process imagining

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

quote, gaston bachelard, “surrationalism”, in surrealism, ed. julien levy, 188.

There should be no hesitation: one should choose the side where one thinks the most, where one experiments the most artificially, where ideas are the least viscous, where reason loves to be in danger. If, in any experiment, one does not risk one's reason, that experiment is not worthwhile attempting.

#imagination #risk #adventure

There should be no hesitation: one should choose the side where one thinks the most, where one experiments the most artificially, where ideas are the least viscous, where reason loves to be in danger. If, in any experiment, one does not risk one's reason, that experiment is not worthwhile attempting.

imagination

risk

adventure

There should be no hesitation: one should choose the side where one thinks the most, where one experiments the most artificially, where ideas are the least viscous, where reason loves to be in danger. _If, in any experiment, one does not risk one's reason, that experiment is not worthwhile attempting.

imagination

risk

adventure

#thought

We tend to refuse the image or the vision because of the letter. How unfortunate, since the letter is often, if not always, a post reflection of the event in it and of itself. We should be careful to not reify the letter and destroy the event, which requires the image or vision for its own livelihood.

10/27/2021

quote, spirit chapter, constructive theology, 247

The spirit hollows and haunts, moans and mobilizes, in people's and cultures baptized and not. A Hindu Gandhi as well as an Egyptian Anthony, and apparition of Kali as well as a vision of Guadalupe, an event like breaking bread as well as breaking tyranny, haiku as much as romantic poesy, all these persons and events may become the place of being inspired, being inspirited, a holy inhabitation.

#spirit #religiouspluralism #imagination #process

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.

Enter your email to subscribe to updates.