The Rational Worship mentioned in the liturgy probably comes from the apostle Paul own words in Romans 12:1: "I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your RATIONAL WORSHIP - λογικήν λατρείαν (Romans 12:1). Don't have the liturgy in Greek, but it would be nice to check if this is indeed the case.
Loved this. It is quite "synchronous" that you would post this now as I was just starting to read D.C. Schindler's "Plato's Critique of Impure Reason" two days ago and it really made me reframe my view of "reason". I was on board with Kierkegaard and some aspect of postmodern thought that critizes reason, usually understood as the "impure" and naive reason of the Enlightenment. But Schindler makes me understand that reason and mysticism actually go together!
If you haven't read him yet, I found that he develops an insight that you came upon regarding the association of Socrates with the person of the Father. He says that Socrates IS the idea of the Good, which is both apophatic (as Socrates never wrote anything, we can't "know" him, but he still is the "reason" that organizes every dialogue) and present as a character who always exemplifies the virtue in question. Socrates stands both in and beyond the text.
And all of this makes me think that the reason why phenomenology (or maybe a particular branch of phenomenology) is one of the few good school of thought in postmodernity is because it is an attempt to recover that ancient notion of reason: a reason that has access to the highest realities through the phenomenon-appearance, which for us is the symbol.
To add to the synchronicity, I was just reading Schindler’s book a few days ago because we plan on covering it (and interviewing him, God willing) on YouTube. Funny enough, he didn’t actually come to mind as I wrote this last night, but there’s certainly an influence there.
Like you, I’ve begun to shy away from my earlier ultimately Hegel/Zizek inspired affirmation of antinomies and the sort of “irrationalism” (which Hegel tries to rationalize through dialectics, while Zizek tries to through Lacan/Freud) that follows from it. I still see a lot of value in Florensky’s work, but I’ve just lately begun to see certain potential problems related precisely to his understanding of logic. His argument for tri-unity necessitates the complete identification of A and B (at least for one logical moment), which I think *may* open up some problems related to Trinitarianism and the real distinction of the divine hypostases. I need to reflect on this further, but I certainly don’t buy some of the more extreme “anti-antinomy” critiques and straight up denouncements of Florensky (I’m thinking of Georges Florovsky’s criticisms of the pillar and ground of the truth).
Rationality is not the problem, nor is A=A. From my view, A=A doesn’t need to be negated through A’s identification with B. Rather, we can simple demonstrate that relation to B is immanent to the *truth* of self-identity. Truth therefore becomes communal, and we have a “logic” of perichoresis. However, I don’t lay too much emphasis on the logical arguments personally.
I think Sergius Bulgakov’s “religious empiricism” (not sure exactly where he talks about this, I’ve just read passages) will probably resonate interest you. I agree that phenomenology is central, because phenomenology is predicated upon a fundamental faith in our experience (even though it’s not called faith usually)
Excellent article. One note: In the Eucharist, it doesn't seem that "A (God) fully “enters into” “B” (bread and wine) and completely realizes the essential relation that constitutes created being," but rather that A (God) is revealed as the essential reality that constitutes the very essence of B's (bread and wine's) created being. After all, this is the very purpose of the sacraments - not as a means of becoming that which they aren't, but of revealing that which they always, already are (but have yet to realize). This is the very reason we can say that everything is sacramental, and for that we indeed "give thanks" and proclaim: "Thine own of Thine own, we offer unto Thee, on behalf of all and for all."
The Rational Worship mentioned in the liturgy probably comes from the apostle Paul own words in Romans 12:1: "I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your RATIONAL WORSHIP - λογικήν λατρείαν (Romans 12:1). Don't have the liturgy in Greek, but it would be nice to check if this is indeed the case.
Loved this. It is quite "synchronous" that you would post this now as I was just starting to read D.C. Schindler's "Plato's Critique of Impure Reason" two days ago and it really made me reframe my view of "reason". I was on board with Kierkegaard and some aspect of postmodern thought that critizes reason, usually understood as the "impure" and naive reason of the Enlightenment. But Schindler makes me understand that reason and mysticism actually go together!
If you haven't read him yet, I found that he develops an insight that you came upon regarding the association of Socrates with the person of the Father. He says that Socrates IS the idea of the Good, which is both apophatic (as Socrates never wrote anything, we can't "know" him, but he still is the "reason" that organizes every dialogue) and present as a character who always exemplifies the virtue in question. Socrates stands both in and beyond the text.
And all of this makes me think that the reason why phenomenology (or maybe a particular branch of phenomenology) is one of the few good school of thought in postmodernity is because it is an attempt to recover that ancient notion of reason: a reason that has access to the highest realities through the phenomenon-appearance, which for us is the symbol.
To add to the synchronicity, I was just reading Schindler’s book a few days ago because we plan on covering it (and interviewing him, God willing) on YouTube. Funny enough, he didn’t actually come to mind as I wrote this last night, but there’s certainly an influence there.
Like you, I’ve begun to shy away from my earlier ultimately Hegel/Zizek inspired affirmation of antinomies and the sort of “irrationalism” (which Hegel tries to rationalize through dialectics, while Zizek tries to through Lacan/Freud) that follows from it. I still see a lot of value in Florensky’s work, but I’ve just lately begun to see certain potential problems related precisely to his understanding of logic. His argument for tri-unity necessitates the complete identification of A and B (at least for one logical moment), which I think *may* open up some problems related to Trinitarianism and the real distinction of the divine hypostases. I need to reflect on this further, but I certainly don’t buy some of the more extreme “anti-antinomy” critiques and straight up denouncements of Florensky (I’m thinking of Georges Florovsky’s criticisms of the pillar and ground of the truth).
Rationality is not the problem, nor is A=A. From my view, A=A doesn’t need to be negated through A’s identification with B. Rather, we can simple demonstrate that relation to B is immanent to the *truth* of self-identity. Truth therefore becomes communal, and we have a “logic” of perichoresis. However, I don’t lay too much emphasis on the logical arguments personally.
Thanks for the comment!
I think Sergius Bulgakov’s “religious empiricism” (not sure exactly where he talks about this, I’ve just read passages) will probably resonate interest you. I agree that phenomenology is central, because phenomenology is predicated upon a fundamental faith in our experience (even though it’s not called faith usually)
Excellent article. One note: In the Eucharist, it doesn't seem that "A (God) fully “enters into” “B” (bread and wine) and completely realizes the essential relation that constitutes created being," but rather that A (God) is revealed as the essential reality that constitutes the very essence of B's (bread and wine's) created being. After all, this is the very purpose of the sacraments - not as a means of becoming that which they aren't, but of revealing that which they always, already are (but have yet to realize). This is the very reason we can say that everything is sacramental, and for that we indeed "give thanks" and proclaim: "Thine own of Thine own, we offer unto Thee, on behalf of all and for all."