Umbrellas Unopent in Tempests, Part XLVIII
“It is not necessarily that the acolytes and apostles of “openness” (AoA) have resorted to a form of mysticism, or regressed to a primitive form of thinking,” Itwethey says. “It could be the older ‘rationalistic’ notions of concept, which made concepts metaphorically be something similar to containers, eschewing metaphors of openness as imprecise and hazy, were misguided.”
“The concept of God is that God passes beyond all conceptualization. Our concept of God is that God surpasses our own concepts of God… God is a being whose being exceeds and will always exceed human powers of conceptualization,” Itwethey is saying, hoping this concept of God which she has just called “our concept” truly is widespread enough to be comprehensible.
“However, if a concept is not a container, God going beyond the concept is not exceptional—God isn’t specified this way. Every conceptualized object might be discovered to be going beyond its conception, since any conception wouldn’t hold the object—wouldn’t need to, shouldn’t be expected to. It would have to do neither with the power and capacity of God specifically, nor the limitations of the human intellect. It’s a matter of a different model of the concept.”
“The new open model or way of thinking could and probably would extend the range of what’s experienced as ecstatic (as more experiences would have this characteristic of surpassing their own conception, what was reserved for God, and experienced as ecstatic. The traditional defining power of God as conceived by humans, vis the human understanding, would be shared by many, many things,)” says Itwethey. “We aren’t even beginning to consider if there might be non-conceptual ways of thinking. Do we need to consider 'non-conceptual' thinking if we've expanded and opened our concept of concept, as above?"
“The concept of God is that God passes beyond all conceptualization. Our concept of God is that God surpasses our own concepts of God… God is a being whose being exceeds and will always exceed human powers of conceptualization,” Itwethey is saying, hoping this concept of God which she has just called “our concept” truly is widespread enough to be comprehensible.
“However, if a concept is not a container, God going beyond the concept is not exceptional—God isn’t specified this way. Every conceptualized object might be discovered to be going beyond its conception, since any conception wouldn’t hold the object—wouldn’t need to, shouldn’t be expected to. It would have to do neither with the power and capacity of God specifically, nor the limitations of the human intellect. It’s a matter of a different model of the concept.”
“The new open model or way of thinking could and probably would extend the range of what’s experienced as ecstatic (as more experiences would have this characteristic of surpassing their own conception, what was reserved for God, and experienced as ecstatic. The traditional defining power of God as conceived by humans, vis the human understanding, would be shared by many, many things,)” says Itwethey. “We aren’t even beginning to consider if there might be non-conceptual ways of thinking. Do we need to consider 'non-conceptual' thinking if we've expanded and opened our concept of concept, as above?"
posted by Yusef Asabiyah at 8:05 PM
2 Comments:
What is this tempests thingy?
I ask because I just landed on this blog, and there is very clear writing here.
Hi Fred,
The "tempests" thing comes from a variation on the theme of the word root for time, tempo, except because there is no theme to vary, this thing comes a variation on a variation...there is no "root", no word-root, only rhizomes.
If I have managed to communicate this clearly, I am impressed with myself.
By the way, I checked out your blog and I am definitely planning to read it and look at it much more closely.
--Yusef
Post a Comment
<< Home