Thank you Cormac. Very helpful and in depth. I think that a dialectical approach is a natural consequence of not rooting thinking in Trinitarian theology. Within the Trinity, one of the divine Hypostasis (Persons) cannot be described in terms of not being like one of the others, since there are two hypostases not like the other. The divine Persons can therefore only be described relationally, by the nature of their relationship with the other two. This means that characteristics and 'roles' of any one created reality (be it male, female, earth, heaven or whatever) cannot be understood in terms of opposition to another i.e. dialectically, but only by love and relation. So, for example, love for one other human person can only operate in a healthy way if it includes a third 'party' (ultimately God, but also one's neighbour). Aidan Hart
Thank you, Aidan Hart! That is all excellent insight, and I think it’s all very true. I am very honored to have met your approval — I have loved your iconography for decades now, particularly all the images of Western saints you’ve created. In particular the icon of St. Cormac — it’s very dear to me. Thank you so much!
Do you have any thoughts on the relationship or anagogical complementarity between marriage and monasticism in this light? It seems in some places to be presented dialectically, but while the Church confesses virginity the higher mode, it also steadfastly retains the doctrine of the holiness of marriage, and the synergy and common telos of both paths. Any deeper insights? Forgive me if I am unclear or misrepresent the teaching of the Church.
This is really helpful, Cormac. Thank you. Your explanations of dialectical thinking are making this issue clearer and clearer to me. As always I love the little flares of humor in your writing. I loled at "longtime readers of my month-old newsletter."
Thank you for the fascinating article: analogical and not dialectical. Most important is the differentiation between hierarchy as commonly understood and Christian hierarchy.
Dr. Timothy Patitsas talks quite a bit about love reconciling the opposites in his Ethics of Beauty. We're so used to thinking that things have to be either/or and it's hard to get used to the idea that we can have them be both/and.
If you think about it, every single relationship is mediated by a third element - it's never just I/Thou - there's always the spirit (Spirit?) of the relationship that turns it from 2 separate individuals, "me" and " you", into "us".
Dr. Patitsas's schema of king, prophet, and priest, with chiastic experiences of kinghood and prophethood between men and women, is very alluring, but I'm not sure I grasp all the consequences of it yet. The Ethics of Beauty is something I plan to do an extensive review of someday (before too too long, I hope!), probably in the form of dialogue with my friend who is equally invested in the book.
Oh, I'll look forward to that review! I was actually thinking of his chapter on social justice when I made my above comment, but you're right that the chiasm of kinghood and prophethood is another area that should be brought to bear on the discussion of men and women. I can't even explain it well, let alone grasp all the consequences! Lol. But there's something in what he says that strikes my instincts as profoundly right, somehow.
Oh, do you mean Jane Jacobs' Guardians–Traders distinction? Because that is absolutely the fractal pattern of thymos and epithymia in action. I read that book recently, inspired by Patitsas.
Thank you Cormac. Very helpful and in depth. I think that a dialectical approach is a natural consequence of not rooting thinking in Trinitarian theology. Within the Trinity, one of the divine Hypostasis (Persons) cannot be described in terms of not being like one of the others, since there are two hypostases not like the other. The divine Persons can therefore only be described relationally, by the nature of their relationship with the other two. This means that characteristics and 'roles' of any one created reality (be it male, female, earth, heaven or whatever) cannot be understood in terms of opposition to another i.e. dialectically, but only by love and relation. So, for example, love for one other human person can only operate in a healthy way if it includes a third 'party' (ultimately God, but also one's neighbour). Aidan Hart
Thank you Cormac. Very helpful and in depth. I think that a dialectical approach is a natural consequence of not rooting thinking in Trinitarian theology. Within the Trinity, one of the divine Hypostasis (Persons) cannot be described in terms of not being like one of the others, since there are two hypostases not like the other. The divine Persons can therefore only be described relationally, by the nature of their relationship with the other two. This means that characteristics and 'roles' of any one created reality (be it male, female, earth, heaven or whatever) cannot be understood in terms of opposition to another i.e. dialectically, but only by love and relation. So, for example, love for one other human person can only operate in a healthy way if it includes a third 'party' (ultimately God, but also one's neighbour). Aidan Hart
Thank you, Aidan Hart! That is all excellent insight, and I think it’s all very true. I am very honored to have met your approval — I have loved your iconography for decades now, particularly all the images of Western saints you’ve created. In particular the icon of St. Cormac — it’s very dear to me. Thank you so much!
Do you have any thoughts on the relationship or anagogical complementarity between marriage and monasticism in this light? It seems in some places to be presented dialectically, but while the Church confesses virginity the higher mode, it also steadfastly retains the doctrine of the holiness of marriage, and the synergy and common telos of both paths. Any deeper insights? Forgive me if I am unclear or misrepresent the teaching of the Church.
J.Z, that’s a really good question… It’s inspiring me enough to write a post about it. I certainly have more thoughts than I can post here!
I’d find that exceptionally valuable- I look forward to having a look should you get around to it!
This is really helpful, Cormac. Thank you. Your explanations of dialectical thinking are making this issue clearer and clearer to me. As always I love the little flares of humor in your writing. I loled at "longtime readers of my month-old newsletter."
Thank you for the fascinating article: analogical and not dialectical. Most important is the differentiation between hierarchy as commonly understood and Christian hierarchy.
Thank you for reading!
Dr. Timothy Patitsas talks quite a bit about love reconciling the opposites in his Ethics of Beauty. We're so used to thinking that things have to be either/or and it's hard to get used to the idea that we can have them be both/and.
If you think about it, every single relationship is mediated by a third element - it's never just I/Thou - there's always the spirit (Spirit?) of the relationship that turns it from 2 separate individuals, "me" and " you", into "us".
Dr. Patitsas's schema of king, prophet, and priest, with chiastic experiences of kinghood and prophethood between men and women, is very alluring, but I'm not sure I grasp all the consequences of it yet. The Ethics of Beauty is something I plan to do an extensive review of someday (before too too long, I hope!), probably in the form of dialogue with my friend who is equally invested in the book.
Oh, I'll look forward to that review! I was actually thinking of his chapter on social justice when I made my above comment, but you're right that the chiasm of kinghood and prophethood is another area that should be brought to bear on the discussion of men and women. I can't even explain it well, let alone grasp all the consequences! Lol. But there's something in what he says that strikes my instincts as profoundly right, somehow.
Oh, do you mean Jane Jacobs' Guardians–Traders distinction? Because that is absolutely the fractal pattern of thymos and epithymia in action. I read that book recently, inspired by Patitsas.
Yes, that's what I had in mind
Thank you Cormac. Very helpful and in depth. I think that a dialectical approach is a natural consequence of not rooting thinking in Trinitarian theology. Within the Trinity, one of the divine Hypostasis (Persons) cannot be described in terms of not being like one of the others, since there are two hypostases not like the other. The divine Persons can therefore only be described relationally, by the nature of their relationship with the other two. This means that characteristics and 'roles' of any one created reality (be it male, female, earth, heaven or whatever) cannot be understood in terms of opposition to another i.e. dialectically, but only by love and relation. So, for example, love for one other human person can only operate in a healthy way if it includes a third 'party' (ultimately God, but also one's neighbour). Aidan Hart