process imagining

thoughts on religion and philosophy in process and post-structural perspective

An awareness that a thinker was headed somewhere is itself already an act of philosophical imagination, a recognition that philosophizing is not just uttering and logically testing propositions but also orienting and placing our thoughts.

Human imagination is communal as well as individual, that it is both creative and routine, that innovation is correlative to what is established.

The patience of love is not placation of injustice.

Thinking that is reactionary always comes at a cost. It starts with an act of rejection, yet more often tha not it remains committed to the logical framework that it apparently rejects. ~ Sepper, Understanding Imagination, 3.

I have been reflecting on this particular piece as it puts into words a dillemma I have had for quite some time. Whenever we engage the other with a set of tools, let us use the tools of logic, it is assumed that logic is universal. When one does not follow the same logic as others do, we enter into the idea that they are less cultured, primitive, barbaric, as they are not using the same logic we are, especially if we are trained. At that brings concern. Logic is as varied, or produces as varied results as the imagination may produce, since it follows a criteria, and criteria is vairable as well. Only when we start universalizing the criteria do we see uniformity. But that is just as dangerous! In uniformity we lose the very eventfulness that makes us unique, and that is difference, how our experiences shape who we are and how we rationalize things by way of the imagination.

The quote by Sepper awakens us to questions: if are responses are reactionary, we respond in the way of efficient causation; that is, we respond to their thoughts, and fall into the trap of using their logic. But what if we responded by moving from the efficiency of a quick response, to one that is constructed, that includes how we think? What if we deconstructed the question, and introduced how we ourselves are envisioning or seeing the world? If what we are trying to reject is the logic behind the response, then our responses need to move away from a reactionary response to one that is reflectiive and creative.

As I reflect back on some of my teaching moments, I remember times when I have been more reactionary than reflective and creative with my students. Maybe, if I am aware of my self, it was because of my insecurities, my own trying to form and shape what I think, that I may have given a reactive, inflamed response. As I try and do now, as I see the wisdom of my mentors and colleagues, my responses should be creative, asking the one asking the question to see their own logic, with its own presuppositions, to look at it from a different perspective, to see how perspecitves have the ability to be angled, shaped, to see in novel ways.

How often have we not heard the reproach, generally from outsiders who profess to know better: “But then you are not a Christian,” or “as a Muslim you cannot say this!” Who has the right to excommunicate the other?

~A Dome of Many Colors, 39.

truth is more than mathematical exactness. Truth is an awareness of reality and as such it includes also beauty—necessary distinctions (but not separations) notwithstanding.

~In A Dome of Many Colors, 36.

truth is more than mathematical exactness. Truth is an awareness of reality and ass such it includes also beauty—necessary distinctions (but not separations) notwithstanding.

~In A Dome of Many Colors, 36.

The misconception which has haunted philosophic literature throughout the centuries is the notion of ‘independent existence.’ There is no such mode of existence; every entity is to be understood in terms of the way it is interwoven with the rest of the universe


If the purest esoterism comprises total truth—and that is the reason for its existence—the question of “orthodoxy” in the religious sense quite obviously cannot arise; direct knowledge of the mysteries could not be “Muslim” or “Christian”, just as the sight of a mountain and not something else.

#FrithjofSchuon #pluralism #esoterism #differenceofreligions

Anselm classically defined theology as fides quarens intellectum—“faith seeking understanding.” Not faith that already understands and so no longer needs to seek. That would by definition no longer be theology. Theology is not itself the faith but its quest. If we stop seeking, we are no longer on the way. Faith seeking understanding has then turned into “belief that understands.” It then closes the very root of quarens, from which come both question and quest.

#catherinekeller #onthemystery #faithseekingunderstanding #theology #imagination #creativity

Enter your email to subscribe to updates.