tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5846671056195917287.post4501870622828983564..comments2024-03-12T00:51:27.766-04:00Comments on Ground Motive: It’s Time for Reformational Philosophyadmin1http://www.blogger.com/profile/16479743334126277132noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5846671056195917287.post-67949367794085503852016-01-29T10:30:35.344-05:002016-01-29T10:30:35.344-05:00Thanks Michael. Agreed that the details of this co...Thanks Michael. Agreed that the details of this conversation are best left for an in-person (and over-beverages) conversation. I'll just say this: I tend to think of 'unity' for Dooyeweerd primarily in the sense of the fullness of time/meaning, which is concentrated in the heart. But each individual thing's 'unity' is ultimately found only in the unity of creation as a whole. <br /><br />Not sure this will solve the problem you mention, though. I'll have to give it some more thought. Neal DeRoonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5846671056195917287.post-31461066361230927152016-01-28T21:46:40.616-05:002016-01-28T21:46:40.616-05:00Thanks for your response Neal. Naturally these are...Thanks for your response Neal. Naturally these are things best discussed at places like 229 College, either in a seminar room or (perhaps better) in the basement with appropriate libations. good times.<br /><br />Anyway, I'll put my "concern" about the STH one more way and then maybe leave it at that and hope for a time when we can thrash this stuff out properly. <br /><br />I see two motivations for Dooyeweerd to call the heart "supra-temporal:" (1) Anthropological -- i.e., to account for the uniqueness and radically religious nature of human beings; (2) his concept of time requires it in order to account for the concentric unity of the heart in such a way as to avoid reducing its unity to the inter-modal coherence of its functions. For D these pushed in the same direction so re-enforce each other.<br /><br />My hunch is that they actually conflict; that (2) actually vitiates (1) because it applies equally to all things -- their unity is also irreducible to the inter-modal coherence of their functions and so must be supra-temporal (because time is the medium for the refraction of unity into the various aspects).<br /><br />I also think that what Dooyeweerd wants to achieve anthropologically can be accounted for in terms of other parts of his ontology, but all that needs a great deal of elaboration and careful work that I can't do now. Thanks again for a thought-provoking article. Michael DeMoornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5846671056195917287.post-63703893616101429182016-01-28T17:07:19.443-05:002016-01-28T17:07:19.443-05:00Michael,
Yes a million questions is probably the...Michael,<br /><br /> Yes a million questions is probably the proper response to the supra-temporal heart. The whole theory is so under-developed that it's difficult to say too much--you quickly get beyond the letter of the text to trying to discern what would be consistent implications, etc. I'll do my best to do that here.<br /> I have one caveat, and then I'll try to answer. Caveat: It isn't entirely clear to me that the heart is the only point of refraction, and hence the only supra-temporal element. It is certainly a privileged one (for Dooyeweerd), and I can't offhand think of others, but the letter of the text seems to only connect the heart to the refraction that happens through the prism of cosmic time, not equate them wholesale. <br />That said, Dooyeweerd certainly privileges the human heart, and does so (I think) because of the anthropocentric view he holds: humanity is central to the creation order in a significant way, in large part because of its connection to Christ as the ultimate Root Unity. So, I'd say that only the human is heart-ed (I don't like the implications of the phrase 'has' a supra-temporal heart, as if it were part of us--it is rather the very condition of being an Image-bearer, that is, of being human)--but because of the interconnection of creation through the modal aspects and their expression from (and convergence to) the Root, the religious dynamic that works through the heart is expressed in a way that affects all of creation. This is easier to grasp in relation to the higher-order aspects(since they require the 'human touch' to be subjectively actualized), and I'm not entirely sure what it means for the lower aspects, but that seems, to me, to be consistent with the view. <br /><br />Does that make sense? And did I even answer your question adequately?Neal DeRoonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5846671056195917287.post-1173480030193463522016-01-28T15:17:35.294-05:002016-01-28T15:17:35.294-05:00Hi Neal. This is fascinating and it raises a milli...Hi Neal. This is fascinating and it raises a million questions, but I'll stick to one:<br /><br />If time is the medium through which the central unity of the heart is refracted into a variety of modes, then I certainly see why it is necessary for Dooyeweerd to maintain that the heart must be supra-temporal (i.e, in order to avoid dissolving unity into the mere systatic coherence between the modal aspects). But does that not imply that the unity of any and every "thing" (insofar as things are irreducible to their modal functions and the coherence between them) is likewise supra-temporal. What sets out the human heart as any different here? Does everything have a "supratemporal heart"? If it is not different, then does the religious dynamic rooted in the "heart" not also play in the functioning of every creature? If that's right, is that a good thing or a reductio of Dooyeweerd's conception of time?Michael DeMoornoreply@blogger.com