Thursday, October 5, 2006
“logos” of planetary evolution
"Logos in humanity" is a relatively spontaneous exemplification of secular conciliation with religious thinking, associating to Habermas' March, 2006, lecture "Religion and the Public Sphere" (PDF).
My discussion presumes the reader's familiarity with Pope Benedict's lectureso, outside that presumption, my chain of themes would probably seem ill-conceived. Actually, though, I'd defend the integrity of the spontaneity as draftwork in Appropriative thinking that's not spontaneous at all, associating to the hermeneutical care for the text exhibited by Heidegger's exercises in "poetic thinking," following his deconstruction of Logos in the neo-Platonic tradition of Latinate metaphysicalism whose Veritas caused "withdrawal of the gift" of Alétheia, i.e. (for evolutionary Time, true "postmodernity"): enowning Emergence.
"Logos" is accordingly a keynote of Heideggerian thinking (in its deconstructive mode), as epochal conceptuality to be read, rather than structure to be advanced as Latinate legacy. Accordingly, the Catholic advocacy of a "Logos," in my discussion of Joseph's lecture, is read (albeit preliminarily), rather than simply adopted (let alone advocatedrather, the hermeneutical engagement is advocated). Situating thinking as commensurable with Catholic Logosan ensitation of "Logos" (with Derridean marks) as Logosexplores a way to begin, rather than complete, a way of thinking with Christianity. What's "divine" in this belongs to a potentially-rigorous discourse of philosophical art, in which (by which, through which) any theological sense of 'divinity' may be read. In such reading, ultimate validity is evolutionary, as religion is a culturally evolutionary advent of humanity's sojourn of self-designing intelligent life.
That's quite a conceptual complex I just indicated: "humanity's sojourn of self-designing intelligent life"in which extended advents E-vent, emerge, as if "stemming" Of human evolutionarity (which should "sound" odd).
There is no the Logos here, though It Isit's singularityfor metaphysicalist mind.
What's the plural, logoi? Let's say, since logos was Greek for 'lecture' and plural lectures were called logoi. Benedict's logos to the university about LogosGod-in-reasonapparently simulatesas any brief lecture mustappropriating Logos in a logosof Catholic rhetoric (in the classical sense of 'rhetoric').
But Logos is no mere lectural representation for Christian reason as such. As God is to be brought back into His apparent order of freedom (Benedict's point against Duns Scotus), so Logos is to be unconcealed in reason (Benedict, speaking from and to the southern Germany that had borne a hidden king) calls for retrieval of Unconcealing in-and-through reason. God of many faces is manifold singularity in capability of reason (humanly as capability of thinkinghermeneuin unto itself).
What, then, is the plurality of the plural Logos beyond metaphysicalism?a discursivity of inquiry into such a question?questioning of capbility for manifolding singularity (or integrating comprehensive comprehension of manifolding)? As there is no mere cultural relativity to the science that gains a Nobel Prize (in a universe with organic molecules wandering between stars governed by the same physicality for eons before Earth formed itself); and the university (as such, as form of intelligent life) is a planetary emergence, so any "logos" of planetary evolution emerges in the endless logoiing, in fractalic Singularity, yet, in a sense, pointillistically evolving by way of endeavors of comprehending comprehensively (or so aiming, with fateful but generative unsatisfactoriness, like the convergent realism of science itself) that may communicatively aggregate as some directionsome telic coheringone may think admirably advocable or good or progressiveand so name.
-- 12:32 PM