Theology, Psychoanalysis and Trauma
#1
Great new book, (relatively new, 2008) by Marcus Pound. Theology, Psychoanalysis and Trauma.
The author wants to do a "repetition" of Lacanian through Kierkegaard and a repetition of Kierkegaard through Lacan and all linked with the Eucharist.
[repetition is a Kierkegaardian term, it means "to do it again but differently". it's Platonic]
My book review here, awaiting publication (hopefully)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16056889/Theol...view-Final
Reply
#2
I'm intrigued.  I would like to know more about this  “realm of created independence to help the subject engage in the subjective appropriation of truth” (p. 27).
And this is a fantastic statement right here:

"Furthermore, it is only as a result of the “qualitative shift in consciousness” with regard to time, occasioned by the Incarnation that the analytic endeavor is possible at all (p. 153)."

Hmm....I may have to find this book.....
Reply
#3
(06-02-2009, 06:43 PM)Borromeo Wrote: I'm intrigued.  I would like to know more about this  “realm of created independence to help the subject engage in the subjective appropriation of truth” (p. 27).
And this is a fantastic statement right here:

"Furthermore, it is only as a result of the “qualitative shift in consciousness” with regard to time, occasioned by the Incarnation that the analytic endeavor is possible at all (p. 153)."

Hmm....I may have to find this book.....

Kierkegaard was very interested in the subjects appropriation of truth. In Philosophical Fragments he wrote:
"What would be the use of discovering so-called objective truth .... What good would it do me if truth stood before me, cold and naked, not caring whether I recognized her or not, and producing in me a shudder of fear rather than a trusting devotion? ... I am left standing like a man who has rented a house and gathered all the furniture and household things together, but has not yet found the beloved with whom to share the joys and sorrows of his life.... It is this divine side of man, his inward action, which means everything—not a mass of [objective] information."

Here's here expanding on the Thomistic adequatio and he goes on to talk about state of untruth (sin), the moment and the teacher (see commentary by Storm here, http://sorenkierkegaard.org/kw7a.htm , )
The [human] teacher, for Kierkegaard, is only "an occasion" for learning. He provides a necessary condition but does not actually impart truth since that proposition comes up against the "the epistemological problem" identified by Plato in "Meno"
The only one that teach is God Himself. He fully develops here Augustine's theory of "Divine illumination"
Anyways, the relationship to Lacan is rooted in Lacanian theory. Lacan wants to promote "full speech", that is speech that takes up the past with responsibility and reinterprets as a precursor to the present and the future. Lacan is looking for the use of the future anterior tense, identified by Heideggar as indicative of "care".
The "qualitative shift in consciousness with regards to time" is a comparison between pagan conceptions time / eternity (bad infinite) and the Christian conception you find in St. Augustine and later (see Confessions, Bk X). Kierkegaard works this out also in Philosophical Fragments.
The bad infinite of pagan time means the past is irretrievable, whereas in Christianity we understand time as the "moving image of eternity" (St. Augustine), therefore the past and future are ever present (from God's perspective). We can tap into this only because God revealed Himself in time through the incarnation and continues to do so everyday in the Eucharist.
If one accept the Eucharist as the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ really and truly substantially present, then everything is different. It's calls for the step into the abyss of faith (looks like bread, tastes like bread, but isn't).




Reply
#4
Kierkegaard was very interested in the subjects appropriation of truth. In Philosophical Fragments he wrote:
"What would be the use of discovering so-called objective truth .... What good would it do me if truth stood before me, cold and naked, not caring whether I recognized her or not, and producing in me a shudder of fear rather than a trusting devotion? ... I am left standing like a man who has rented a house and gathered all the furniture and household things together, but has not yet found the beloved with whom to share the joys and sorrows of his life.... It is this divine side of man, his inward action, which means everything—not a mass of [objective] information."


That is exactly my thoughts on "Traditional" Catholicism.  Exactly my thoughts when I read the Baltimore Cathechism(s).  "...because I can discover my own untruth only by myself, because only when I discover it is it discovered, not before, even though the whole world knew it...."  My thoughts again.  That is not to say that what I 'learn" from the catechisms is NOT truth, but until I discover it for myself, until I can apply it and more importanly LIVE it, it means absolutely nothing to me or anyone whom I encounter.  (I'm sure I just knocked my "Fish Factor" down by several points in saying THAT!)  This is why, as of late, I have been so taken with the then Cardinal Ratzinger's older works, because he acknowlegdes that people have doubt and they do question things, even their own faith.   

I would argue that, for some people a collection of "objective" facts, is safe, neat, very tidy.  For others, like myself, it is suffocating and too simplistic. 

In his book, Faith and the Future, Cardinal Ratizinger states, "Faith is not a colossal edifice of supernatural facts standing like a second order of knowledge along side natural science, but an ascent to God...faith is not a system of knowledge but of trust." 

Thank you for the links to Kierkegarrd.  I will have to read more on him.  I confess, I have not read much philosophy.  I have spent most of my time reading science....there was a time when the two subjects were not so separate from each other I believe.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)