This month’s synchroblog has been planned to coincide with International Women’s Day, which is on 8 March. There is interesting information on the history of International Women’s day here, which says, inter alia:
International Women….

I agree; while there is a good to be had in the way the legal system argues, it’s difficulties are exactly the kind you brought up here, when its methodology is taken to an extreme and used in areas where it is not applicable. It smacks of the sophistry that Plato contended against (it was interesting to see how he spoke harshly against Plato, and in doing so, indicated his own nominalism). Thus, we see someone who takes small snippets of facts apart from the context in which they are spoken, using this vulnerable text as a wedge to attack the whole. But where it leads to is a false interpretation of that text (text outside of context is pretext), and the argument an exhaustive refutation of a strawman. Alas.

It was also interesting to see “our friend” flounder on the term “equivocal”, as though a discussion of “equivocal” could be reduced to an allegation that one was guilty of “equivocating.”

I was first exposed to the term “equivocal” when I was 18 years old. But then my professor was a Jesuit and I was taking a course in Aristotelian Logic. For me, it has been a lifelong struggle to comprehend the concrete meaning of this and other such terms.

But such struggle has not been “our friend’s” wont. He seems to have gone to the dictionary to clarify the meaning of these terms. Then he set out to craft a response to what he thought was a false assertion. Finally, he succumbed to a compulsion to strike out against others in order to “rip apart” what he perceived to be a charge that he was “equivocating.”

Oh, boy! What are the origins of such urges?

If his demeanor and actions weren’t so frustrating, they’d be funny. Imagine what the Marx Brothers would make of this? But apart from being humorous, it is also sad. Being a highly trained legal mechanic does not add up to being highly educated, particularly in the disciplines of philosophy and theology.

I’ve noticed yet another tendency. “Our friend” tends to use his legal skills to poke holes in what he thinks are weaknesses in his opponent’s argument. He usually appeals to factual errors, poor language construction, or perceived logical inconsistencies. But, unable to grasp the substance of the argument in the first place, his responses almost never engage the discussion that is ongoing. His focus is on trivial matters. Invariably, he seems unable to see beyond his own set of limitations. So he heads down a separate path, bickering about this and that, and ridiculing those who don’t follow.

Narcissism is a great burden, especially for those who need to rely on persuasion to achieve their goals. Why? Because nothing is more off-putting.

Ironically, were “our friend” able to leave his lawyering behind, he might learn something from you and others. But that act would require him to forego too many delusions. He would need to admit he does not know. But this would be asking too much, especially since his overwhelming need is for recognition.

At bottom, spiritual alienation is the main burden here. During the years I collected the stories of the homeless, the substance abuser, and violent youth, I came to appreciate that the originating source of their actions was grounded in an “unmet need to belong.” As you might expect, this “need” is neither psychological nor sociological in nature. It is existential.

It appears “our friend” struggles with a similar burden. He doesn’t belong at some level and he knows it. Yet there exists in each person the existential imperative to “belong” with others through love in community. Each person needs to receive attention and respect. Sadly, it appears he may have to rest satisfied with attention. For he will never get respect until he has the courage to embrace a proportionate and compelling measure of humility.

It’s sad that the person in question doesn’t even get his nominalism, something which I caught before that debate, and was demonstrated by his complete echoing classical nominalist sentimentality in some of his more recent posts. The problem is he appears to have read a definition, maybe from a dictionary or an encyclopedia, without seeing or understanding the context of nominalism and reading the nominalists themselves.

Right, I think Balthasar’s insights transcend the religious, but should find their way into the secular, although of course, mediated for the form of discussion at hand. I would say one of the greatest crimes we have had in modern times is the loss of the poetic — and it clearly comes from modernism and its positivistic, hyper-”rational” approach to the world (it affects me as well; though there are exceptions, I have difficulty with poetry). Nonetheless, I try to overcome this with a heightened awareness of beauty in other situations, such as in the arts or in nature, the second being a common theme for my own amateur photography experiments.

It was David Schindler who alerted me to Balthasar in 1995. He gave me two volumes of the Aesthetic and two additional books and urged me to study them. Since then, I’ve read the complete Aesthetic, the Theo-Drama, and the Theo-Logic, plus other of his works including Karl Barth.

David’s encouragement came at a time after I had been living on the streets of DC for a number of years exploring the spiritual dynamics of love and alienation in the lives of homeless persons, substance abusers, and violent youth. For me, it was the right time and circumstance to begin an exploration of Balthasar and to do so in a meaningful way.

Ask yourself: What if the richness of Balthasar’s insights were articulated in some fashion in every critical discipline? What if lawyers, sociologists, musicians, photographers, philosophers, politicians, educators, and so forth were to deepen their thoughts and language through the insights Balthasar sets forth? What if the methodology of history were to focus less on the narrative and more on the dramatic? How would the “dramatic” transform psychology? What would be its impact on education? And on and on.

Just some raw thoughts to ponder.

I worked through both Glory of the Lord and Theo-Drama as a layperson some 5-10 years ago. Both works affected me profoundly–literally, changing my life.

I do not think I have the grasp of them as,say, Henry does, or can situate them amidst the vast terrain of theological studies, as he can so aptly and beautifully do.

It is very hard, I surmise, for even Christians to keep as the central focus of all we do the realization that Truth is, ultimately, the Communio of divine persons, and, analogously, springs forth most in this world in the dignified relations between human persons, in which the imago of God in each is respected most, that is, whenenever it as approached and affirmed with what kindliness, courtesy and love that Jesus the Christ exemplified.

To me, all else is secondary, and suffocating dross whenever it covers over this central insight.

Regarding the “glorious, dramatic, and authentic” have you had occasion to read and ponder Balthasar’s work, Glory of the Lord? It brings a dimension to one’s insights that only Beauty can give.

As you suggest, Beauty must be the face of evangelization, et al., if it is to succeed. Not only does the beautiful ( the mother’s smile) communicate at the most profound level, it acts as well to restrain those who are doing the evangelization.

In this regard, I just read some comments on another post where there was an unseemly display of venom directed at you and Henry regarding the meaning of such terms as nominalism, equivocation, and so forth. Clearly, the author of those comments betrayed a elementary lack of philosophical insight and discipline, as was suggested. But rather than wanting to learn, he chooses instead to display even more ignorance. Such a display of Ugliness can only make one grow weary.

It struck me that the quest for Truth should never be disengaged from Beauty or, at least, that Beauty should always be kept in mind.

I think we are beginning to find a time when this might happen. I know more people interested in theological aesthetics now than any other time. I just hope we will see the tradition develop and not end up in a dead end.

I am always amazed how those in the “business” of Christian religion(and all of us, myself included) seem to forget that the deepest Truth of all involves the glorious, dramatic and authentic outpouring of love, that is the inner and economic activity of our Triune God.

If we could only better learn the means to best acclimate ourselves to a life in this Truth, the endeavor to bring that outpouring love to–and affirm its presence always already in–the world would be such more fruitful and lifegioving one.

Just think of how that would compare to “apologetics”, “evangelization”, et al. as we feebly practice them, in our unwillingness to really become full beholders of eidos you speak of above.

Thank you, once again. If I were to go further, it’s one of the things I would point out comes out of my work to write in the unity of “both lungs of the Church” that JPII wanted: the West tends to focus more on orthopraxis, while the East orthoidos, as their relative spiritualities (and histories) show. Both grant me insight which I use for my reflections.

Splendidly, wisely and very well put, Henry.