This document discusses nondual Christianity and subject-object relationships. It explores how a nondual approach goes beyond but includes dualistic problem-solving. A nondual approach uses a "mediating thirdness" and involves aspects like phenomenology, axiology, and epistemology. Some nondual teachers claim nonduality has primacy and autonomy, but the document argues it is integral and a "necessary but not sufficient" part of a nondual approach. Later posts discuss the goals of transformation versus union with God, and how grace can bring people closer to God without full human authenticity. The document considers gauging religious traditions' success in facilitating human authenticity.

1. Shalom Place Community
Nondual Christianity - what could THAT possibly entail?
This topic can be found at:
http://shalomplace.org/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/15110765/m/614408711
8
18 December 2011, 04:17 PM
johnboy.philothea
Nondual Christianity - what could THAT possibly entail?
quote:
Originally posted by Phil:
Finally, there is another approach you did not mention:
subject-to-object. E.g., I have a relationship with many
objects, like my iMac, which I dearly love. Smiler But it is
obviously just an object and cannot enter into an inter-
subjective relationship with me. I do feel connection with it,
however, as I do the birds that come to my feeder, the sky,
trees, etc. This is not the kind of intrapersonal resonance
with reality you mentioned above. My Ego is still quite
intact, and yet there I am reaching out with my consciousness
to apprehend and appreciate other "objects." See what I mean?
What would this be called. Inter-sub/objectivity?
If you look at my graphic, you'll see that the intra-
objective, intra-subjective and inter-subjective are aspects
of phenomenology. For the most part, when humans "accomplish"
subject-object cleavage, that's the very essence of
epistemology and is primarily how we go about problem-solving
: describing, evaluating, norming and interpreting reality.
This subject-object cleavage is the hallmark of dualistic
thinking and where it gets its name as we divide the whole and
distinguish its parts.
Our dualistic approach is MERE problem-solving and our nondual
approach is problem-solving PLUS . The nondual sleight of
hand, here, whether we are talking anthropology,
phenomenology, axiology, epistemology or theology, involves
our use of a mediating thirdness. In this sense, our nondual
tripartite anthropology , triadic phenomenology, trialectical
axiology, trialogical epistemology and trinitarian theology do
all represent a higher value realization across the board,
existentially, as, in each case, we go beyond but not without
or transcend but include.
Unfortunately, this is not what many nondual teachers
advocate. Their mistake is rather straightforward: even though
they may say they are transrational, what they are doing is
(ironically, dualistically) according the nondual both an
axiological primacy and an axiological autonomy, which, as I
see it, makes their approach arational . What we are saying,
rather, is that, while the nondual does, indeed, enjoy an
axiological primacy (being the most valuable moment in our
various hermeneutical cycles, epistemically), it is also
1

2. axiologically integral (does not realize its value apart from
the other approaches, being autonomous only in a
methodological sense).
That's straightforward but not simple. Put another way, the
nondual moment is a necessary but not sufficient element of
our nondual approach. Unless properly integrated with our
problem-solving, dualistic approach, our distinctly human
values will not be realized. The nondual moment is but one
note in our nondual epistemic symphony. (Cf. Phil's discussion
above re: Lonergan)
18 December 2011, 04:22 PM
johnboy.philothea
re: the intra-subjective integrity
I equate that with Lonergan's conversions as expanded by Don
Gelpi: intellectual, affective, moral, socio-political and
religious. Think, here, of Fowler's faith development,
Kohlberg's moral development, Erikson's personality
development, Maslow's hierarchy and other stage and
development theories. Think classical formative spirituality:
purgative, illuminative and unitive paths.
Keep in mind that I am not setting forth a systematic approach
only a heuristic account, providing some conceptual
placeholders, disambiguating some terms, mapping some
concepts, categorizing reality, introducing some alternative
language, stimulating some conversations, hopefully.
18 December 2011, 04:50 PM
pop-pop
Per Johnboy, a few posts back:
“What is more so at stake, rather, is our possible realization
of superabundance , which is to suggest that the onus is on
various religious practitioners to demonstrate that they can
journey toward transformation (human authenticity) much more
swiftly and with much less hindrance precisely because of
their formative spiritualities.”
Statements like that typically send me into desolation; which
then, for me anyway, once again required a saddling up and
some time on the Ponderosa – and it was cold out there.
I hates that desolation stuff, let me tell you – even more
than the cold. It was the onus that created the onus. Kind of
like the proverbial ‘putting a burr under my saddle’ (though I
hadn’t even saddled up).
So I’m loping along and asking myself: Is the journey toward
transformation (human authenticity) really the highest goal?
Or is the journey toward union with God? Is the journey – like
the US Army advertises – being all that one can be? Is the
journey about me realizing me in all my fullness? Or is God
somehow in play? Is not the goal being with God, being in God,
with His sap in me, my obedience in Him?
Perhaps we can be there (in God) more swiftly and with less
2

3. hindrance than our realization of transformation and human
authenticity. Perhaps we can be there by our mere desiring –
even before the realizing of the fullness of our human
transformation, even whilst realizing quite deeply the reality
of our profound dysfunction and our inability to eliminate it.
Perhaps many, nay most, of our forbears had never realized
full human authenticity and human liberation, yet were by
their obedient surrender and grafting into and remaining in
the vine growing heavenward powered by a supernatural kind of
sap…. somehow …already there (at the goal, truly) -- despite
not at the highest level of human psychological growth as
psychologists would term is the goal.
Perhaps our forbears and indeed even we ourselves can be
‘there’ kind of by a miraculous grace, one might viably say.
Hey, perhaps that’s -- the GOOD NEWS.
Perhaps it’s that serpent again: saying, “Did God really say
that?” (Is being in, and remaining in the vine is what
glorifies the Father?)
Does John 15 speak about human authenticity per se? “He who
brings himself to naught for Me discovers who he is” Jesus
said.
Perhaps many martyrs even had not advanced all that far along
on their journey toward transformation (in terms of human
authenticity) and yet were quite far along in the journey that
pleases God.
Certainly, as the saint says: “The glory of God is man fully
alive”. I believe that with all my heart. But I hate onus and
its attendant accusatory and sulphurous fragrance -- despite
being somewhat of a feist myself (as the Old English and their
epistemological groupies might say).
I like much of what Johnboy has posted, but I react to onus
stuff. A Christian need not have to ‘demonstrate’ anything to
anyone -- swiftness or otherwise.
‘Remain in Me’, the Lord says. That works for Him…...that
should work for us.
Pop-pop
18 December 2011, 06:34 PM
johnboy.philothea
quote:
Originally posted by pop-pop:
Per Johnboy, a few posts back:
“What is more so at stake, rather, is our possible
realization of superabundance , which is to suggest that the
onus is on various religious practitioners to demonstrate that
they can journey toward transformation (human authenticity)
much more swiftly and with much less hindrance precisely
because of their formative spiritualities.”
3

4. Statements like that typically send me into desolation;
which then, for me anyway, once again required a saddling up
and some time on the Ponderosa – and it was cold out there.
I hates that desolation stuff, let me tell you – even more
than the cold. It was the onus that created the onus. Kind of
like the proverbial ‘putting a burr under my saddle’ (though I
hadn’t even saddled up).
Listen, I can hear Willie Nelson: ♫♪ Why do I have to choose?
See everybody lose! Walk 'round and sing the blues? Well,
darlin', I refuse! ♬
quote:
Originally posted by pop-pop:
So I’m loping along and asking myself: Is the journey
toward transformation (human authenticity) really the highest
goal? Or is the journey toward union with God? Is the journey
– like the US Army advertises – being all that one can be? Is
the journey about me realizing me in all my fullness? Or is
God somehow in play? Is not the goal being with God, being in
God, with His sap in me, my obedience in Him?
For those of us who imagine that humanization IS divinization,
we're talking 'bout one and the same cattle drive!
quote:
Originally posted by pop-pop: Perhaps our forbears and
indeed even we ourselves can be ‘there’ kind of by a
miraculous grace, one might viably say. Hey, perhaps that’s --
the GOOD NEWS.
Indeed, the journey up Mt. Carmel is an Assumption and not an
Ascension!
quote:
Originally posted by pop-pop: I like much of what Johnboy
has posted, but I react to onus stuff. A Christian need not
have to ‘demonstrate’ anything to anyone -- swiftness or
otherwise.
For all practical purposes, I am a universalist for whom any
onus would be moronic (of the oxy- variety)!
Yet, the question remains begging - n'est pas? - as to what in
the world I was saying, then!
4

5. Because churches institutionalize Lonergan's conversions
(human authenticity), we might, in theory, try to gauge how
successful they are in that regard because that might help us
adjudicate between some of the competing claims of different
traditions. The way the theological guild says this is that
orthopraxis authenticates orthodoxy. So, that's a suggested
ecclesiological norm for fallibly discerning the fruits of the
Spirit (or lack thereof) from one believing community to the
next and not, rather, an obligation of any given believer. At
the same time, to the extent one aspires to engage in
apologetics of any sort, proselytizing others, one's implicit
demonstration of ongoing conversion might emerge as a self-
imposed onus?
And this is why I also wrote, though you may not have gotten
that far in the thread yet:
quote:
Originally posted by johnboy: We certainly need a modicum
of intra-subjective integrity vis a vis human authenticity to
enjoy beatitude but, in the end, how much we grow or how holy
we get is very much God's affair . Beyond that, in my view,
both now and forever, the experience of the inter-subjective ,
both vis a vis our primary beatitude of being happy with God
and our secondary beatitude of being happy with our fellow
creatures, is our highest good and to be most highly valued.
Our experience of unitary being vis a vis a realization of our
intra-objective identity will certainly round out and enhance
our other experiences integrally and holistically and can even
protect us from certain errors (overly dialectical
imagination, deism, rationalism, pietism, etc).
So, neither Lonerganian conversions/human authenticity (intra-
subjective integrity) nor Enlightenment (intra-objective
identity) are our summum bonum or highest good, which is the
unitive life (inter-subjective intimacy), a free gift.
That we may move in superabundance, more swiftly and with less
hindrance, or even grow in authenticity or even experience
Enlightenment is no necessary spiritual aspiration (cf. Litany
of Humility - That others may become holier than I, provided
that I may become as holy as I should… ), in and of itself,
but instead might entail, among other aspirations, a surrender
to divine providence, a cooperation with the holy Spirit, out
of compassion for those who may otherwise have to suffer our
unconverted, unenlightened selves (as Teresa suggested: Let us
desire and occupy ourselves in prayer - not so much for the
consolations we may receive, but - to gain the strength to
serve. - or something like that, which was my paraphrase of
her sentiment that The water is for the flowers. )
Meanwhile, ♫♪ the shadows sway and seem to say tonight we pray
for water, cool water. And way up there He'll hear our prayer
and show us where there's water, cool water. ♬
5

6. Thanks for the spirited engagement, pop-pop.
pax,
jb
This message has been edited. Last edited by:
johnboy.philothea, 19 December 2011 12:40 PM
19 December 2011, 12:52 AM
johnboy.philothea
More on Lonergan's Conversions
The authenticity is reached by conversion which in turn is
reached by self-transcendence in an ongoing process. As
mentioned previously, one is responding (transcending self) to
having first been loved (divinely). So, this religious
conversion is a two-step dance. Having been loved
unqualifiedly, I start loving, more and more through time, in
the same way.
Thus gifted, I begin to gift others in return by cooperating
with that gifting, which is nothing less than the activity
(mission) of the Holy Spirit.
The more we cooperate with that gift which was given freely,
apart from anything we have ever known (or been educated to)
or ever done (whether an ascetical practice or moral deed),
the stronger our own unqualified loving and the more evident
our cooperation with the Holy Spirit vis a vis beatitudes
(Matthew 5), corporal works of mercy (Matthew 25), spiritual
works of mercy (throughout the 4 Gospels), charismatic gifts
for community (Romans 12 & 1 Corinthians 12), gifts of the
Spirit for personal sanctification (wisdom, understanding,
counsel, fortitude, knowledge, reverence, wonder & awe),
fruits of the Spirit (love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness,
goodness, faithfulness, gentleness & self-control -Galatians
5), theological virtues (faith, hope & love - 1 Corinthians
13) and cardinal virtues (justice, prudence, fortitude &
temperance).
To the extent, then, that conversion has been successfully
institutionalized (not only via an explicitly Christian
anthropology, theology, pneumatology, ecclesiology,
sacramentology, soteriology & eschatology but anywhere, in
anyone and in whatever manner) in a community or realized in
individuals, of course to varying degrees, all of this gifting
will manifest (the greatest of such gifting being love, which
is patient, kind, neither envious nor boastful nor self-
seeking nor easily angered but rejoicing always with the
truth, always protecting, trusting, hoping and persevering).
And all of this gifting will foster ongoing intellectual,
affective, moral, socio-political and religious conversions
via what Gelpi called grace as transmuted experience.
From this less than causal observer, these processes are
rather, in a word, messy! These conversions don't present
symmetrically, which is to recognize that growth in one area
will not necessarily indicate growth in other areas but, at
6

7. the same time, will generally tend to foster and mutually
support growth in other areas of one's spiritual life.
Charismatic gifts tend to be spread among different members of
a community, not all being gifted to one person and so on.
May the Spirit abide with you in great shalom!
jb
19 December 2011, 01:36 PM
Brad
Congratulations on your new site, Phil. Make that a “non-dual”
congrats. And you should know that Johnboy is a superb
publicist. I don't know if this thread is a part of that, but
just wanted to make mention.
19 December 2011, 02:40 PM
Phil
Hi Brad. Yes, the forums in this category are now an
extension, of sorts, of philothea.net. JB has a subdomain
worth checking out. I hope you will drop in here and on the
blog to gift us with your insights.
19 December 2011, 02:56 PM
Phil
quote:
We certainly need a modicum of intra-subjective integrity
vis a vis human authenticity to enjoy beatitude but, in the
end, how much we grow or how holy we get is very much God's
affair . Beyond that, in my view, both now and forever, the
experience of the inter-subjective , both vis a vis our
primary beatitude of being happy with God and our secondary
beatitude of being happy with our fellow creatures, is our
highest good and to be most highly valued. Our experience of
unitary being vis a vis a realization of our intra-objective
identity will certainly round out and enhance our other
experiences integrally and holistically and can even protect
us from certain errors (overly dialectical imagination, deism,
rationalism, pietism, etc).
JB, that was certainly worth repeating, and I completely
agree. I would add that intra-subjective integrity seems to go
hand-in-hand with intersubjective spirituality/mysticism --
that you can't really have one without the other. So many
times it seems that intra-subjective work enables a deeper
relationship with God, and vice versa.
Re. the intra-objective, I still have mixed feelings. It
might, as you noted, help to guard against certain errors, but
it also opens the door to others, especially if it is
emphasized too strongly. We've already noted the possibility
of a certain anti-intellectualism and the discouragement of
(dualistic) intersubjective spirituality. It can even bring
psychological damage if the Ego is denigrated, and it can
surely negate the value of kataphatic approaches as means for
a real encounter with God. So while the isms you mention above
along with others like moralism and dogmatism have been and
still are a problem in "the West" with its strong inter-
7

8. subjective emphases, there is likewise a shadow side to
approaches that are overly intra-objective (e.g., quietism,
premature kundalini arousal/awakening, psychological
imbalances, disaffectivity, radical apophaticism). Indeed,
there's little about intra-objective spirituality that seems
naturally suited to the ordinary functioning of our
consciousness, and I wonder if it's not a seeking after an
experience that is not good for us. It's certainly difficult
to earnestly pursue this kind of spirituality alongside the
other approaches you mention, as it seems to have the effect
of undercutting them in some ways.
19 December 2011, 08:27 PM
johnboy.philothea
What we have going on in that diagram with the super-
categories of people, relationships, values, methods and
hermeneutics is what I would like to call an axiological
spiral , which is analogous to the notion of a hermeneutical
spiral , such as we have within the category of methods where
the normative mediates between the descriptive and
interpretive to effect the evaluative. Or, one might say that
the philosophic mediates between the positivist and the
theistic to effect the theotic (thinking here of Helminiak's
approach to Lonergan).
There are different versions of a hermeneutical spiral that
are at work in Biblical exegesis vis a vis the senses of
Scripture. One could look at Pope Benedict's analysis of the
tension between a Thomist knowledge and a Scotist praxis and
say, with Bonaventure, that Wisdom mediates between knowledge
and practice to effect Love. We could say that, often, not
always, orthopathy or cult mediates between orthodoxy or creed
and orthopraxy or code to effect orthocommunio or community
The examples are endless, really.
In our axiological spiral , methods mediate between persons
and hermeneutics to realize values in relationships. There are
creative tensions that exist in each moment of these value-
realization movements.
To use a music analogy, we might say that each moment
(methods, persons, hermeneutics, values & relationships) is a
different note on the scale forming part of a symphonic
axiological movement. Some are high notes; others are low
notes. Some are quarter notes; others are half notes. Some
increase in loud crescendo while others contribute in soft
pianissimo. Now, this axiological spiral is in play for the
value-realizations that are to be derived in each type of
relationship during this symphony, each contributing
integrally to the whole, all necessary and none, alone,
sufficient. None of this is to suggest, however, that the
prescribed amount of emphasis required in order to avoid
either an over- or under-emphasis will necessarily and a
priori be the same for each moment! To achieve harmonic
balance and symphonic excellence, we manifestly would not make
every note a quarter note! To change metaphors, when we
suggest that each ingredient in a given recipe is
indispensable, we are not at all suggesting they be stirred
8

9. into the pot in equal amounts! Sometimes, it's a cup of this,
a pinch of that or a dash of the other.
So, when we inventory all of the insidious ISM's - pietism,
encratism, quietism, radical apophaticism, rationalism,
arationalism, irrationalism, fideism, ritualism, legalism,
dogmatism and so on, we are not suggesting that they result
from such a lack of balance as would derive from not giving
every moment in a hermeneutical or axiological spiral movement
equal emphasis, equal time, equal say. Or to provide every
ingredient in equal amounts. I won't flesh out this metaphor
but will leave it as an imaginative tool for anyone who wants
to employ it.
quote:
Originally posted by Phil: I would add that intra-
subjective integrity seems to go hand-in-hand with
intersubjective spirituality/mysticism -- that you can't
really have one without the other. So many times it seems that
intra-subjective work enables a deeper relationship with God,
and vice versa.
That was my implication with the understanding that hand-in-
hand needs to be nuanced along the lines of what I discussed
above and in the context that was well-presented by pop-pop.
There are astounding asymmetries and exceptionalities that
present courtesy of what appears to us to often be a holy but
unruly Spirit! reminding us of Who is sovereign. Still,
normatively, that does seem to be the general rule and we do
have to rely on ordinary patterns of behavior as fallibly
truth-indicative in our communal discernment processes.
quote:
Originally posted by Phil: Re. the intra-objective, I
still have mixed feelings. It might, as you noted, help to
guard against certain errors, but it also opens the door to
others, especially if it is emphasized too strongly.
That is the general point regarding various over- and under-
emphases of ANY moment. An over-emphasis on 1) the inter-
objective results in a radical apophaticism 2) intra-
subjective - a narcissistic navel-gazing 3) subject-object
cleavage - scientism and positivism 4) intra-objective -
philosophical naturalism and quietism 5) inter-subjective -
pietism and fideism. Of course, these are broad over-
generalizations and rather facile characterizations of some
otherwise complex psycho-spiritual dynamics.
The radical apophaticism of a radically intra-objective over-
emphasis actually results from its ineffable encounter of the
indeterminate ground of being, unequipped as it is with its
lack of (or impoverished) analogical imagination, which
requires a robust engagement of our dualistic problem-solving
9

10. mind.
One very profitable engagement of our putative intra-objective
reality in humankind's history has been that of science's
methodological naturalism, which is epistemically dualistic
but ontologically monistic (for argument's sake). This
devolves into scientism and positivism, however, whenever an
intra-objective approach gets over-emphasized vis a vis a
philosophical naturalism, which is ontologically monistic ( a
priori and ideologically) .
Another profitable engagement of intra-objective reality has
been that of those Eastern tradition schools that nurture both
dialectical and analogical imaginations and therefore embrace
prominent devotional elements (with ipso facto inter-
subjective aspects, for all practical purposes).
The intra-objective identity experience of some type of
underlying oneness may, in part and in various ways, play some
role, too, in what Maritain as per Arraj discussed in such
phenomenal experiences as could be associated with
philosophical contemplation (thru concepts) and the intuition
of being, natural mysticism (w/o concepts) or mysticism of the
self, metaphysical insight (such as via Zen), all distinct
from mystical contemplation in that the latter is illuminated,
theological, personal and kataphatic while the former is
unilluminated, existential, impersonal and apophatic.
In our theologies of nature, the insights of intraobjectivity
and intersubjectivity have been blended creatively and
poetically into various panentheisms (my own is called pan-
semio-entheism to emphasize my semiotic perspective).
quote:
Originally posted by Phil: Indeed, there's little about
intra-objective spirituality that seems naturally suited to
the ordinary functioning of our consciousness, and I wonder if
it's not a seeking after an experience that is not good for
us. It's certainly difficult to earnestly pursue this kind of
spirituality alongside the other approaches you mention, as it
seems to have the effect of undercutting them in some ways.
To elaborate a solely intra-objective spirituality would, at
best, seem impoverished, at worst, lead to a litany of (even
perilous?!) maladies such as you inventoried vis a vis the
shadow side of a misappropriated intra-objective moment
(premature kundalini arousal/awakening, psychological
imbalances, disaffectivity).
quote:
Originally posted by Phil:We've already noted the
possibility of a certain anti-intellectualism and the
discouragement of (dualistic) intersubjective spirituality.
10

11. Point of info: While the term inter-subjective is
ontologically dualistic, I consider our spirituality,
optimally, to transcend epistemic dualism. But this brings up
a point I forgot to make earlier --- that epistemic dualism is
both necessary and sufficient to realize truth, beauty and
goodness in abundance (e.g. erotic love of God in Bernardian
love, imperfect contrition, Old Covenant, moral living and so
on).
SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS present in the integration of experiences
of intra-objective identity and inter-subjective intimacy ---
not because the essential experiences are in any way
incompatible existentially, theologically, spiritually,
psychologically, axiologically, developmentally,
philosophically and so on and so forth. The theoretical
integration is past the rudimentary stages thanks to Merton,
Maritain, Arraj, Phil and others. These experiences have been
validated and deserve to be honored for the role they have and
can play in formative spirituality. The chief problem is that
the associated practices so often continue to make their way
into our culture without proper re-contextualization. In
short, they arrive with baggage (that is philosophically and
theologically flea-ridden). The practices are often fine but
the conclusions (metaphysical and theological) that accompany
them are too often heterodox and in a manner that has
practical implications --- not only for one's life of prayer,
but --- for one's emotional health and cognitive integrity.
What is often lacking is proper catechesis and, occasionally,
when it is offered, it is confused. Getting intra-objective
identity wrong manifests kataphatically as a fundamentalist
creationism and God of the gaps (obverse side of materialist
monism), philosophically as an ideological naturalism and
scientism, theologically as pantheism or radical apophaticism,
metaphysically as a rather kooky tautology or silly
manipulation of concepts (often found in nonduality internet
forums), soteriologically as a denial of evil and even
suffering and so on.
What to do or not? Chasing after experiences for their own
sake is folly. If one is really interested in cultivating
intraobjective experience, then I suggest one proceed first
through concepts like: 1) methodological naturalism and why we
use it in science 2) philosophical naturalism and why it is
anti-thetical to Christianity 3) pantheism and panentheism and
how are they different 4) connaturality and intuition of being
5) study the Eastern traditions that do have devotional
aspects (most do!) and see how nonduality is distinguished vis
a vis ultimate reality versus everyday practical reality and
phenomenal experience 6) read Merton and Maritain 7) visit
innerexplorations.com 8) Google "spiritual emergency" 9)
reconceive nonduality in terms of a mediated thirdness or even
fourthness and stay away from any monistic oneness gibberish
that does not define itself positively on its own terms but
more so as an argumentative over against dualism (which makes
such approaches, sadly and ironically, inherently dualistic)
10) read the Doctors of the Church, especially the Carmelites
11

12. like John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila and then, and only
then, take up an Eastern asceticism or Christian adaptations
thereof --- with a good spiritual director standing by as well
as the url to: shalomplace.com Finally, this should go without
saying, but, those who've best integrated practices that are
quieting, centering or apophatic have not done so instead of
but in addition to kataphatic devotions and liturgical
practices.
This message has been edited. Last edited by:
johnboy.philothea, 23 December 2011 10:35 AM
22 December 2011, 11:18 AM
johnboy.philothea
A task I have set before me but have not yet fully engaged (at
least not formally) is the setting forth of a matrix of
interactions. On the left axis would be our various categories
of phenomenal experience: inter-subjective intimacy, intra-
objective identity, intra-subjective integrity and inter-
objective indeterminacy. On the right axis, across the top
would be four categories: dualistic approach to Creator,
nondual approach to Creator, dualistic approach to creation,
nondual approach to creation. This matrix would identify the
various gifts and fruits and values to be realized from each
such interaction.
On yet another matrix I would include the same axes but try to
identify the shadow side of those interactions as might be due
to improper emphases.
22 December 2011, 11:35 AM
johnboy.philothea
Another attempt at concretization of these abstract concepts,
oversimplified and exaggerated (but sufficiently nuanced
above, I hope, to prevent any facile caricatures):
When I say nondual or contemplative, I am talking about the
way I interact with my granddaughter when she knocks on my
door. My heart leaps and we delight in each other’s presence.
When I say dualistic, I think of doing my taxes. Talking about
a putative ultimate reality (God, for most of us)a nondual
inter-subjective intimacy would be like that between spouses,
parent and child, or, like in my example, grandparent and
grandchild. That’s one way we aspire to interact with God in
the West. If, however, we interact with God like He’s a
policeman or judge, that would be dualistic in a moral
problem-solving sense. St. Bernard spoke of a “love of God for
sake of self.” In catechism we learned imperfect contrition or
sorrow for the consequences our sins have on us. CS Lewis
spoke of eros or the “what’s in it for me” dynamic of
relationships. All of those would be examples of practical
dualistic problem-solving. Those who spend a lot of time on
metaphysical proofs and the apologetics of natural theology in
philosophy internet forums are engaging God in a rational
dualistic problem-solving. This is another way we interact
with God in the West, which is okay, but we miss the deeper
invitation to intimacy (unitive living) if we don’t go beyond
it to the nondual.
12

13. A nondual intra-objective integrity refers primarily to
Enlightenment experiences of the East, where folks
experientially realize, beyond all concepts, the grand unity
of all reality, how everything is related to everything else
(unitary being). This is not a metaphysical insight such that
one would come away a pantheist (God is merely the whole that
is greater than the sum of His parts) or materialist monist
(the philosophical naturalism of an atheist). Rather, it is a
profound existential realization of our radical solidarity
with all being and the experience blossoms into a profound
compassion, sometimes for all sentient beings. The Western
experience of
love moves us to compassion, also, but more so from having
experienced being so well loved. This does have practical
metaphysical implications that some Christians have resolved
as a pan-en-theism, which more so suggests God indwelling in
all rather than be comprised of all (pan-theism). The
Enlightenment experience is nondual. There is no problem-
solving going on, just an ineffable … well, we cannot tell
untellable stories. Elaborating a panentheist approach on
paper is a rational dualistic problem-solving, which is great
but not the same as an existential realization.
Intrasubjective integrity speaks to our growth within each of
us as subject. Think of Kohlberg’s stages of moral
development; Fowler’s stages of faith development; Piaget’s
stages of cognitive developmet; or Lonergan’s conversions –
intellectual, affective, moral, sociopolitical and religious.
Religious conversion is a two-step dance. Having been loved
unqualifiedly, we start loving, more & more through time, in
the same way, gifting others in return by cooperating with
that gift of divine love, which is nothing less than the
activity (mission) of the Holy Spirit. The more we cooperate
with that gift, which was given freely, apart from anything we
have ever known (or been educated to) or ever done (whether an
ascetical practice or moral deed), the stronger our own
unqualified loving & the more evident our cooperation with the
Holy Spirit vis a vis beatitudes, corporal & spiritual works
of mercy, charismatic gifts, gifts of the Spirit, fruits of
the Spirit, theological & cardinal virtues. Our intra-
subjective growth has dualistic and nondual moments, also. Our
intellectual, moral, social and political growth is primarily
dualistic problem-solving (that we would not want to proceed
without!). Our affective (emotional) and religious development
has both but realize their unitive summit in the nondual, when
our other neediness is quieted.
Interobjective indeterminacy speaks to the unspeakable. It is
really just a placeholder for the possibility of realities
that are wholly beyond us, like some aspects of God.
We also interact with fellow creatures in the above-listed
ways but that takes us into arcane metaphysics with all sorts
of root metaphors like substance, process, experience and so
on.
So, we want to affirm that our dualistic approach is good and
13

14. necessary, just not sufficient to realize the value offered us
in the Good News — that God wants an intimate relationship
with us via a more nondual engagement — as St. Bernard would
say, a love of God for sake of God. Our dualistic approach is,
however, both necessary and sufficient to nevertheless live a
life of abundance under, for example, the Old Covenant because
all God really expects of us is an enlightened self-interest.
Like any good parent, who wants what is best for a child and
will settle for them being safe, healthy, happy and moral even
if they do not fully reciprocate our deep, deep love of them –
God’s cool with our erotic love of Him (what’s in it for us)
and imperfect contrition. The nondual and dualistic are not
over-against is what I am trying to say. The dualistic is an
invitation to a wedding shower; the nondual is an invitation
to the bridal chamber.
For those familiar with the teachings of Merton on false self
and true self, true self realization is the paragon of the
nondual approach vis a vis intra-subjective (within oneself)
integrity or human authenticity. For those who grew up Roman
Catholic, the birth control fiasco came from an overemphasis
on the biologistic and physicalistic and rationalistic
problem-solving approach and an underemphasis on the nondual
unitive value of conjugal love. In homiletics, an overemphasis
on fire and brimstone, church disciplines and other matters is
primarily dualistic, all true-enough, perhaps, but missing the
deeper invitation to contemplative prayer.
What I really wish to convey here is that the major categories
of our explicit faith include 1) eschatology (where are we
headed? orienting us), 2) theology (to whom are we dedicated?
sanctifying us), 3) ecclesiology (how are we a people?
empowering us), 4) sacramentology (how are we sustained &
nourished? healing us) and 5) soteriology (what’s wrong and
what can we do about it? saving us). EVEN in our otherwise
secular culture, EVEN among nonbelievers, the SPIRIT is the
One coaxing humankind along, always and everywhere, already 1)
orienting us through our shared history 2) sanctifying us
through our cultures 3) empowering us through our social
institutions 4) sustaining and healing us through our
economies 5) saving us and freeing us through our politics!
THERE IS NO COMPARTMENTALIZATION FOR THE HOLY SPIRIT BETWEEN
THE SECULAR AND THE SACRED.
Of course, for reasons due to poor formation or even
deformation or developmental inadequacies we encounter
different degrees of manifestation of God-presence as various
people(s) fail or even refuse to cooperate with the Spirit.
Thing is, we must discern when and where it is we see failures
to cooperate but we can never know which failures result from
inabilities (as above-listed) or refusals (sin), because we
are not in a position to judge.
Once we employ a more robustly nondual view of human
realities, we’ll see the Spirit at work in both Republicans
and Democrats.
14

15. So, when a people’s history is explicitly eschatological
(knowing where we’re headed per the Good News), when a
people’s culture is explicitly theological (even if
pluralistically so), when a people’s society is explicitly
ecclesiological (church-going), when a people’s economy is
explicitly sacramental and when a people’s politics is
explicitly salvific and liberating, we can rejoice that the
Kingdom which is to come is at least being more fully realized
in part. When it is not explicitly so — but merely historical,
cultural, social, economic and political, we can STILL REJOICE
knowing it is the same Holy Spirit providing all good gifts!
They are being received, however, according to the mode of the
receivers.
23 December 2011, 12:05 AM
pop-pop
JB,
Not to be argumentative. (Really.) But rather to express the
‘mode of this receiver’ anyway, I offer my dibs (though I
realize you didn't ask for them):
I don’t know… the way you want to define the term nondual (and
you have included fine examples per what you are intending) is
nevertheless atypical of how it is often conceptualized in
other forums (beyond SP). Therefore you will be leading us
into confusion.
We will be understanding everything in the JB reference system
but having to convert or adjust our understanding when we read
other sources or discuss these concepts with others speaking
and thinking per a non-JB reference system.
*******
The restriction of ‘dual’ to ‘putative’ is artificially
narrow. Love between persons is dual. I don’t see how love can
be conceived as anything but dual.
The H.S. is interpersonal love. In a real way He is the
evidentiary testament of the duality of the Father and the Son
– a duality evidencing a substantial distinctness in the form
of love (termed the H.S.) … Divine Love termed the H.S. not
human love termed the H.S. (though an image of it).
*******
.
“radical solidarity with all being”. Sounds nice. A typically
sweet jargon – but cloys (imo). To me, per my mode of
receiving anyway, it is artificial.
Christ knew the hearts of men, and what He knew was not a
testament to radical solidarity. Quite the contrary.
Solidarity is a ‘heart thing’ not a ‘biological human’ thing.
********
15

16. I like St. Bernard as well, and his sermon distinguishing
servant, son and spousal love s delightful. Dynamite stuff.
But I don’t think nondual terminology does it justice.
Hoping we are in radical solidarity despite my dibs,(and
respectfully),
Pop-pop
p.s. Have I belched a good belch?
23 December 2011, 12:11 PM
johnboy.philothea
quote:
Originally posted by pop-pop: I don’t know… the way you
want to define the term nondual (and you have included fine
examples per what you are intending) is nevertheless atypical
of how it is often conceptualized in other forums (beyond SP).
Therefore you will be leading us into confusion.
I have discussed manifold and varied ways that nondual has
been employed, precisely because there is no typical way it
has been used. People move back and forth between
epistemology, axiology, phenomenology, ontology, metaphysics,
theology, practices and conclusions and I am parsing and
disambiguating those usages precisely to bring more clarity to
the reigning confusion. People will continue to talk past one
another as long as what we call category errors persist.
This is precisely the reason Amos Yong and I published my
contemplative phenomenology for interreligious dialogue . It
is philosophically grounded in the work of Charles Sanders
Peirce and largely theologically grounded in the work of
Robert Cummings Neville (mentor of Yong), who's one of the
world's foremost authorities on global theology.
Now, this work of the theological guild does not predominate
internet discussion forums, other than on academic listservs,
but that is one of the reasons I returned here --- to begin to
make this stuff more accessible. By fielding questions and
translating jargon in a context of dialogue with cyber-
passers-by, this very labor intensive process can slowly
unfold. I still haven't fully committed to the task, yet,
because it is so painstaking and time-consuming and one needs
to be temperamentally disposed and pedagogically equipped to
do this well (and, quite frankly, I have discerned from prior
interactions in this and other forums that I am neither). But
there are people who have both the disposition and charism to
popularize this type of material. Both Yong and Neville are
professors by trade and their students are slowly making their
way into preaching and teaching professions. Richard Rohr and
Brian McLaren are authors and conference speakers by trade and
their material is even more quickly being disseminated in an
accessible manner. I have corresponded with both Fr. Richard
and Brian and both have read Amos and my article and we are
all reading from the same sheet of music vis a vis our outlook
16

17. on nondual realities. I have also corresponded with Jerry Katz
of nonduality.com (and reviewed his book); Jerry runs the
forum Nonduality Salon and he has well received my nuances.
Therefore, just for starters, one can Google the following
syntaxes: 1) +"Richard Rohr" +nondual 2) +"Brian McLaren
+nondual 3)+"Robert Cummings Neville" +nondual 4)+"Amos Yong"
+nondual 5)+"Shalem Institute" +nondual 6) +"Boulder Integral"
+nondual 7) +"Charles Peirce" +nondual
As Fr. Richard cautions though:
quote:
A rediscovery of non-dual thinking, acting, reconciling,
boundary crossing, and bridge building--based on inner
experience of God. “Second Axial Age?” Yes, some is immature,
some is syncretistic, some is ungrounded, some not integrated,
but the steps toward maturity are always and necessarily
immature.
quote:
Originally posted by pop-pop:We will be understanding
everything in the JB reference system but having to convert or
adjust our understanding when we read other sources or discuss
these concepts with others speaking and thinking per a non-JB
reference system.
I hope I have conveyed that the JB reference system is
precisely a meta-critique that places other sources in
context. It is not some idiosyncratic, atypical usage but a
GLOSSARY whereby one can decipher all of the other uses of the
term. This meta-critique is academically rigorous and builds
on other peer-reviewed work. It is peer-reviewed itself in an
international setting.
quote:
Originally posted by pop-pop: Love between persons is
dual. I don’t see how love can be conceived as anything but
dual.
The H.S. is interpersonal love. In a real way He is the
evidentiary testament of the duality of the Father and the Son
– a duality evidencing a substantial distinctness in the form
of love (termed the H.S.) … Divine Love termed the H.S. not
human love termed the H.S. (though an image of it).
Let me leave my work unfinished, for now. Perhaps in the New
Year, I will explicate what us Peirceans call the irreducibly
triadic nature of all semiotic reality. Think Holy Trinity
Smiler
17

18. quote:
Originally posted by pop-pop: “radical solidarity with all
being”. Sounds nice. A typically sweet jargon – but cloys
(imo). To me, per my mode of receiving anyway, it is
artificial.
Christ knew the hearts of men, and what He knew was not a
testament to radical solidarity. Quite the contrary.
Solidarity is a ‘heart thing’ not a ‘biological human’
thing.
I like St. Bernard as well, and his sermon distinguishing
servant, son and spousal love s delightful. Dynamite stuff.
But I don’t think nondual terminology does it justice.
Hoping we are in radical solidarity despite my dibs,(and
respectfully),
Pop-pop
p.s. Have I belched a good belch?
re: this last bit of yours, being neither descriptive nor
normative but evaluative, I defer and demur
Merry Christmas, pop-pop
jb
p.s. Google this syntax for some good forum stuff elsewhere:
+johnboy +nondual
18