Comments on The Whirlpool's Rim: "agnosticism of depiction"

Another one of Balthasar's restatements of de ...

2011-09-10T15:08:40.640-07:00

Another one of Balthasar's restatements of de Lubac's thought:

The dynamism of the "restless heart" ineradicably present deep within, of that "habitual" longing for the absolute that "breathes" in the soul, preceding every act of thinking and willing without, however, being an ("ontological") vision of absolute being, but ever under the necessity of expressing itself in rational notions and concepts, conclusions, modes of proof, and systems, in order to make its antecedently give content clear to itself reflexively, although it can never exhaust or embrace this content in these unavoidable forms. (Theology of de Lubac, 92-93)

I have no idea whether Balthasar had Gilson in mind (probably Gilson's critique was "in the air" at the time) when he included (as de Lubac had also done) the caveat that this "implied presence of God" does not amount to an ontological vision of absolute being, but it definitely seems relevant to Gilson's apparent concern for a proper metaphysic of esse."

BTW, that quote from Balthasar can be found
2011-09-10T00:51:36.789-07:00
BTW, that quote from Balthasar can be found here.

I want to add as an aside to the most likely proba...

2011-09-10T00:47:58.409-07:00

I want to add as an aside to the most likely probably forthcoming substantiality, that my aim in posting this quotation from Gilson was to add to an enormous list of future epigraphs that will someday adorn an "objective insight" that will forgive my passion for "subjective admission." Another one is this quotation from Flannery O'Connor:

Fiction is the concrete expression of mystery – mystery that is lived. Catholics believe that all creation is good and that evil is the wrong use of good and that without Grace we use it wrong most of the time. It’s almost impossible to write about supernatural Grace in fiction. We almost have to approach it negatively. As to natural Grace, we have to take that the way it comes – through nature. In any case, it operates surrounded by evil.

I think "agnosticism of depiction" is an important term that ought to be included -- along with de Lubac's "dynamism" -- in the usual references to the Thomism of some of the Southern writers, as a sort of complement to Maritain's "ontological splendor." And it should extend to the literary criticism that focuses on Dostoevsky, Bernanos, Waugh (this fantastic Communio article on Brideshead begins with the O'Connor quote) and McCarthy and their depictions or non-depictions of God and faith. As Dr. Arbery might say, literature matters because "ontological splendor" is like a glimpse of "a complete music" that is quickly, and often terrifyingly, lost in the darkness of an elevator shaft.

haha --I was only pursuing it.

2011-09-10T00:34:32.540-07:00

haha --I was only pursuing it.

Or rather my innate capacity to courageously offer...

2011-09-10T00:27:33.235-07:00

Or rather my innate capacity to courageously offer probablys, maybes, and possiblys whenever there is a stand to be taken.

Good. You won't get any further calling into q...

2011-09-10T00:23:57.158-07:00

Good. You won't get any further calling into question my terminological consistency!

Then again there you wefe referring to a calling i...

2011-09-10T00:19:54.686-07:00

Then again there you wefe referring to a calling into question of anthropomorphism...so nevermind! let me think about the balthasar

wait! Not so substantial just yet! I want to risk ...

2011-09-10T00:15:57.003-07:00

wait! Not so substantial just yet! I want to risk beating the crap out of a horse that died two months ago for the sake of the debate: you see, the maddening nuance that you mentioned in the last insubstantial comment was precisely the one you steered away from in your comment of sept 8 at 11:55, where you specified the sense of questioning as a "disputation of validity" and not as pursuit^.~

Anyway, back to the substantial question. I though...

2011-09-10T00:06:49.212-07:00

Anyway, back to the substantial question. I thought this comment from Balthasar sounded something like what you called "implicit knowledge that by its nature cannot be made into actual explicit knowledge, but yet is no agnosticism pure and simple."

Balthasar:

In the case of de Lubac we will see, in addition, that an objective fundamental insight corresponds to the subjective admission [de Lubac has said that the "final form" for his planned book on mysticism "always eludes me" though it has inspired the whole order of his thoughts] quoted above, namely, the role of an undeniably positive dynamism in the knowing and willing of the creature that tends through all finite intraworldly reality but also, through all the negations of "negative theology," toward a goal that cannot be reached "from below" but is nevertheless necessary. From The Theology of Henri de Lubac.

Exactly. But, forgive me for this maddening extra ...

2011-09-10T00:00:51.864-07:00

Exactly. But, forgive me for this maddening extra layer of "nuance," I was reading "calling into question" in a positive light as well (which is, admittedly, difficult) -- as a pursuit rather than a dispute. That is, de Lubac, like Gilson, won't have any luck raising the issue of agnosticism within the prevailing Thomism.

[If anyone else is reading this, in his comment of...

2011-09-09T23:55:36.750-07:00

[If anyone else is reading this, in his comment of 11:46, Pseudonoma is referring to my comment from 11:29 PM and not the more recent one.]

sorry to keep staggering comments but if you read ...

2011-09-09T23:53:45.707-07:00

sorry to keep staggering comments but if you read and have always read agnosticism as a good thing for Gilson, then I don't think that you can possibly consider getting further the way you have-- the two readings seem very much mutually exclusive given Gilson' s actual sentence: if you cannot get further calling into question something good than you can get further with the bad guys by doing so, right?

Your last comment raises themore substantial quest...

2011-09-09T23:46:51.231-07:00

Your last comment raises themore substantial question. I myself do not know the answer since I have never raised this question in reference to Gilson. On the other hand, I was trying to take a certain stand on this question outside of de Lubac and Gilson, when I mentioned a positive sense of "calling into question". This positive sense, or rather nonnegative sense, pursues an implicit knowledge that by its nature cannot be made into actual explicit knowledge, but yet is no agnosticism pure and simple. Questioning is the piety of thought.

Well, it's certainly my fault for not explaini...

2011-09-09T23:46:50.903-07:00

Well, it's certainly my fault for not explaining myself properly. I was always reading agnosticism as a good thing and assuming Gilson meant it that way. I had assumed that Gilson was warning de Lubac that he would never get anywhere with the influential Thomists (who apparently had something to do with de Lubac's silencing after Humani Generis) by emphasizing negative theology.

If you are now reading agnosticism as a good thing...

2011-09-09T23:36:26.513-07:00

If you are now reading agnosticism as a good thing then I assume you are ruling out the possibility you had introduced earlier that "not getting further" could refer to getting ahead within the current academic climate. The main point I have been trying to establish for the sake of a clear reading of this letter was that it does not admit of such a possible reading.

Is Gilson's warning (if it can be called that)...

2011-09-09T23:29:54.477-07:00

Is Gilson's warning (if it can be called that) related to what Schindler (in the preface to The Discovery of God) describes as de Lubac's argument for the "implied presence of God in every act of human consciousness" (the "dynamism" of Augustine's "restless heart")? Is the point that this dynamism not (yet) sufficiently grounded in a "proper metaphysic of the esse"?

I read Gilson's remark the same way (i.e. agno...

2011-09-09T23:15:38.846-07:00

I read Gilson's remark the same way (i.e. agnosticism of depiction is a good thing), but I am having difficulty understanding what, precisely, he is warning de Lubac about. Especially in light of this from de Lubac's endnote:

Perhaps he may not have noticed the attempt to establish more firmly . . . the radical affirmation which continually motivates and directs every aspect of 'apophatic theology' (Deus semper major) and which prevents it from ever turning into denial.

Is de Lubac stressing the affirmation here in order to respond to a warning that he might be too close to denial? Is the agnosticism of depiction, therefore, somehow more affirmative than what Gilson discovered in de Lubac's book?

I did not mean to imply that you were attributing theological anthropomorphism to de Lubac, only that it is difficult to understand in what way de Lubac is "calling into question" the agnosticism of depiction. Certainly not in a way remotely similar to its calling into question by the "Thomism of the Schools." I will have to look more closely at your third to last comment because I think that will clear it up for me.

I should also add that it is probably my fault for...

2011-09-09T23:14:45.820-07:00

I should also add that it is probably my fault for this misreading, since I used too strong of a word in the word "support". I was trying to emphsize that a calling into question of this agnosticism was a weakening of the strongest weapon one could employ against the enemy of theological anthropomorphism. mea culpa

I should also note in passing that I had never int...

2011-09-09T22:56:55.925-07:00

I should also note in passing that I had never intended to say that Gilson had identified de Lubac's position with theological anthropomorphism (I think you may have misread me here). Rather what I had said was that theological anthropomorphism was compatible and even supported by a disputation of the validity of an agnosticism of depiction. I feel this an important distinction to maintain, since Gilson is certainly not saying that de Lubac is in open allegiance with the position his most recent book has been focuses on exposing as erroneous.

I, for one, am inclined to hear in Gilson's re...

2011-09-09T22:43:03.002-07:00

I, for one, am inclined to hear in Gilson's remarks the first possibility to the exclusion of the second. Why? Because of the sentence which immediately follows his reference to this agnosticism of depiction. "We can only get even this far..." How far? As far as the agnosticism of depiction, that is, knowledge of our ignorance of the act of essence of God ----and only a proper metaphysic of esse can take us this far. Thus do I think that the immediate context you have provided validates my initial reading, even though Gilson's warning to his colleague and friend comes within a larger context of praise for his book and its efforts to critique theological anthropomorphism.

The entire problem of correctly interpretting Gils...

2011-09-09T22:28:40.742-07:00

The entire problem of correctly interpretting Gilson's admittedly murky remarks boils down to question basic to your entire post, one which I was initially trying to clarify when I asked for the context of this overly bold formulation that Gilson had attributed to his master. This basic question is, then, the question as to whether the agnosticism of depiction refers to a good or a bad thing. If it is good then Gilson is warning his correspondent to respect it as a boundary of how far one can think of God. If it is bad then Gilson is is warning his correspondent to respect the boundary of how far when can progress with his public academic work and be received by the surrounding academic audience of the day, which happens to be characterized by theological anthropomorphism.

Well let me give the beginning of the letter and t...

2011-09-08T23:55:14.944-07:00

Well let me give the beginning of the letter and the following paragraphs:

I have just read the third edition of [your] Sur les chemins de Dieu with so much pleasure that I can't keep from writing to tell you. The theological anthropomorphism you are concerned about seems to me to be one of the main obstacles to belief in God, especially among intellectuals. Father Sertillanges, whom you so appropriately cite, fought it with all his strength. Unfortunately, theological anthropomorphism has patronage in very high places, and this is precisely why it is such a large-scale, ongoing project to straighten out people's understanding of Saint Thomas Aquinas. People conjure up Thomism after the manner of the Schools, a sort of dull rationalism which panders to the kind of deism that most of them, deep down, really prefer to teach.

Our only salvation lies in a return to Saint Thomas himself, before the Thomism of John of Saint Thomas, before that of Cajetan as well -- Cajetan, whose famous commentary is in every respect the consummate example of a corruptorium Thomae.

God is QUI EST . . . "agnosticism of depiction."

Yet, in order to go even this far, one must face up to the Thomist metaphysic of the esse. The theologians fully understand this point because, even in the Order of Friars Preachers, from Hervé Nedellec right on up to Cajetan and beyond, so many of them have taken such great pains to camouflage the authentic teaching of the master. Let us say, rather, to emasculate his doctrine and to make of his theology a brew of watered-down philosophia aristotelico-thomistica conconcted to give off a vague deism fit only for the use of right-thinking candidates for high school diplomas and Arts degrees.

I don't see how he could have identified de Lubac's view of Saint Thomas with theological anthropomorphism. It seems, therefore, since de Lubac is "calling into question" (in the usual sense, that is, disputing its validity) that anthropomorphism, that the futility referred to by Gilson would have to do with the reception in "very high places" of de Lubac's efforts to discover the proper place of negative theology (in the above and beyond of the "opposing expressions" of a paradox and in his view that "no instance of human consciousness or human action is without implication of God").

But perhaps Gilson may not at that time have agreed fully with de Lubac's view that man's naturally "restless heart" and "habitual longing," "though not involving any vision of absolute being, precedes every act of thinking and willing." (A dynamism that cannot be comprehended without God as its final cause and thus, in some sense, representational or invoking a "gnosticism of depiction"?). But that seems far-fetched. Plus I'm very confused.

See the preface to the book in question (the one Gilson is responding to) here.

To backpeddle for a minute, I wanted to understand...

2011-09-08T22:56:39.406-07:00

To backpeddle for a minute, I wanted to understand what you meant when you wrote:

Also, from the context of the letter, it is possible that when he says -- "Neither Father Sertillanges, nor you yourself, not anybody will ever get any further by calling into question" -- Gilson is referring to de Lubac getting further academically or theologically (in a public sense) while the "Thomism of the Schools" and "theological anthropomorphism . . . has patronage in very high places."

This does not seem to me prima facie to be a possible reading. Here's my reasoning:

1.)Theological anthropomorphism would seem by definition to condone the proposal of (at least the possibility of) a complete knowledge of the essence of God, or in other words a 'gnosticism' of depiction.

2.)Gilson is claiming (for one reason or another) that the effort to call into question an agnosticism of depiction (which I understand as the unknowability of the act of essence of God) is futile.

3.)Therefore, the calling into question of the agnosticism of depiction is not incompatible but rather supportive of theological anthropomorphism.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding quite a bit already (since I have not read a word of the context here), but I thought I would bounce this off what you have said.

Another relevant article from Communio: ...

2011-09-08T10:41:29.689-07:00

Another relevant article from Communio:

Thomist Resurgence
by William L. Portie

I have looked at that book. In this case, the book...

2011-09-08T10:13:54.847-07:00

I have looked at that book. In this case, the book or article I have looked at most recently is most convincing. It was that one for a few hours but then Nicholas Healy was still able to support de Lubac's view in a Communio article 2 years after McInerny's book (which he cited in the footnotes):

"Without claiming to have settled a difficult question, de Lubac has contributed to the renewal of theology by showing us why the older tradition, especially Thomas Aquinas, was right to resist in advance the modern idea that runs like a guiding thread from Cajetan through contemporary NeoThomism, that the final end of nature and the innate desire of nature must be essentially proportionate to nature."

This is probably something I shouldn't get into because I do not have the background for it and I can imagine that any real Thomist who reads my comments would roll their eyes.

Comments on The Whirlpool's Rim: "agnosticism of depiction"

Another one of Balthasar's restatements of de ...

BTW, that quote from Balthasar can be found 2011-09-10T00:51:36.789-07:00 BTW, that quote from Balthasar can be found here.

I want to add as an aside to the most likely proba...

haha --I was only pursuing it.

Or rather my innate capacity to courageously offer...

Good. You won't get any further calling into q...

Then again there you wefe referring to a calling i...

wait! Not so substantial just yet! I want to risk ...

Anyway, back to the substantial question. I though...

Exactly. But, forgive me for this maddening extra ...

[If anyone else is reading this, in his comment of...

sorry to keep staggering comments but if you read ...

Your last comment raises themore substantial quest...

Well, it's certainly my fault for not explaini...

If you are now reading agnosticism as a good thing...

Is Gilson's warning (if it can be called that)...

I read Gilson's remark the same way (i.e. agno...

I should also add that it is probably my fault for...

I should also note in passing that I had never int...

I, for one, am inclined to hear in Gilson's re...

The entire problem of correctly interpretting Gils...

Well let me give the beginning of the letter and t...

To backpeddle for a minute, I wanted to understand...

Another relevant article from Communio: ...

I have looked at that book. In this case, the book...

BTW, that quote from Balthasar can be found
2011-09-10T00:51:36.789-07:00
BTW, that quote from Balthasar can be found here.