Johnboy January 30, 2012 at 8:28 pm #

Let me suggest a distinction between the unitary and theunitive.

When we’re talking vaguely about the STUFF of primal reality,we intuit that it all somehow has to share certain attributesin order for it to be able to interact, otherwise our accountswill suffer what the philosophers call a “causal disjunction.”How could a Creator, Whom we only describe metaphorically,ever interact with creatures if all we have to work with areanalogues? Try to have an analogy tonight for supper and seeif that fills you up! This refers, then, to a putative UNITARYbeing, hence INTRA (within) OBJECTIVE (an object).

At the same time, when talking about the self as a true agent,it violates common sense long before it becomes a metaphysicalconundrum to deny the reality of authentically interactingsubjects. This refers, then, to our UNITIVE strivings, henceINTER (between) SUBJECTIVE (persons).

Combining these insights we might affirm a panentheism. I callit a vague panSEMIOentheism because this meta-critique is astep away from the more metaphysically robust panentheisms,which rely variously on different root metaphors likesubstance, process, being, experience and so on. In otherwords, it is a semiotic realism, which suggests that, eventhough I’ve only offered a putative heuristic with some vagueplaceholders that lack robust descriptions (root metaphors),still, those placeholders might very well make successfulreferences to a putative primal reality in a way that we canrealize some SIGNificant value vis a vis our God-talk.

To be sure, much of what we seem to take away in our moreEastern-like experiences of the Indeterminate Ground of Being(just for example) seems to correspond to an experience ofabsolute unitary being (cf. Andy Newberg, neuroscientist) orintra-objective identity. Our more Western-like experiences ofa determinate Creator and creation seem to correspond to anexperience of our unitive strivings or inter-subjectiveintimacy.

Interestingly, people who’ve experienced either/both theunitary or/and the unitive come away with a profound sense ofsolidarity & compassion for all sentient reality and deepgratitude for all reality. These general categories are muchtoo facile though for authentic interreligious dialogue forthere are prominent devotional elements in the East (bhaktiand such) that affirm the value of our intersubjectiveexperiences.

Most of the valuable take-aways from Western encounters withthe East have been in the realm of practices and asceticisms,more epistemic than ontological. There’s more to be had by theWest, though, in further cultivating the Eastern wisdom ofremaining silent on all things metaphysical as it pertains toGod’s essential nature? Not that the West doesn’t have a great

1

apophatic tradition of its own. Let’s just say it’s beenunder-employed in many circles, just like our contemplativetradition, the reawakening of which remains in its infancy(post-Merton).

Was I too harsh on Wilber? I see the self as a quasi-autonomous agent, free-enough to realize values and not assome vestige of divine amnesia. In other words, there is atrue ontological distinction from which we realize value,inter-subjectively, vis a vis God and other persons in ourUNITIVE strivings. This is not to deny — but to held in acreative tension with — the notion that we and God, in somemysterious way, also share some of the very same “stuff” fromwhich we may have issued forth vis a vis primal reality,creatio ex nihilo notwithstanding. Otherwise, whither anydivine interactivity?

I’ve always thought the Hesychasts of Mt Athos might have beenon to something with their distinction between the divineessence and the divine energies. Maybe they were on tosomething — not in a robustly metaphysical way, but — andproviding us a vague meta-critique? So, I’m only suggestingthat Wilber’s account would be fine once sufficiently nuanced.

I’d also like to affirm Cynthia Bourgeault’s notion that ourexperience of “constriction” is an encounter with a sacramentand all that that would efficaciously entail! It matches myintuition that we, as co-creators, amplify risks to augmentvalues. I’m not suggesting that those values that are derivedfrom all of the suffering attendant to that risk-taking couldnot have been gotten some other way (how could we know?), onlythat there IS value and I embrace it even as I positivelyeschew the suffering and would love to realize values withouthaving to make sacrifices! Some day we’ll all understand …cried Fogelberg. I adamantly maintain that that day hasn’tarrived and that no theodicy is good that does not contain ahuge measure of MYSTERY.Reply

2