A Working Paper Exploring the Ramifications of Theological Difference

Brief Introduction

	A theologian should be able to argue why the addition of a theological re-writing of the life-world should make a difference in how we view the world and live our lives therein – this is, in essence, the concept of ‘theological difference’ in its initial form. (1)

	But, the presence or absence of this theological aspect seems to make no difference to the world from the point of view of an atheist (or agnostic)? And this is the problem of theological difference in its simplest form. (2)

First Exposition

	This difference, hypothetically granted, can it take an absolute form (as an unchanging substance/state, etc.)? No! Because it could not be there-for-itself nor there-for-us! (3)

	Therefore, if hypothetically proposed and accepted, it, the sense of the Divine, must take a relative form! That is, take a form of mutually interdependent existence in the life-world itself. (4)

	Therefore for the presence/absence of the Divine to enter into the world in some form or other the same must be embodied within the world. Now, just as it is through emptiness (read ‘take a relative, mutually inter-dependant form of inter-relational existence without dependence on an absolute form of substantial existence’) that as relative, non-absolute ‘wholes’ can come into inter-relational existence it follows that all senses of a whole are constructed in a similar fashion. Such as object-states (e.g., rocks, trees, etc.) and senses of ego (e.g., animals with consciousness, and the life of human beings, etc.). Moreover, it follows that all wholes are similarly constructed including all viable forms of divinity (with or without forms of intentionality and interactivity). Now, it also follows that forms of intentionally-driven, sentient self-existence greater than our own must exist in some form or other by virtue of the fact that at least our inclusion in a ‘psychic’ whole/set of ‘psychic’ wholes greater than ourselves (by virtue of at least our inclusion, and the incorporation of our constitution, into their more inclusive sense of constitution). Hence the progressive spirituality of nature, self, community, all sense of the divine, etc. The latter then being defined as ‘all forms of psychic organization greater than our own senses of self as a participant in a community/set of communities’. Hence through such emptiness the existence of the theological-like sense of self in a hierarchy of embodiment and interaction. (5)

	Hence there can be no ultimate form of divinity from a self-experiential point of view; neither from our own point of view nor from some other form of sentienthoodness. Such reification of a process argues against an ontological-like type of argument that might attempt to argue for an ultimate and absolute end!  Such an ‘end’ can have neither sense, nor meaning  nor meaningfulness! (6)

	Therefore, the implication of a relative theological sense of the Divine…. (7)

Second Exposition

	If it follows that there is/can be no absolute theological difference in our understanding of the life-world then it follows (its existence hypothetically granted) that there must be a relative theological difference within the same! (8)

	In our understanding of the worldhood of the life-world as ‘one-world-of-life-there-for-us’ it follows that because we can, in part, appreciate the world-likeness of the life-world and that therein we experience a world of sense, meaning and meaningfulness, it follows that all contextual forms of significance generated imply a relative theological-like form of embodiment in the world. Significant theological implication being demanded on levels of epistemological organization relatively greater in hierarchical complexity than our own! (9)

	Significant theological implication being demonstrated through the incorporation of the person within its embrace, hence the (potential) spirituality of the community, inter-communal forms of interaction, etc. (10)

	Because the world cannot be 'written' and appreciated merely (i.e., purely) in terms of its materiality! Hence the involvement of the immaterial, i.e., the relatively spiritual (against which this correlative expression  of material gains its significance through contrast! (11)

	Hence the absence of absolute theological difference demands its relative theological presence, both potentially and in actuality (because no absolute demarcation can be made between the same!) (given that the concept of the 'divine' has sense, etc.) (and that its actual-potential expression needs to be individually cashed out through theoretical/practical/critical appreciation in some form or other)! (12)

Third Exposition

	Relative theological implication granted what right have we to argue that that sense of divinity is conscious, has intentionality, can interact with the world, has a sense of personality, has a sense of spirituality greater than our own relatively lesser or diminished sense of the same, etc?! (13)

	Our own sense of self is contrasted within and through a sense of community. The sense of a community is given its sense of contrast through a community of communities. Does it not follow that this community of communities gets its significance through that which must be spiritually greater than the sum total of that collective, communal sense of spirituality? Which being limited must be quantifiable if only theoretically and by proxy?
Yes and no! No, because significance is generated mutually between some ‘facet’ of a ‘whole’ and some ‘aspect’ of a ‘part’ and therefore does not need to involve the totality of a whole in each instance (if at all). Yes, because the relative ground of such a state being limited in extent must have, theoretically, a quantifiable estimate of the same (even if the ‘qualitative’ cannot be directly ‘quantified’ it can be done by proxy in the form of independently set, arbitrary levels of excellence which, in-depth, can be intuitively estimated and compared). (14)
	
	But the worldhood of the-world-of-life demonstrates this necessary unity of the-world-there-for-us through our collective abilities to navigate our collective passages through the same. (15)

	But can (or could) this appearance of unity take on the form of a sense of divinity that also has a sense of  Divinity through possessing and utilizing a sense of intentionality, a sense of interactivity, a sense/senses of self, etc? (16)

	But the sense of a totality greater in organization than our own sense of psychic self must possess therefore a sense of self greater in epistemological organization than our own, individually and/or collectively. (17)

	That, being the case, therefore the demonstration of the necessary existence of the relatively theologically incorporated.! (18)

	That being the case through the necessarily greater epistemological organization of such an ‘embodied entity’ by virtue of its incorporation of entities like ourselves within its matrix of totalization! Therefore this increased sense of epistemological organization. (19)

	Therefore, there is a theological difference from a relative point of view and it behooves the theologian to inform us what spiritual implications can and must be drawn from such an existential fact of our existence! And it behooves us to explore the validity of the same!! But how do we check the validity of such claims? – that is another matter that should not be left purely in the hands of (non-partisan) theologians, hence the important involvement of impartial philosophers to re-evaluate such research!!! (20)

Conclusion

	There can be no forms of absolute theological difference! (21)

	That being the case, then a relative theological difference must take its place in existence (through a differential in epistemological organization)! (22)

	But that aspect of embodied existence cannot be absolutely unified! (23)

	That, one, through incorporation of entities with a degree of epistemological organization like us, and, two, through the actuality of the possibility for the same in some transformational form or other, it follows that this difference can also take the form of 
embodied entities with a sense of intentionality, personhood, etc. (24)

	Therefore the necessary existence in various embodied forms of some sense of the Divine with a sense of its own (limited) Divinity. (25)

	That being the case, there must be a relative theological difference to be discovered in our investigations of the world!! (26)

							Noël Tointon, Sydney, 2.5.01/7.6.03.

P.S: Please note that the idea of divinity being tentatively argued for here is ‘embodied’, ‘in the world’, operates within the transcendental ‘limits of the life-world’, acts/reacts with a relative sense of self, etc. Although, from another point of view, we may like to look at the life-world as - ‘the relationship of all relationships’, which ‘not being a relationship’ (of the same meta-status as the former) might then be treated as the ‘ground’ or ‘godhead’ upon which and through which any sense of the relatively divine could act? But that aspect of a theology would need to be argued for elsewhere and, I suspect, would first need the type of theology being argued for in this provisional working paper?

P.P.S: Please note that theological difference should also take into account a hypothetical demonic difference since the same type of argument ostensively can be used to argue for the same. E.g., we could imagine 'the world without a sense of the demonic' and a sense of 'the world with the same', hence, ipso facto, the existence of the demonic in some form or other (as yet to be determined). However, as noted previously elsewhere, the demonic in an absolute form cannot be argued for just as a sense of the divinity in an absolute, non-phenomenal form cannot be argued for likewise! Furthermore, that which runs counter to the 'integrity' of the life-world dis-establishes the cogency of its own imputed existence, and, in a similar light that which dis-establishes the relationship dis-establishes the imputed presence of the same (with the absolute dis-establishment of the relationship doing likewise to the imputation of its own existence within that relationship!). N.