Finding a Place for the Idea of God – Postscript:
On the 'Death' of the Metaphysical Idea of God, and,
The Necessary Theologicalization of the Life-World??

0.	Introduction

Having completed this series, and collection, of ten essays let me now summarize my provisional findings in the form of twelve propositions with an accompanying commentary. The first ten propositions mirroring work done in these ten essay with a tentative conclusion being announced in numbers eleven and twelve.

Part A

1.	Root Text in the Form of Twelve Summarizing Propositions

1.   The divine in some manner must at least be directly and/or indirectly there-for-us 
As a ‘phenomenon’ in this world-of-life for what is not there-for-us is not there for-us!
2.	The divine in some manner must be represented hermeneutically in order to recognize 
Its re(-)presentation through the auspices of an overall transcendental suspension!
3.	All relationships are met in and through encountering an existential excess therefore
All relationships with the divine must be met in the same manner to some extent or other.
4.	As all identity is developed through dependence and interdependence it follows 
That the divine identity is realized, non-metaphysically, through processes of interaction!
5.	Theological difference demands the instantiation of the divine
But does not ostensively dictate the form, manner and value of the same!
6.	The definition of the divine as radically greater in its epistemological organization
Than us re-defines the divine as Divine without directly establishing its relevance for-us!
7.	As all relationships are realized through ongoing resolution it follows that 
The nature of Divine interaction must be ‘of love’ both objectively and subjectively!
8.	As Divine interaction would be in essence a ‘living conversation’ the articulation of 
The relevance of its theological ‘work’ needs to be conducted by a theologian or similar!
9.	Each and every different conversation demands a difference in conversational partner,
Hence the apparent plurality and integrity of both Divine presence and Divine absence!
10.	That metaphysical notions of divinity are nothing more than a transcendental illusion
Hence the emptiness of all identification whether Divine or non-divine in orientation!
11.	Hence the death of the idea of God and the perfect absence of the same
Can only progressively realize the theologicalization of this ‘one’-world-of-life!
12.	Thence the Divine ‘is’ through non-being and through ‘non-being’ is the Divine
But what that ‘is’ is is for theologians and/or congregations to determine for-themselves!

Part B – Commentarial Notes on These Twelve Summary Propositions

1.   The divine in some manner must at least be directly and/or indirectly there-for-us 
As a ‘phenomenon’ in this world-of-life for what is not there-for-us is not there for-us!

What does not exist for us does not exist for us! Hence a viable theology must deal with the phenomenalization of the Divine whether that be directly or indirectly, virtually or non-virtually. By directly is meant directly engaged within the same relationship. But, when only ‘relationships’ are directly engaged, and not some of the contents therein, then those contents of those relationships are not directly engaged by a person who is 'standing' in one of those other relationships that does not contain the same. In a sense a fully direct relationship is commutative - e.g., “I see X who sees me”. We are both directly engaged in seeing each other. On the other hand, if we have the proposition “I see X who does not see me” then what is involved is a non-commutative relationship with the implication that ‘I am directly engaging X who is unwittingly being directly engaged by myself’; a fully commutative engagement requiring both active and passive symmetry in this regard. E.g. “I know A (who knows me) who knows B (who knows me too)” is a direct relationship of ‘knowing’ between B and myself because of just this symmetry. On the other hand, if “I did not ‘know’ B but only ‘knew of’ B” then that would be an indirect relationship between the same. A non-virtual relationship has been defined as one in which all modalities, or an adequate number representative of the same, have been engaged in a manner as expected with that type of phenomenon. In contrast a virtual relationship involves an inadequate number of expected modalities being engaged. E.g., as in engaging with a dream apple and ‘eating it’ which will not satisfy a non-virtual sense of hunger. Between these four parameters the interaction between the divine and the non-divine, and vice versa, is charted in a viable theology.

	Hence the absolutist conception of the wholly Other would not be countenanced!

2.	The divine in some manner must be represented hermeneutically in order to recognize 
Its re(-)presentation through the auspices of an overall transcendental suspension!

	In Part II three forms of hermeneutics were found to be individually defective in revealing and assisting the formation of a viable theology. However, it was suggested that normally these three styles of textuality cooperate together and that a viable theology could be conducted through the cooperation of all three.

	In a similar manner an understanding of the phenomenology of the hermeneutic circle encourages us to recognize that the formation of value engages the complete economy of 'object-states', 'others' and 'one's own sense(s) of self', and, that no form of experience could be entertained without this complete economy being present, and, thence, no form of value could be realized apart from the same. That, therefore, a recognition of the economy of the hermeneutic circle involves a recognition of the necessary part played by all three moments in the formation of value be that non-theologically oriented or theologically oriented!

3.	All relationships are met in and through encountering an existential excess therefore
All relationships with the divine must be met in the same manner to some extent or other.

	What emerges in a relationship is relatively relational. Because this emergent aspect cannot be reduced to the relative material of that relationship hence its relatively spiritual status (even though this 'value' is returned to or re-invested in the relative 'body' of that relationship). All relationships, all systems of thought are productive of this excess existential value. In our 'spiritual discrimination', however, it is the degree of this excess and the modal 'richness' of its manifestation(s) that allows us to appreciate the relative or comparative spiritual worth of the same.

4.	As all identity is developed through dependence and interdependence it follows 
That the divine identity is realized, non-metaphysically, through processes of interaction!

	In a thorough de-metaphysicalization of metaphysical commitments, realized through the proper and appropriate exercise of a thorough ongoing, overall transcendental suspension, there is realized (this existential fact of the life-world) that all identity formation is process dependent upon conditions (without any dependence upon impossible metaphysical entities). Hence a viable theology is a process theology!

5.	Theological difference demands the instantiation of the divine
But does not ostensively dictate the form, manner and value of the same!

	Theological difference was defined as that difference between "a 'vision' of the (life-)world with some 'vision' of the divine", and  "a 'vision' of the (life-)world without some 'vision' of  divine". Then, I argued that this potentiality of a world with some sense of the divine could not be thought through in a pure state of potentiality (just as the conception of the pure actuality of this same vision was equally not possible) - through the dialectical dependency central to the correlativity of all concepts. Then, through reversed ontological arguments (operating on the principle that there can be no pure actuality and no mere potentiality) this 'vision' of the divine can be transcendentally explored hypothetically without dogmatically dictating how it should be ‘envisioned’. 

6.	The definition of the divine as radically greater in its epistemological organization
Than us re-defines the divine as Divine without directly establishing its relevance for-us!

	The relatively divine was defined as that which possessed a greater degree of epistemological organization. The Divine was defined as that which possessed a markedly greater degree of epistemological organization. Because the integrity of the Divine subsumed individual egological phenomena like us and organizations of the same, etc., hence its appellation as the Divine. But, without a currently viable vision of theological work the theological value of the same cannot be currently ascertained.

7.	As all relationships are realized through ongoing resolution it follows that 
The nature of Divine interaction must be ‘of love’ both objectively and subjectively!

	All relationships are realized through the harmonic resolution of the relatively dissonant within a field of relative consonance. This binding energy of the relationship, equivalent to the degree the relationship is in a state of an existential excess (equivalent to its current facticity) implies that there is this element of love, especially when an egological element is involved by all the parties concerned. Through the impossibility of both a pure objective genitive and a pure subjective genitive hence the nature of this 'love' must implicate both genitive modes - i.e., as implicating, hypothetically, the love of the devotee for the Divine and vice versa.

8.	As Divine interaction would be in essence a ‘living conversation’ the articulation of 
The relevance of its theological ‘work’ needs to be conducted by a theologian or similar!

	As the Divine implicates an egologically oriented aspect hence the metaphor of a 'conversation'. Metaphor outside the hermeneutic circle cannot be treated as logically equivalent and thence their non-literal treatment in the life-world. However, in the hermeneutic circle they actually 'metaphor' directly the very constitution of the life-world (and therein qualified by the mechanics of the hermeneutic circle). But, the nature of this transmetaphoricalization needs to be addressed through a viable understanding of theological work (not attempted in this set of essays). Furthermore, a proper and appropriate evaluation of the same implicates the need for a viable understanding of theological value (again not attempted in this set of essays).

9.	Each and every different conversation demands a difference in conversational partner,
Hence the apparent plurality and integrity of both Divine presence and Divine absence!

	Just as the overall sense of self is open-ended and involves a plethora of distinctive senses of self in keeping with the nature of that aspect of intentionality being currently focused upon likewise the Divine should not be treated as univocal and unequivocally monolithic in its hypothetical manifestations. Hence the pluralistic nature of the Divine Presence within an overall sense of Divine Integrity. At the same time, through the complete absence of all (absolutely-absolute) metaphysical entities it follows that the Divine is equally empty, hence, Divine Absence! Just as the 'person' is empty and functions in dependence on conditions because of that emptiness so too can the hypothetical Divine function hypothetically! The life-world is also equally free of all forms of an impossible relatively-relative relativism. Hence the implication of the phenomenal and its phenomenological entertainment whether that be non-theologically oriented or theologically oriented.

10.	That metaphysical notions of divinity are nothing more than a transcendental illusion
Hence the emptiness of all identification whether Divine or non-divine in orientation!

	Because all identity formation is realized between the relatively-absolute and the absolutely-relative and involves neither impossible absolutely-absolute categorization nor relatively-relative categorization it follows that identity formation, through apparent dependence and apparent interdependence is equally empty of such metaphysical entities. In a reflection of this existential fact of the life-world all metaphysical commitments should equally be deconstructed and removed since such are only productive of distortions of the life-world and the streams of adversity that must follow in their wake! A transcendental illusion being manifested when metaphor are mis-treated beyond their maximum, appropriate level of metaphorical deployment. In the absence of the same the life-world is seen as it is, namely, as dependent on non-metaphysical conditions.

11.	Hence the death of the idea of God and the perfect absence of the same
Can only progressively realize the theologicalization of this ‘one’-world-of-life!

	All metaphysical notions of the Divine have no place, therefore, in a viable theology there should be the thorough deconstruction of such fictions! Hence the 'death' of the traditional sense of deity as defined in that 'distorted' manner. The same realization applies to all senses of self. In their place is realized a progressive theologicalization and egological phenomenalization of the life-world. Thence the necessary recognition that the life-world has a theological dimension!

12.	Thence the Divine ‘is’ through non-being and through ‘non-being’ is the Divine
But what that ‘is’ is is for theologians and/or congregations to determine for-themselves!

	The recognition and realization of an experiential intimation of the Divine is had, in and through such interpretation, when all forms of phenomenal/phenomenological unity, integrity, oneness, etc., are experienced in and through a properly and appropriately conducted overall, ongoing transcendental suspension! Through overviewing and oversight, seeing the form of formlessness and the formlessness of form, and their mutual equivalence of non-being of identity formation and the being of that process one comes to a refined experience of the Divine… according to a viable theology where theologians and their congregations are able to properly and appropriately investigate the nature of all forms of relational engagement, the phenomenal nature of all processes of identity formation, and, can formulate both a viable sense of theological work and the evaluation of theological value… according to this 'hypothetical' vision of a what would constitute a viable theology… (assisting us, thereby, in the differentiation and integration of harmonic imperatives thematized through processes of ongoing resolution in the formation of apparent phenomenal/phenomenological identity whether that be theologically oriented or non-theologically oriented… the forward or prospective direction of the imperative gives a sense of ‘vocation’ whilst its reversed, experiential aspect is given a sense of ‘evocation’)….

					                  Noël Tointon, Sydney, 27.12.03.