. It just seems you and they are looking at things in a subtly different way. (I'm not sure I understand the concept of Ontology very well, so I'm leaving that part alone for the moment)

The first thing that jumps out at me is that, where Matthew speaks of "dwelling in theoretical ideas", you mention "using the 'what if?' as a vehicle". In the first case, the theoretical realm becomes the reality, while in the second, it is a tool for exploring reality. The first can obscure what is truly real, while the second can help reveal it.

The first way is obviously a danger. Living in the Theoretical, we wall ourselves off from the Real (whether out of fear, pride, or both). Whatever problems may exist in our house of ideas, at least we know what to expect, so we grow less and less inclined to mentally "wander out the door" into the messy and unpredictable world we can't control.

The danger in the second is more subtle. To illustrate it, let me start with your statement:


And, in some ways, from a distance using only words we are modeling what lies at the deepest core of our beliefs as it relates to our theories of being and in turn an Orthodox Ontology.

The danger comes when we forget that we are merely modeling. If we stop understanding that in our ideas we are dealing with a model or map of reality, and start believing that we are directly grasping reality itself, we stop progressing.

Let me use myself to make an analogy. I love planning. Vacations, home maintenance projects, software programs, whatever. I can spend hours looking over maps, drawing up blueprints, or creating object diagrams. In a sense, my planning is playing around in the theoretical world. However, I have to constantly watch my tendency to start "living" there, to make the plan an end in itself rather than a means to an end, the actual finished product rather than a model of it. If I start down that path, true progress stops and the project (or vacation or program) will likely never get done.

And that, I think, is very similar to what Owen was talking about. If, instead of understanding that "Christianity is a way", we start thinking that "Orthodoxy is a religion that has certain ontological truth claims," then we stop moving along the Way and start analyzing it instead. We forget where the Way was leading us, and so lose the sense that we're supposed to be following it. We can eventually come to believe that analyzing the Way is the Way. That's when all is truly lost, for no man is more truly lost than the one who is lost yet sincerely believes that he knows where he is and where he's going.

In Christ,
Mike

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Abstraction is a mode whereby we interact with the created realm within which God places us. Thus to interact with God's creation there does not have to be abstraction on the part of the creature- many after all act by instinctive nature. But man as particularly created in the image & likeness of God interacts with creation in a particular way, as the microcosm of creation. This lets us know that abstraction then is a tool for acting within the created realm meant to tie this creation together by perceiving its significance and then proceeding on this account. As in the image of God for man to perceive and act is meant to be 'good'.

Two things however have distorted this power of man to abstract reality. One is the Fall in itself. This causes man to mis perceive reality and thus to act in its regard in a distorted and fallen fashion. Because of man all of creation now groans because man has betrayed his fundamental calling to tie together creation. Instead in the image of his own fallenness creation lies shattered.

A second reason for the distortion of abstraction is cultural. Our culture even in its secular form can be described as the result of a distorted Christianity. One result of this is that the fallen method of abstraction became a cultural value to itself from Medieval times onward. To this day it still is whether in its Enlightenment or Romantic manifestations.

To recover from this we have to follow the Fathers as they describe a kind of mental simplicity which results from ascetic purity within the Church. The most tragic example of our society's misperception is to have equated simplicity with stupidity. The saints however perceive reality in a simple & dispassionate fashion which then allows them to act as God's mediating hand within creation. Through this being is resurrected- an Orthodox ontology.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Rick H.]

Dear Mike, Dear Father Raphael, and Dear All:

Mike--you had better be careful or you are going to get a reputation for being a well balanced peacemaking Christian! :) Also, I want to thank you for your writing about "planning." I love to plan and to analyze as well, and again here we are reminded of the importance of not becoming unbalanced to the point of always planning and analyzing; but, never participating really. Thank you.

Father Raphael--As I read your last post I was reminded of both Owen's post and the words of Paul to the philosophers on Mars Hill. Owen says there is no such thing as an "Orthodox" ontology and that all is lost when we begin thinking that way. The Apostle Paul says for in God we live and move and have our being. Paul told these pagans that we are God's offspring and it is in God that we exist--have our being.

Now, when Owen says all is lost when we begin to think that way, if the 'we' is the ones who would promote an Orthodoxy with clearly identifiable boundaries and practices, then this is a very true statement. Becuase to approach an Orthodoxy with clearly defined boundaries and practices, in a way that would seek to define these boundaries would be to bring the whole house down--all would be lost!

However, as it relates to where we find our being, just as Paul has communicated this to the men on Mars Hill, when Owen says all is lost when we begin to think this way, I couldn't disagree more. And, sometimes there is such a fine line between the romantic and the mystical that it is indistinguishable, but now as we consider the words of Christ to His followers of the vine and branches in John 15, or the words of Paul elsewhere about living in the Spirit/ being in Christ it is more than clear that there is a Christian Ontology. This goes without saying. If ontology as a branch of philosophy is offensive because of any 'canned definitions of it found at an introductory level, or because of suspected scholastic or enlightenment influences (not that philosophy found its origination in any of these), then we can change the word Ontology to Bagelology (but it will still mean the same thing).

On an increasing basis it seems that there is a need to talk to my fellow Orthodox today, as I do those who have bought into the post-modern myth. The 'post-modern' will constantly run you in circles, and change word meanings when you try to bring definition to what they are saying, and they will try to tell you what words you can use and what words you cannot use (while they use whatever words they want). There are so many things in common here, in fact there is an Orthodox/'post-modern' common ground here coming into view more each day, week, and month. But, I think Celinda has a thread for this conversation elsewhere, Hmm . . .

But, back to an Orthodox Bagelology. You have said Father, in your last sentence, "Through this being is resurrected-an Orthodox bagelology." Okay, I'll stop . . . that's not what you said. You said:





Through this being is resurrected-an Orthodox ontology.



To which I agree, yes this is IT--there is a recovery and a retrieval involved. There is a resurrection taking place here as you relate this to creation and the fall (very good!). But, the question now is do we limit and confine and restrict an Orthodox ontology to this one particular fruit/result (aside from the means)? While I would agree with you 100% that simplicity is not to be equated with stupidity, I would also suggest that stupidity is not to be equated with complexity. As Peter said, some of Paul's letters *are* hard to understand. They didn't have a monachos Orthodox dictionary back then. :)

But, back to the summary question here--do 'we' limit the realization of a relational ontology (or a relational epistemology) to a kind of mental simplicity?

And, even just think about thinking about this for a minute please. Sometimes me thinks Owen is using philosophy to argue against the use of philosophy. You here are clearly able to communicate the Faith in a way that some are not. So, as we consider ways, means, vehichles, instuments, tools, etc., it would be ridiculous for any of us here to say that they are of no value as aids/pointers to the life in Christ for all of us who would grow in Christ. But, are we saying that . . .

And, I think I will just pull off of this here now and not go any further at this point.

But, again: do 'we' limit the realization of a relational ontology (or a relational epistemology) to a kind of mental simplicity? And, I used the wrong word in my first post Mike . . . I shouldn't have said 'modeling' (like a computer model), I should have said manifesting, in the sense of manifesting the reality of the situation (viz. one's ontology models/manifests one's epistemology).

So . . . Father, not all questions are yes and no questions, but, possibly this one is based on your imperative language in your assertion. If we do limit this, in this way (a mental simplicity), then let's just say we do.

Is this mental simplicity an exclusive way of knowing God and finding our being in Him?

Is this a one size fits all thing? Or do we allow room for the use/instrumentality of a type of integral way of knowing and being by the Holy Spirit?

In Christ,
Rick