What does "apophatic" mean?

[Metacrock]

Différance, in other words, sounds the death-knell of the ontotheological God, who nevertheless haunts its every move. This is the reason deconstruction has nothing to do with negative theology, and everything to do with negative theology.

that's what my book on deep strictures of being is about.arguing against it of course. that's nothing more than denying god

[Metacrock]

I will do a post on God and onto theology when the election is over and I need to get back in the ivory tower to forget about the fascist hell hole we will be living in; the Trumpdistopia.


essentially I thin the Tillich being itself stiff was designed to meet the needs of Heidegger's demand for an end to ontology,

[met]

Wouldn't that be an idea that puts emphasis on the individual too? (I suspect every kind of immanence does...)

Not sure I follow what you mean here, met. Do you mean the idea about the self or the unground? I can see how Swinburne's idea of the self puts emphasis on the individual.

I dunno, this stuff is complex.... Um, someone make that say, "it is and it isn't!" ... Here's MJR's article comparing and contrasting Derridan 'difference' with Dionysian apophatism, and it's pretty dense at only about 18 pages.... But it does shed some light on gut on the "Pomo turn in theology" and on Caputo, who was a pal of Derrida's & is quite Derridian, too.

http://wesscholar.wesleyan.edu/cgi/view ... iv1facpubs

Différance, in other words, sounds the death-knell of the ontotheological God, who nevertheless haunts its every move. This is the reason deconstruction has nothing to do with negative theology, and everything to do with negative theology.

Sympathetic readers of Dionysius—myself included—have been inclined to argue that the Dionysian thearchy bears very little resemblance to Derrida’s dead tyrant; that is, to the ontotheological moral guarantor, summum ens, causa sui, or “transcendental signified” installed as a regulative punctum beyond the play of differences. For while it is undoubtedly the case that Dionysius calls God “being,” a “supra-essential subsistence,” and “totally undifferentiated,” it is also the case that he unsays all of these attributes.

I'm working my way through the MJR chapter. Fascinating stuff! One question that came up for me: How is language possible in light of la differance? Doesn't the fact that I can formulate that concept suggest that something else might be in play? This may be way off base, but I was wondering if Berdyaev's idea of freedom could be thought of as a rough equivalent to la diff? A centrifugal 'nothing' that must be offset by a countervailing centripetal 'something' (in the apophatic sense) some would call "being" others would call "God"?

I dunno how it could work.... Derrida's basic idea is that when I say 'horse' - unless that refers to some platonic Eidos of horse-ness existing in eternity - THERE IS no horse referred to - i.e. no horse is "present" - & it's only more like a 'token' that doesn't guarantee you'll know what I mean. Kind of like, there's no actual "gold-standard" behind exchanges of words.... So, unless you choose to accept Platonic metaphysical implications more or less at face value - that seems commonsensical enough to me? Ie language only means ROUGHLY ... Or maybe apophatically? .... Or maybe, "language means and it doesn't mean...?"

So 'differance' as some people say is related to the rejection of "presence" in terms of the 'Now's' supposed-participation in eternity? Ie to Heidegger's critiques of the metaphysical conception of time?

Do Berdyaev's 'freedom' ideas have a connection to Jean Paul Sartre's? Sounds like it.... I think these next-generation, post-structuralist French guys, like Foucault and Derrida, were trying to go both beyond Sartre and against him, by wondering if "privileging the subject" was enough - if, that is, the subject was still trapped (seemingly-inevitably) in historical- and language-conditioned, predetermined patterns of thought?

Something kinda like that..... https://goo.gl/images/svSJiA

[met]

I will do a post on God and onto theology when the election is over and I need to get back in the ivory tower to forget about the fascist hell hole we will be living in; the Trumpdistopia.


essentially I thin the Tillich being itself stiff was designed to meet the needs of Heidegger's demand for an end to ontology,

I kinda suspect, if I'm reading between the lines properly, that even Fivethirtyeight.com is overestimating Trumps chances just to get people out? He seems rather unpopular...

[Metacrock]

here is a really good lecture by Marylin Mccord Adams who says ontotheology is idolotry but seeing God as personal is not ontology per se

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTvoWOjgKXY

[Jim B.]

I will do a post on God and onto theology when the election is over and I need to get back in the ivory tower to forget about the fascist hell hole we will be living in; the Trumpdistopia.


essentially I thin the Tillich being itself stiff was designed to meet the needs of Heidegger's demand for an end to ontology,

I kinda suspect, if I'm reading between the lines properly, that even Fivethirtyeight.com is overestimating Trumps chances just to get people out? He seems rather unpopular...

They are both extremely unpopular. The question is whether the people who are motivated by wanting Clinton, as opposed to just wanting to stop Trump, are more, or more motivated, than the pro-Trump folks. I expect Clinton will win by a narrow margin and then the hell starts! 5 or 6 congressional impeachment hearings non-stop as soon as she's sworn in, church burnings, civil unrest, 40 million or so Americans convinced she stole the election, thnx to Trump...He'd rather have the country burn than to admit he lost in a fair election.

[Jim B.]

Différance, in other words, sounds the death-knell of the ontotheological God, who nevertheless haunts its every move. This is the reason deconstruction has nothing to do with negative theology, and everything to do with negative theology.

that's what my book on deep strictures of being is about.arguing against it of course. that's nothing more than denying god

Against diiferance or against ontotheology?

[Jim B.]

I dunno how it could work.... Derrida's basic idea is that when I say 'horse' - unless that refers to some platonic Eidos of horse-ness existing in eternity - THERE IS no horse referred to - i.e. no horse is "present" - & it's only more like a 'token' that doesn't guarantee you'll know what I mean. Kind of like, there's no actual "gold-standard" behind exchanges of words.... So, unless you choose to accept Platonic metaphysical implications more or less at face value - that seems commonsensical enough to me? Ie language only means ROUGHLY ... Or maybe apophatically? .... Or maybe, "language means and it doesn't mean...?"

Sure. So a question comes up: why do we have to accept a metaphysics of presence to wonder why or how language is possible at all? Even if there's no eidetic presence called "horse," something is operating that allows us to understand each other well enough for practical purposes. Language means and it doesn't mean, but it does mean at least in that conditional sense. The medium of what we mean when we say "horse" is subject to the play of differences, but I'm not sure if the object must be too.

Do Berdyaev's 'freedom' ideas have a connection to Jean Paul Sartre's? Sounds like it.... I think these next-generation, post-structuralist French guys, like Foucault and Derrida, were trying to go both beyond Sartre and against him, by wondering if "privileging the subject" was enough - if, that is, the subject was still trapped (seemingly-inevitably) in historical- and language-conditioned, predetermined patterns of thought?

I don't think Berdyaev's idea of freedom has much to do with Sartre's, which did privilege the individual. I'll have to do some more reading on that.

[met]

here is a really good lecture by Marylin Mccord Adams who says ontotheology is idolotry but seeing God as personal is not ontology per se

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTvoWOjgKXY

Yep, I posted that same lecture a couple years ago! I like her & especially enjoyed that rigorous theological lecture...( yes, twas indeed a very ivory tower affair...)



Looking forward to your posts on Tillich, always interesting....

[Metacrock]

here is a really good lecture by Marylin Mccord Adams who says ontotheology is idolotry but seeing God as personal is not ontology per se

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTvoWOjgKXY

Yep, I posted that same lecture a couple years ago! I like her & especially enjoyed that rigorous theological lecture...( yes, twas indeed a very ivory tower affair...)



Looking forward to your posts on Tillich, always interesting....

thanks met glad you think so

She is a personal friend of my friend William Babcock my favorite prof of all time,. He wrote a blurb on the cover of my book.

I want to get on to re-writting my Tillich book soon.