The Continental Philosophy Group Conference, November 2008

On The  Possibility or Impossibility of Divine Communication?*

0.   Introduction

	I am still currently engaged in working on the second volume of my hypothetical theological investigations wherein I am examining the possibility or impossibility of various features associated with the formulation and dissemination of theological texts, practices and perspectives, etc. In this paper I would like to look at the topic of divine communication. By that I mean, more or less, the possibility of instances of the Divine communicating with us, and, the possibility of our communicating with some sense or senses of the Divine. This aspect of communication is central to much theological speculation since theologians, theologists, theist congregations, etc., claim to be able to go beyond mere religious speculation by virtue of some form of divine communication. In this paper let me turn a classical attitude to communication upside-down, back-to-front or inside-out, in order to re-visit this topic in a more profound, existential and critical light. (0)

1.   The Classical Attitude to Communicative Acts

	Before we transport ourselves to a theological plane let us first enter a transcendental dimension in order to examine what might necessarily be entailed in an act of communication, say between two people. (1)

	When I started this type of analysis I was amazed by the very long list that evolved. Now, I would argue that a theologist needs to first understand what might be entailed in a simple act of human communication in order to begin to approach this topic of divine communication. Regardless of the type of ‘discipline’ and ‘tradition’ adopted and adapted by a theologist, their formulations must make sense if they wish to find (an existentially continuing) relevance in those investigations. (2)

	Let me merely list some of these necessary features that apparently seem to establish an apparent (and thence ‘phenomenal’) act of communication (in a communicative act). (3)

*   For latest version of this paper (conpaper2008.rtf) refer to my homepage site:
www.homepage.com/noelshomepage/noelsrelphil.html    

2.   Necessary Features in an Act of Communication (Between Two People)

As I list this set of features let us think through their connection and necessity:

1.	A transmitter (as the active communicative agent).
2.	Intentional motivation to formulate a distinctive act of communication.
3.	Through an interpretative genre in which it formulates that sequence.
4.	Transmitted token/s (as text/s transmitted in the communicative act).
5.	A baseline of sequence/s into which these tokens are inserted or omitted.	
6.	A receiver able to interpret transmitted communications.
7. 	Intentional motivation that re-creates that reversed transcription.
8.	Use of same or similar interpretative genre for reverse transcription.
9.	Responses formulated in response to the reception of that transmitted text/s.
10.	Various supplementary processes to critically re-establish transmitted text.
11.	Informative recourse to historical precedents by transmitter and receiver. 
12.	Repetition of such sequences to reinforce old processes/start new ones. (4)

	To complicate 	matters, all of the above as processes utilize sequences which in turn can also be subject to processes of sequential distortion (namely, mis-sequentialization, de-sequentialization and contra-sequentialization as defined elsewhere). Furthermore this series of steps, as depicted above, is not even definitive since these stages are looped, concurrent and/or intermittent, and, themselves may involve a shifting number/set of sub-sequences. (5)

	Should a theologian wish to apply this series of steps to a process of communication deemed to implicate a Divine source or agent in some form or other then they might like to attempt a possible checklist in which to establish a similar sequence, i.e., who or what is transmitting to whom or what, what tokens are involved, the nature of the communicative intentionality involved, the manner of its interpretation, etc. I am sure they would have their work cut out for them, and, they would most certainly need to be optimists as well! Without any guarantee of success! Yet, if some form of communicative act is ‘reported’ such a framework might be informative even if the act or acts of ‘reporting’ were merely to be seen occurring in a metaphorical and/or mythical mode or modality. At least the religious nature of the genre or genres apparently invoked could be better articulated and made more open to insightful analysis and appreciation (and by such means determine what existential value, i.e., sense, meaning and meaningfulness, might appear to have been implied rhetorically?). (6)

	However, let us critically look more closely at this classical attitude wherein a communicative act is seen as involving a transmitter, communicative intentionality, tokens, a receiver, modes of interpretative expression and reception, etc. (7)
3.   The Chaotic Nature of Intentionality

	Imagine, if you would, we are someone who is about to think through a certain thought or type of thought. Let us say we are about to write a letter. In effect we are communicating with ourselves. Does this same model apply when the agent transmitting is also, we must assume, the same agent who receives that same thought? How does one appreciate one’s own act of thinking? We ask ourselves: should we write a letter to x? Posed like this we find ourselves with a dis-conjunctive suspension between the either/or – either “I write a letter (to x) or I do not write a letter (to x)”. This type of suspension is one part or moment of an overall transcendental suspension (or hermeneutic circle of comprehension as examined elsewhere). Here, I believe, we have a clue! A suspension is on the cusp of a bifurcation where we could metaphorically ‘go this way’ or ‘go that way’, but, for the moment, remain undecided as to which intentional direction our mind might decide to go… and  in which direction our embodied being might decide to follow. Points of bifurcation indicate the likelihood of chaotic phenomena. And chaotic phenomena indicate self-organized states of affairs that become re-self-organized at those moments of bifurcation… in passing through those moments of symmetrical suspension to asymmetrical response. (8)

	Now, if we were to treat a communicative act, along the same lines as an intentional act, as an instance of a chaotic phenomenon, effectively, we turn things inside-out, turn things upside-down or back-to-front so to speak. Let me explain. (9)

	A state of re-self-organization is momentary, i.e., in effect, something that appears as if spontaneous in its transitioning from one self-organized state of affairs to some other. Such a transition is both continuous and a sudden distinctive discontinuity. The person thinks a new thought and they ‘change direction’. Still, it is the same person that changes direction so change is not absolute. In other words, metaphorically, discontinuity is relatively superficial, albeit in a distinctive manner whose transitioning is spontaneous in its re-direction. Moreover, this qualified change of state is conducted simultaneously throughout the entire field of that relationship subject to such a transformation. It is as if the change of state is put into effect both equally at the center of that relationship and throughout its entirety of influence. Now what applies to the intentional act applies to the communicative act. In other words, communication is not so much information traveling from agent a to agent b, but, an informational change of state that occurs spontaneously at both the center of that communicative relationship and throughout its field of operation or influence. Such a chaotic reading completely undermines the linearity of an orthodox classical reading! Information is not so much sent as suddenly realized throughout that relationship spontaneously and simultaneously! (10)

	In a slogan we might say: that information is not transmitted but realized through re-self-organization and is enacted from the psychic center of that relationship spontaneously, simultaneously in an all-pervasive manner throughout the relational ‘space’ of that relationship in its full entirety! All else, therefore, is nothing but an extracted imputation  - superimposed upon the ‘fictions’ of imputed ‘agents’ connected via ‘textual streams’, ‘tokens and texts’, ‘interpretative modes’, etc. (11)

4.   The Chaotic Nature of Communicative Acts

	Key insights into our novel understanding of communicative acts entail our recognition that communication is enacted from the psychic center of those relationships, this occurs spontaneously and simultaneously throughout the entirety of that communicative relationship. That, in effect, discrete aspects of a classical attitude are mere imputations superimposed upon and/or extracted from the existential reality of the communicative act itself. Communication is realized throughout the entire compass of that communicative relationship itself! We find ourselves having communicated once communication is established as an ongoing process. This existentially non-irreducible residue of ‘communication’ that emerges from this communicative matrix of operation implies that all else is an imputation extracted from/imposed upon this chaotic state of re-self-organization. (12)

	Let me put this into our contemporary situation, e.g., my reading and discussing this paper in our conference today. If I am right, communication is progressively taking place through the center/s of our relationship/s we have between myself and yourselves. I am only (the imputation of) an acter or actor. I may appear to be the active party in this process but all of us are neither purely active nor purely passive. I am interrogating you and you are interrogating me; be that directly through questions or indirectly through entertaining possible questions you might like to ask in this process of unraveling (to which you may or may not find myself/yourselves answering). Communication is more than a two-way street, a relationship in which the dissemination of information is disseminated in and through this interaction/series of interactions. True, you come to some degree of understanding as I work my way through this paper, but, your comprehension is momentarily realized and appreciated. In a series of sudden conversions you finally see what is being intended to some degree or other whether you agree with me or don’t agree with me in full or in part. This comprehension is individually and collectively realized about a psychic mid-point. I cannot just tell you what I think you need to know, nor, for that matter, can you merely will yourself to understand what you might think is being said. Only through our interaction with each other does our communication emerge through this individual and collective engagement(s) we have with each other, here, today… in the here and now. (13)

	How might we expose the existential nature of this insight?! Through interrogation. How is insight realized? Is it not progressively realized in irreducible quanta that appear to occur spontaneously and simultaneously? Ah ha.., I see.., I see now… I see you see… I find you have seen through your questioning of me and your enquestioning of yourself… both of these together… at the same time! ‘Existential’ because such insight cannot be reduced merely to the bits and pieces, or quanta apparently, apprehended through our relationship/s. A richness of intent that is both simulated for-me and re-simulated for-you. In effect, in and through alignment/s of being… our-being-with-each-other… before-each-other… in the very here and now… in and through the very midst of our engagement with each other. If we were not so engaged there would not be this mutual process of communication. (14)

	So much for the orthodox or classical model of communication (and intentionality). Through transmission and reception we become apparent transmitters and receivers, i.e., imputations along such lines, and, not the other way round! (15)

5.   What Implications does this Chaotic Model Have for the Theologist, etc?

	How would a theologian or theologist re-write their thinking on the nature of the Divine and the nature of Divine communication (assuming the hypothetical possibility of both) in the light of this chaotic model of communication? (16)

	If such a state of affairs were granted, then both Divine agents and non-divine agents in an interactive communicative state of affairs must be treated as mere imputations in the self-enactment of these communicative states of affairs (and that such acts themselves should be treated too as imputations extracted from and/or superimposed upon the Life-World [as that matrix of all possibility-actuality])! Still, a certain problem will arise, indeed, re-arise! How might we mere mortals, even as imputations of non-divine agency, recognize this type of communicative act (to even be an imputation of Divine communication with the imputation of some form of Divine agency)? To explore this conundrum let me explore the following scenario. (17)

	On a weekend day, on a beach is sunbathing a CEO of a (once) huge investment bank… with their mobile beside them. They are worried about the current state of the markets… especially when trading re-commences on Monday morning. Despite enjoying the natural atmosphere of the beach they are continually mulling over certain problems whose solutions might well decide the death or life of that large institution. Then, out of the blue, a solution is realized by that CEO. There is no point shouting it out to their fellow sunbathers. Instead they use their mobile and ring a number of the members on the board who in turn transmit a series of instructions to various operators in that company working in various offices over the weekend, all trying to deal with this emergency in the financial markets. What is or are the moral or morals of this anecdote or scenario? (18)

	The power of that CEO is disseminated through other entities of a similar epistemological organization and status, i.e., as functioning members of that board. In an asymmetry of power there is also the symmetry of the communicative act through an alignment via their mobiles. However, the asymmetry of power cannot be too great. It is transmitted through a process of mediation to imputed agents of a lesser level of status and power, etc. The apparent transmission of communication between entities of differing status necessitates both mediation and alignment. In this regard communication is still relatively mutual. The CEO speaks and is answered, and v.v. An act of communication is arrived at through (the harmonic resolution of) the immediacy and mediation of this process of asymmetrical-symmetrical alignment/re-alignment. (19)

	If the theologian wants their cake and eat it, in this respect, they must invoke mechanisms of mediation, processes of recognition, mutuality of engagement, etc., etc. If they were to define the Divine as several orders of magnitude in epistemological organization in advance of the individual or community, then, to re-create the imputation of a communicative act between the same, they need to invoke such mechanisms. Indeed, they would need to explain how this potential difference might be breached and broached. Would this be a problem? I don’t suspect this would be a problem to begin with as there would already be a series of traditional genres to hand they might wish to start with: be they voices from the air; burning bushes; angels; dream revelations, etc., etc. Of course, the veracity of such religious experiences and their interpretations is another matter for the theologian, etc., to deal with! (20)
6.   The Theological Ramifications of this Non-Orthodox Attitude

	The non-theological ramifications of this non-orthodox, non-classical, chaotic interpretation of both intentional and communicative acts are profound! In effect we are given a new way of treating intentionality and communication. Our new metaphysical world view demands the importation of imputation and thence a Post-modern/Contemporaneous concept/s of simulation through re-simulation. Equally, the theological ramifications are considerable. I have already alluded to concepts and problems of mediation, recognition, alignment, asymmetric dissemination, symmetry of media, simulation through re-simulation, imputation (of both the Divine and non-divine, and, by implication or extension, of that which is neither Divine nor non-divine), etc. Then, in the various fields of value, whether simple or complex in presentation, we are given a new and existential way of seeing relationships, appreciating the nature of value, dealing with the ethical and how to relate with others, refining a qualified realization of truth, meeting a deconstruction and reconstruction of our metaphysical attitudes, etc., etc! All of this must impinge upon how both the religious and the non-religious person will come to re-see the world-to-hand. (21)

	As to the possibility or impossibility of Divine communication, I don’t believe this question can be definitely settled other than to show that such a concept, in this revised form or format, is not automatically impossible or contradictory. To conclude this paper let me clarify this point. (22)

	If relationships, albeit inferred through imputation, are in an ongoing state of self-re-organizing alignment then those relationships too are in an ongoing state of self-re-organizing alignment within their respective relational frames of reference (equally inferred through imputation) etc. Indeed, life-worlds within more comprehensive life-worlds… and all within the overarching totality and openness of the Life-World as ‘one’ World-of-Life. Thence the theological or theological-like complexion of the Life-World whether perceived by default or regarded as an existential residue imputed with or without a religiously viable complexion (the former aspect augmenting this prior sense of a natural theological complexion through the religious treatment of the transcendental unity of the Life-World as ‘one’ World-of-Life!). But, this granted, through a symmetry of media (through alignment), there can be no theological difference in the final analysis between relatively more exalted imputed elements of the Divine and the imputation of lesser forms of non-divine agency. (23)

That between the ‘world’ and the ‘world plus all elements of the Divine’ there can be no real absolute difference between the same! Furthermore, this absence of a theological difference, despite a theological potential difference in status and epistemological organization, still invites, through a necessary degree of alignment that we too must be fully paid up participants in a divine-like process whether that be merely with each other and the world-at-large, or, between ourselves and the semblance and possible recognition of the Divine!? This all makes sense, but, whether it is of ‘religious’ value to us is another matter, indeed, one for the theologist, the theologian and their congregations themselves to investigate and critically appreciate? (24)

	At the end of the day, however, when we find our imputations working for us then surely we will find ourselves working for them. And, in this irreducible mutuality of endeavour, what could be more religious in orientation?? (25) 

    Noël Tointon, Sydney, 20.9.08.

Postscript

	What is the possible merit of this non-reductive, chaotic interpretation of intentionality and communication for the theologian? I have argued that for the professional theologian to go beyond mere theological speculation they would have to invoke some form of divine communication. The archetypal model I have supplied, I believe, offers a few short cuts over the classical version of transmission. For a start it would be easier (and more fashionable?) to erect an existential theology based on embodiment, engagement, enactment in and through the center of relationships in the framework of a process theology and consequential analysis. The latter already offering an existential model for ethical engagement (treating the overall existential augmentation of relationships as a positive position to take in moral judgment where engaged value is treated as complex). The primary problem to overcome is to square the circle between the asymmetrical differential in epistemological organization and power of the Divine (as per definition) and the symmetrical nature of communicative medium/media (as illustrated in my CEO anecdote). Such a power differential already exists in reality and no doubt is overcome, i.e., harmonically resolved, through various strategies, e.g., negotiated via meta-textual genre conventions, modes of mediations, etc. Possibilities that the theologian might want to invoke (in an orthodox and/or unorthodox interpretation). N.