COMMENTARIA IN LIBRUM PRIMUM SENTENTIARUM (St. Bonaventure’s Commentary on the Sentences )

The spectrum of my consciousness has, for the most part, evolved through a process of many entities, forces and experiences. It is from the vantage point of a lived life that I present this model of postfoundational conversations between scientific and theological reflection. These essays are designed to inspire ways in which we can cleanse the lens of our window in seeing, understanding, and embracing the wide scope of our shared reality. After carrying within me the wounds of experience, I came to realize that I carry a sense of vision that may prove to serve the larger community in moving more fluidity into the next season of our shared experience.

The goal of this collection of essays in transversal postfoundational thinking is to attain clarity of vision by embracing a multiplicity of voices in an on-going process of communication in a landscape overflowing with growth and change. Models are the governmental principles that make up our rich network of scientific and theological reflection and language, that is, a language to guide our research programs and express our core beliefs. With this in mind, I am seeking to present a rational, transversal and postfoundational model of communication that will combine the metaphoric languages of both theology and the scientific disciplines in order to have a clearer understanding of our shared experiences. In order to understand and appreciate that human experience, we must move away from rigid and narrow perspectives, and strive for an awareness of, and an openness to, an on-going paradigm model that provide a deeper, richer, wider sense of meaning.

The Eros/Agape paradigm as presented in this collection of essays is such an attempt and should be viewed as a “symbolic center” from which one can begin to embrace interdisciplinary conversations. It was Thomas Kuln (1962;158) who stated that:

“ The man who embraces a new paradigm at an early stage … must have faith that the new paradigm will succeed with the many large problems that confront it, knowing only that the older paradigm has failed with a few. A decision of that kind can only be made on faith. Something must make at least a few scientists feel that the new proposal is on the right track, and sometimes it is only personal and inarticulate aesthetic considerations that can do that.”

Anyone who has seriously been searching for a model of communication between various scientific disciplines, and an extended, larger scope that would engage the theological sphere, understands the need to bring clarity and focus to that which would enhance communicate within the various disciplines. To summarize and paraphrase Max Planck, “We must realize that over the entrance of the gates of the temple of interdisciplinary communication are written the words: “Ye must have faith.”

Once properly appreciated and applied, I believe, the paradigm that I refer to as the “Eros/Agape Paradigm’ will be very useful in providing us with an accessible and philosophically credible notion of interdisciplinary transversal communication between various disciplines within science and find a suitable space for reflection to include theology. Not only will it be helpful in the larger scale between these two very powerful forces, but this paradigm, I believe, will also be useful in encouraging communication among the sub-groups of each field.

The Eros/Agape Paradigm is a model designed to provide a method for gaining understanding in light of the fact that there is an increasing dissonance between the language of various disciplines within science and clearly within theology. This language dissonance is complicated by ever- increasing discord between theological models and the way people actually perceive themselves in this postmodern world. Often language itself helps create obstacles for human intellect.

Transversal, Postfoundational language, therefore, should be understood as a living, working metaphor for building communication between all these various disciplines. Language is the principal medium that a successful interdisciplinary communication model needs to advance their own programs and relate to the structure of others. Language is the bond that links all the branches of science and theology together. Our ability to appropriately use language is the most distinctive quality we have to propel us into our future, yet we often take language skills for granted. At the end of the day, it is our ability to communicate that distinguishes our species from all others.

A successful interdisciplinary model understands and takes into account the power and value that language and symbols brings. Language is productive and yet arbitrary. The actual word we use, for example, to describe something is not necessary connected to the thing in itself. Americans say, for example, one, two, three – but the Chinese say yi, er, san. Neither language has the correct word for the concept of numbers. The ability to attach meaning is simply based on various clusters of sounds that is symbolic, but accepted as correct in any given culture. Language is also a duality. Think of the sound of one, and the sound of won. They are the same. Duality is both a characteristic of and unique in, human communication. Once again, the sounds or vibration that we use has the ability to create symbolic meanings in the minds of the listener.

Alfred North Whitehead, in his remarkable book entitled ‘Symbolism: Its meaning and effect” (Fordham University Press –Barbour-Page lectures, 1927) speaks of the duality of symbolism as an attitude that exhibits an often unstable mixture of attraction and repulsion. The theoretic intellect, according to Whitehead, is seeking exact truth at all cost and often pushes aside symbols as being make-believe, veiling and distorting truth. There can be no doubt that whole-sale symbolism can have, and often does, “run wild” at times, much like the vegetation in a tropical forest. Symbolism therefore needs, at various times, to be pruned and re-defined in a continuous process of refinement to discover new, clearer forms of expression. Whitehead goes on to recount the old Latin proverb that states: “Nature, expelled with a pitchfork, ever returns”. This proverb is exemplified by the history of symbolism and language, for symbolism and language is ever inherent in the very texture or fabric of human language and thought. Words themselves are symbols. Words may be written or spoken. The written word is a symbol and its meaning is the spoken word, and the spoken word is a symbol for its meaning we have defined in the dictionary. Often the written word expresses the symbolic reference of both the spoken word and the dictionary meaning. In understanding symbolic references, Whitehead states that there are three considerations:

1. Two sets of components with some objective relationship between them, and this relationship varies in different instances;
2. The total constitution of the percipient has to effect the symbolic reference from one set of components, the symbols, to the other set of components, the meaning;
3. The question, as to which set of components forms the symbol and which set forms the meaning, also depends on the particular constitution of that act of experience.

Thus, we can conclude that while both science and theological reflection is shaped by its concrete embeddedness within a specific tradition and paradigm, it is also deeply shaped by its location within the ongoing, living paradigm and its unique set of language games within the wider scope of an interdisciplinary communications system. All of our language games, and our epistemological knowledge is embedded in, and a matter of, interpreted experience. Our paradigm, including its unique language games and its symbolic meanings, create a mood that filters into the fabric of how we think and into the way each discipline conducts its own internal business.

Language is a species-specific means of communication. Language is extremely complex in its phonological and grammatical systems. Language has a system of sound, a system of grammar, and a vocabulary. By leaning to use a transversal and postfoundational rationality when it comes to language games is extremely important.
Our language is a channel of sounds, of vibrations, generated by our vocal organs, perceived by our ears, and processed by our brains. Our voice, with its sound quality, is a disturbance of the air in which it is produced. Sound, therefore, can be understood in terms of its production, known as articulatory phonetics; its physical properties, known as acoustic phonetics; and its reception by the human ear and other organs, known as auditory phonetics. (See Language / Bolton / An Introduction, / St. Martain’s Press / page 9).

Every culture has its own internal language game, and its own internal jargon. Beyond the various styles of speech, each group and sub-group has a number of predetermined jargons based on their level within an organization. Let’s take the corporate Executive world as an example: Doctors, lawyers and accountants have specific, job-related terms into which a smart executive can shift into when the situation demands. You want to communicate and facilitate the image projection you are seeking, at various levels within a company. You speak differently to the Human Resource department than you would to the management team. You speak differently to the rainmakers than you would to the acting floor manager. Every time we speak, we are creating an impression of whom we are. One would do well to understand language’s power and ability to create and project a vibration that is designed to propel one into their future.

These essays, therefore, seeks to open a way towards a new model of communication that will be both workable and fruitful. I believe it is possible to partake in the plurality of language games between science and theology while holding on to our sense of rationality and faith, i.e. what others have called a ‘wide reflective equilibrium” - recalling our past, engaging the present, and lovingly projecting our future.

Out of our need to communicate and comprehend the vastness of both mind and space, past historicist models have been created and used. However, these past models of communication were limited in their scope and thus created boundaries, rigid traditions, and rituals. What these essays are trying to accomplish is finding a safe place to reflect upon the nature of an interdisciplinary conversation in which we may all benefit and gain a clearer view of our corporate perceived reality.

[...] Posted in : Thomist Tacos for the Soul    Wed, Oct 17 2007, 22:17 by St. Bonaventure of Bagnoregio, O. F. M. DOCTOR SERAPHICUS WITH TEXT OF THE BOOK OF SENTENCES BY PETER LOMBARD © 2006-7 English Translations, emendations and digitization of texts, unless otherwise specified. As Part of the Commentary Project … http://www.thomisttacos.com/2007/10/17... [...]

It is from the vantage point of a lived life that I present this model of reflection that seeks to cleanse the lens of our window, our deeper inner eye, in seeing, understanding, and embracing the reality of life. After carrying within me the wounds of experience, I came to realize that I carry a sense of vision that may prove to serve the larger corporate community in moving more fluidly into the next season of our shared experience. It is my hope that the reader will travel with me through some of these experiences and collect a shared sense of wonder.

The problem with life and reality in general, is that it never seems to stay put. It is always moving, changing, and flowing. It appears to be both here and there. Each moment of our experience reveals itself as a transition between two worlds; the immediate past and the immediate future. Every time one tries to get their mind around the present, it shifts into a remembered past or a projected future. Traditionally, classical science spoke of reality in terms of stability, permanence, determinism and certainty. Today, Quantum Physics, as a science, speaks of instability, change, indeterminism, uncertainty. The new understanding of reality introduces the idea that what we call “reality” is a complex system made up of interconnections and interactions between subject and object. All our attempts to comprehend reality seem to slip through our hands. Reality is always beyond our representation; it is always something different, something more than our limited, subjective measurements and imaginings can make of it.

In general terms we tend to see reality through the paradigmatic lens of either a Western or an Eastern perspective. Either way, reality appears to entangle us into a quagmire of puzzles, of language games, or some such mind-manifesting approach. Textbooks, for example, represent the bulwarks of existing paradigms. Even dictionaries, although necessary, are in fact problematic due to the fact that they preserve the errors of the past! We tend to deal with the world around us in the context of the paradigm in which we are taught by the dominant culture. We wrestle with the issues left unresolved within our paradigm in an effort to force answers into the inflexible box that the limited paradigm supplies. When reality doesn’t line up with our preconceived Models, instead of changing the Model, we try to change or deny reality.

Our current way of thinking determines the parameters and rules for the game. If, however, we desire insight and truth, we must then be determined to solve the puzzles of life by looking for missing pieces and connecting them into a cohesive whole. In general terms we tend to see reality through the paradigmatic lens of either a Western or an Eastern perspective. Either way, reality appears to entangle us into a quagmire of puzzles, of language games, or some such mind-manifesting approach.

It is only when we fail at puzzle solving that we become open for change and novelty. Failure can often be our best friend. Changes come only with the awareness of anomaly, i.e. with the recognition that the answer has somehow violated the paradigm-induced expectations that govern our normal way of “perceiving” things. Anomaly must emerge within the context of an existing paradigm; otherwise, we would be unable to even recognize it. Often we are not open to look for novelty until a crisis situation arises. Crises cause one to look for alternative paradigms. It is knowledge painfully acquired which moves us from one paradigm to another. In addition, it is a simple unpleasant fact that with each changing paradigm comes division within the community. There are always the defenders of the existing paradigm and proponents of a new paradigm.
It is crisis, however, which causes creativity to flow. It is knowledge painfully acquired. In many ways, this book seeks to present an overview of a complex intellectual and deeply spiritual journey. The issues raised here were born from many years of deep personal reflection on the nature of reality, and in particular, personal and professional advancement, from a philosophical and theological framework. We now have a clearer sense that our universe is much larger than we can imagine. It is a fluid and transcending, multi-leveled, vast, ever-increasing unity composed of various entities and elements. Our minds, our consciousness, it seems, are equally multi-leveled, vast, and ever-increasing in their ability to think and learn. It seems that, as a species, we are just now moving beyond the dawn of our sense of self-awareness.