1. i am deeply sympathetic with the overall thrust of so
many in the east-west dialogue movement and feel they
are very close to some significant breakthroughs but
often held back by mistakes in epistemology which then
cascade into metaphysical over-reaches
the correction is simple: change aq/al to aq/al/at = all
quadrants| all levels| all the time
by 'all the time' i speak not of chronos but kairos, that
moment wherein a value is most fully realized
the nondual unitive value to be realized in ecstatic
lovemaking with one's bride cannot be fully realized
without the simultaneous dualistic recognition that she
is not, instead, her twin sister ... and so it goes with gods
and Godde ;)
while the sophiology angle is helpful & insightful, how different folks approach
soteriology/theodicy can be very revealing
iow, i pretty much get how different folks (across & within traditions) arrive at their
evaluative dispositions re: solidarity & compassion and their propositions & practices
re: interiority/authenticity
but have been much more curious re: the whys, wherefores & hows of their affective
attunements vis a vis both/either their propositional apologetics and/or existential
grounding for their disposition that ALL IS (somehow and for some 'reason') WELL
to wit: ask anyone whether (or not) all is, may, can, will or shall be well and how they
'know' that
and this particular answer will reveal much more re: their religious stance that will be
of interest to me and better help me to locate my own resonance or dissonance with it
as one gets into cynthia's book, one will see her discussion of the sacramental and
liturgical (she is, after all, a priest), which is essentially communal
i would say cynthia appropriately deemphasizes (not dismisses) the propositional
(belief) and suitably reemphasizes the participatory, which i treated extensively in my
article w/amos
i also resonate with her prophetic protests re: traditionalism (and other ISMs), which
is not the same as dismissing traditions
cynthia's critiquing various over- and under-emphases (not articulating false
1

2. dichotomies)
the term, dismissive, as with the pejorative sense of certain isms, makes for a helpful
characterization when properly applied
i simply did not see bourgeault as being dismissive of propositional belief
of course traditionalism will vary subjectively among cohorts of believers but --within any given community of value-realizers that has established substantive
distinctions between sets of essentials and accidentals --- those who tend to treat
accidentals as if they were essentials are engaging an unhealthy traditionalism
conversely, those who treat essentials as if they were accidentals engage an unhealthy
progressivism
an 'among' example:
anglicans, by self-definition, will differ re: essentials & accidentals from the roman
church, so will a priori & necessarily see much of the rcc as traditionalistic, so ... 'tis
to be expected
a 'within' example:
but even within the rcc it seems that the creed, liturgy, sacraments, incarnational
outlook, analogical imagination and both critical & moral realisms are essentials while
church polity, disciplines & moral doctrines are accidental
i resonate with cynthia's emphasis on the unitive
i've read both both wisdom jesus & mary magdalene, which i enjoyed
marion was much more explicit in his epistemology & metaphysics, which was the
main focus of my critique of him
i did speak briefly of his heterodox theology
i noted bourgeault's marion & wilber connections but didn't gather that she was
thereby necessarily uncritically advocating an arational or extrarational approach;
indeed, i received her explications of an integral gnosis, dianoia, epinoia and metanoia
as suitably transrational
2