Wednesday, May 7, 2014

Metaphysical and postmetaphysical Christianity

Balder started an IPS thread on Kennilingam's five paths to enlightenment. One of them is esoteric Christianity. I was an esoteric Christian of the hermetic/qabalistic variety and responded as follows:

The point is the difference between metaphysics and postmetaphysics. In the latter there is an acceptance of fallibility, that there is always room for progressive knowledge. So it is always open to new evidence and change accordingly. But it also acknowledges that knowledge progresses, hence postmetaphysics is an advance over metaphysics. One of those advances is no longer accepting God as some sort of unchanging essence. And/or creator of the universe. It goes beyond the binary logic of two separate realms of absolute/relative, the former as creator of the latter. We still see this form of logic in kennilingus and the traditional systems he lists above. One can still allow for God in the sense of universals, but not in the metaphysical sense. I equate theism with the latter sense, so in that way atheism is not the equal and opposite of theism but the same advance from metaphysics to postmetaphysics.

But this is also fallible and will progress again with new evidence. Will it likely regress into metaphysics? Unlikely.

Also of note is that the Lingam does not list the sort of process Christianity* of Faber, Keller et al. as one of his paths, and to me this is a much more postmetaphysical form of faith. Unfortunately the only way metaphysical kennilingus can translate this type is as a sort of green relativism when it is in fact popomo.

* But he does list esoteric Christianity, and it is like his other choices metaphysical to the core as I've expounded at length elsewhere. And why I eventually left it when I went postmeta. And which still allows me to accept at least some of the process Christians like those mentioned, and especially Caputo. Although he's technically a de/reconstructive Christian, another branch within my balliwick. Also Cameron Freeman of the latter sort.

Correction. The five paths Kennilingam mentions are not per se metaphysical, just in how he chooses to translate them. I made an extensive case* that Madhyamaka can be interpreted postmetaphysically, but also metaphysically and the Lingam chooses those branches that do the latter.

* In this thread and its predecessor Gaia thread.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.