The postmetaphysics of religious difference

Balder started a thread at IPS of this name. Here are the first few posts. For the ongoing discussion visit the thread:

Balder:


I just came across an essay on religious pluralism which appears to touch on some of the themes we've explored here in the past (I've read the abstract and conclusion so far, and will dig in to the rest tomorrow.) The Postmetaphysics of Religious Difference.  For those interested, here's the abstract:


"This article contests the dominant paradigm in the theology of religions which promotes a type of pluralism purporting to recognise a limited form of “otherness” and “difference” but which emerges upon analysis to obviate these by incorporating religions into a single theological or philosophical schema, reducing their concrete plurality and particularity to an abstract unity based on ontotheological presuppositions. It therefore proposes a perspective that draws upon contemporary postmetaphysical thought, particularly the work of Rosenzweig and Levinas. It suggests that the appropriate posture in the face of religious difference is one that valorises otherness and nurtures and sustains religious difference."

theurj:

I too just read the abstract and conclusion so far. From that I glean this to be akin to your paper on religious pluralism. So I ask how has your view of kennilingus changed from the exploration of the other? It still seems to me that at root of kennilingus is exactly what this article, and religious polydoxy, criticizes. That is, an ontotheology of the one true reality at base of all religions within which all else must be 'transcended and included' (subsumed).

Also of note from the conclusion is the emphasis on the ethical as first philosophy, including justice. And how we've recently seen this apparent lack in kennilingus through the eyes of the critical theorists noted in that thread.

And also how this type of ethical pluralism seems more in line with some of the main tenets of OOO.

PS: It also seems that the type of QM Tom promotes also has this ontotheological base in positing a Universal Reality of All.

Just reading a few paragraphs into the section on abstraction he makes points I've made in the real/false reason thread. For example, ontotheological (metaphysical) arguments assume a disembodied ideal form at root of phenomena. "Such abstraction is executed and justified as if the perpetrators occupy an independent, overriding, or 'meta' position." Kennilingus par excellence, such abstract reasoning the root of hierarchical complexity, distinct from the strange mereology of OOO.