On the Possibility of a Theological Ontology

A Micro-Essay/Sketched out Monograph of a Future Paper

Introduction

	In this micro-essay I would like to look at the possibility of a theology in general terms of reference, i.e., investigate whether this type of topic actually has a range in meaning that might allow it to exist in fact, in actuality. Therefore, the primary concern of this sketch is whether this topic actually has subject matter that is conceivable.

	I would like to do this under the headings of the Phenomenological, the Hermeneutical and the Existential. 
Under the first heading all terms will be placed under a transcendental suspension, examining thereunder all expressions in the broad range of their meanings without partisan considerations. In the light of the hermeneutical the broad range of meaning realized in the phenomenological treatment of this subject will be generally itemized retrospectively and speculatively. Lastly, in the light of the existential the experiential ramifications of a theology in general terms of reference will be discussed on the grounds that what does not exist for us, and vice versa, may as well not exist for us.

The Phenomenological Treatment of this Topic

	In this section two fundamental terms will be placed under a transcendental suspension, namely, the sense of the creation as the realm of the phenomenological, i.e., phenomena, and, the sense of the divine as the theological whether that be some sense of a divinity or divinities, the sense of the godhead, the actuality or illusion of any or all of the same, etc., etc.

	The creation in the sense of the phenomenal can be seen, at least initially, to range over a region in logical meaning encompassing that ‘realm of phenomena created at some point in time, that created many times, created continually or continuously, or not at all, and, that which only appears to have been created in any of these senses.’
	On the other hand the sense of the divine as the theological can be seen to ‘encompass limited divinity and/or divinities, a sense of unlimited godhead or only the appearance of some or all of the same.’

The theological can also be re-defined in term of its existential relationship with the sense of the person. Whether that be in conscious or non-conscious terms of reference, whether that be in personal or non-personal terms of reference; an aspect discussed under the subject of the existential treatment of out topic.
	
	By a transcendental suspension is meant, in line with my previous research, the entertained balancing of all polarities, identities, functions, etc., through being entertained in parallel with their contraries in theoretical and/or practical terms of reference, etc. 

	What can be entertained in logical terms of reference therefore appears to be conceivable. Therefore what cannot be entertained cannot be a subject here for investigation.

	The following can be ruled out of court: 

1.	Phenomena that don’t change,
2.	Phenomena that cannot be interacted with even indirectly, and,

3.	Some sense of the divine that has no relationship with some sense of the phenomenal, 
4.	An absence of interaction even with its own sense(s) of self (regardless of its epistemological status).
	
Because interaction implies

1.	Change,
2.	Interaction,
3.	Phenomenal involvement
4.	Some form of intentional interaction or intervention (even if ‘intentions’ are only metaphorically analogued).

The Hermeneutical Treatment of this Topic

	Phenomena (as defined in our micro-essay In Authentic Space, Part II) are primarily emitted, systematically encompassed or allowed to interact through the form and/or of a current. In secondary terms of reference all three modes can be found to co-occur with each other (both ontically {logically and factually} and epistemologically).

	The theological can be limited to the sense of a divinity or divinities, or unlimited with respect to the sense of the godhead, or, linked only to the appearance or illusion of the same. All of the above taking personal and/or non-personal forms of interaction.

	Granted that an individual person has an established appearance phenomenally, then the extrapolation of this type of affairs could not be used to rule out in logical terms of reference a sense of divinity that is like some person (or thing). Hence metaphors of ‘mothers’ and ‘fathers’ could be considered literally acceptable but only in limited terms of reference.
	But that which is limited is limited and consequently cannot perform that which has its origins in some sense of the unlimited.
	But it is conceivable that the personal and non-personal could be co-joined, i.e., a sense of godhead that also has a limited face so to speak. That interaction with the unlimited, in this type of situation, were in some sense mediated.

The Existential Treatment of this Topic

	That which does not interact directly or indirectly with us, and vice versa, has no direct or indirect existence for us! Such an entity or entities would be pure speculation and should be considered as such, as an impossible object to entertain!
	Therefore a meaningful theology must involve our experiential interaction with some sense of the divine!
	
	Hence the division of our topic into the two domains of the merely theoretical and the non-theoretical! Let us now attend to the latter.

	Having now established the theoretical possibility of our topic (in general terms of reference subject to an overarching transcendental suspension) let us now look at ways theological possibility might be ‘actualized’ through its imputed realization in practice(?).

The Theoretical Establishment of Theological Actualization 

	This aspect of out topic will be investigated under the following headings briefly surveyed:

1.	From Possibility Actuality is, by Necessity,  Realizable in Some Form or Other.

	Because of the epistemological indeterminacy of pure definition what is conceived to be possible must have some form of actuality as well! ‘Unicorns’ can be conceived of as possible creatures, but, factually, only ‘horns’ and ‘horse-like creatures’ actually exist. Hence even ‘unicorns,’ albeit in part, can be found to be existent in the world. Phenomenologically, hermeneutically and existentially various senses of the divine can be intellectually visualized. From this state of affairs it follows that in some form or other the sense of the divine can be found to have some existentially factual realization of that state of affairs because their pure possibility (as is their pure actuality) is absolutely untenable (epistemologically, and ontologically). But what that might amount to is another matter, namely, particular types of argued theology! As a philosopher it is our job to critically evaluate the cogency of all those arguments (in essence a thorough transcendental critique of our ‘phenomenological theology.’).

2.	The Whole is Greater than the Sum of its Parts Hence Divinity is Relatively Present in the 
Presence of Wholes.

	Since the essential totality of the whole is essentially re-invested in and essentially re-expressed through the relative body of that relationship it follows that a sense of divinity based in a sense of essential integrity could also be invested in and re-expressed through the metaphorical body of that relationship (between parts and wholes).

	But how could we recognize the same? By the nature, quality and consequences of that re-investment and re-expression!?

3.	Because the ‘Relationship of the Relationship of all Relationships therein’ is ‘the Relationship the ‘World’ has to Itself , it Follows its Necessary Theological Implication.

The ground of all relationships is the World or Lifeworld. The relationship of that to itself realizes 
its theological implication. Such a relationship being ‘open’ is thence ‘unlimited’ in its characterization. Hence our grounds for an open, unlimited, non-theoretical theology (if only in principle?).

	Such grounds granted our tentative theology along these lines would imply that this sense of the divine is established through the embodiment of the world by some sense of the divine (regardless of the nature of that sense of embodiment which cannot be purely phenomenal nor non-phenomenal in its essential nature). Although to dismiss it as a ‘pure mystery’ would be as wrong as to dismiss it as absolutely amenable to reason (on the grounds that hermeneutic engagement is a process that resides between the poles of the absolutely incommensurable and the absolutely commensurable).

	Objection: Given that this sense of the divine is embodied in and through the phenomenal nature of the phenomenal it follows that this sense of the divine should be limited by the physical limitations found to be imposed on the nature of the phenomenal in its expression as the ‘physical.’ E.g., how could such a god think when it would take light-years for this type of divinity to interact with itself across the vast reaches of space?!

	Limitations need not be physical for the relatively non-physical aspects of this sense of the theological?
	
	How could the human mind think when the brain would be subject to the same type of limitations, albeit, on a much reduced scale? (Moreover, to continue this comparative contrast, the conscious person also possesses a sense of relative freedom commensurate with the degree of psychic integrity being experienced by that individual person to some degree above and beyond the limitations of their embodiment in that body as a ‘mere body.’ Furthermore, it is a phenomenal characteristic of any  phenonemon, that a reduction of its apparent phenomenality that cannot capture nor represent the full meaning and meaningfulness of that phenomenon reductively! In this light even a poem should have a certain je ne suis pas, the better poem the better this sense of mystery) .

	Processes of self-organization (of information, and the investment of that information) can overcome such limitations (and the universe does appear to be self-organized in its flatness and fractal representations/models, etc?)?

	The nature of natural transformation demands the overcoming of such limitations (as placed on limited identity?). The increasing epistemological integration and orientation of a phenomenon increasing its sense of freedom to self-organize its own sense of relative freedom through transformation, as is found, e.g., with respect to the person in their interaction with their own senses of self and the various senses of other open to them.

	The essential nature of the relationship of all relationships should also be imprinted on the phenomenal fabric of any one relationship!? But could we discern this dimension pregnant in each and every relationship? Or does the very nature of the relational bespeake this for us? Would that not be the case!? Even though the sharpness of a thorn is only manifested at the tip of a thorn we still declare that thorn as sharp throughout its constitution because the total thorn is arranged in such a manner as to constitute a sharp tip in a projection from the body of that thorn. In a similar fashion the essential nature (predicative and relational) is arranged in such a manner as to pervade the metaphorical body of that relationship with respect to itself). As a meaningful theology implies the meaningful interaction of the sense of the theological with the sense of the phenomenal an acceptance of the former demands that essential nature of this relationship or relationships to equally pervade holistically the entire ambit of those objects/subjects being interacted with!

	But some parties (e.g., some Buddhists) deny that even the sense of self, or personhood, has any substantial structure to support itself, and, therefore, even this sense of theological unity and self-integrity must equally be undercut.

	Reply: But this does not undercut the phenomenal appearance of the sense of a person and so, likewise, the theological sense of integrity of the divine in its phenomenal embodiment in some form or other rather than being undercut is in fact established phenomenally (and phenomenologically) by virtue of this inherent ‘emptiness’ (if the ‘fact’ of its establishment is itself already established?)!

Overcoming the Transcendental Suspension Central to this Theological Phenomenology?

	I would argue that the transcendental suspensions of these ‘senses of the phenomenal’ and ‘theological,’ and their possible ‘modes of interaction,’ and the possibility of this form of ‘relational experience’ is overcome through a suspension of this set of suspensions and a suspension, in turn, of the same. This is as it naturally happens in our experience of phenomena being central to the healthy realization of the phenomenal!

Conclusion

	This theology begins and ends in the imposition of a transcendental suspension. All progress in our research being left to the individual to re-duplicate the intersubjective resolution of this topic in that fashion that is acceptable to them in accordance with the necessary prejudices of their own cultural point of view!
	
	That a theology, in a variety of forms, is, thereby, only posted as ‘tentatively possible’ given the parameters here outlined along with all the limitations entailed. That granted, therefore, a theology can be considered the necessary qualifications as a meaningful enterprise but equally one that demands that its subject matter also involves the experiential interaction, directly and/or indirectly, with things (and states) and sentient beings in this phenomenal sense of World subjected to the involvement of its theological embodiment! But, can such an explication travel beyond the limits of the metaphorical (if we do not accept the fact that that the literal-metaphorical distinction, like any distinctive contrast, is not absolute!)?

1st Sketch, Noël Tointon, 30.7.00

Four Further Sub-Topics Need to be Appended to this Phenomenological Theology

1.    The Positive Role of a (Phenomenological-Hermeneutical-Existential) Skepticism?

Extending the role of the transcendental suspension to the totality of this type of enterprise and critically evaluating the role of a possible transcendental illusion with respect to the subject matter(s) of this topic. Extending the use of the suspension through processes of transcendental reduction and transcendental reconstitution.

2.	On the ‘Experience of the Divine’

An ambiguous title – looking at the necessary phenomenology of divine experience and experience of
the divine, and,  the possible role played by ‘love’ realized in the resolution of dissonance (provocation) inherent in the general nature of relationships (as discussed elsewhere).

3.	On the Problem of Evil

Is there a true problem here (or is it only a problem when a theology is constructed in terms that are absolute(ly impossible) and contradictory?). Would it not be the case that ‘that which is limited’ would  experience itself as limited, finite in this regard? And therefore relative degrees of imperfection, and perfection, are part and parcel of such finiteness?

4.	The Problem of Meaning

Is there a need for a theological construction for the creation of a sense of person and interpersonal meaning and meaningfulness? Does a theology add to or subtract from such and enterprise?