One Cosmos and Trailer Thomism

I recently read a book called Systematic Theology: A Roman Catholic Approach, by a Thomas Rausch. Yes, it's rather basic, but sometimes that's just what a lowdown trailer Thomist like me needs, i.e., a map of the territory I find myself lost in. 

This is the problem of the autodidactic (p)layman diving into a subject with no preparation or guidance: you might find yourself at the end before the beginning, or peaks before the foothills. You might find yourself refighting battles that have long since been settled, or supposing there is agreement where there is deep division and controversy. You can even think you're a "Thomist," but come to find out that this means very different things to different schools.

Near as I can tell, we fall in with the Transcendental Thomists, who, among other things, "sought to enter a dialogue with modern philosophy." More importantly, instead of -- or in addition to -- beginning with the senses, this approach turns "to the human subject and the transcendental reach of consciousness," and to "the dynamism of human understanding as disclosing far more than the object known."

Again, traditional Thomism begins with objects of the senses and from there proceeds to concepts and essences. Transcendental Thomism begins at the other end of the teloscope, with what Schuon would call the miracle of the human subject:

The first ascertainment which should impose itself upon man when he reflects on the nature of the Universe is the primacy of that miracle that is intelligence -- or consciousness or subjectivity -- and consequently the incommensurability between these and material objects, be it a question of a grain of sand or of the sun, or of any creature whatever as an object of the senses.

Interestingly, one of the main spokesmen for this perspective is Karl Rahner, whom records indicate I studied way back in 2012. But that's a perfect example of how the unguided amateur can dive in at the wrong end and not know which way is up. The main thing I remember from his books is that they were unnecessarily obscure and convoluted -- you know, German. It seems I may have to revisit those books.

There is additional commonality with Schuon, in that these thinkers distinguish "between intellect and reason. While discursive reason [is] important, giving us knowledge of the world, concepts, science, and symbols," the intellect is regarded "as an intuitive faculty inclined toward the 'First Truth'":  

The dynamism of human understanding [shows] a desire to move beyond the objects known, beyond finite existence, to unlimited Being as such, the existence of which [is] the a priori condition of the possibility for every speculative judgement.

We are finite but always oriented toward infinitude, always moving beyond what we know, "toward the infinite being of God in his incomprehensibility," which is the very "ground of all knowing":

the infinite is disclosed as the horizon against which every act of human knowledge takes place.... Without experiencing in some way the infinite, we would never grasp the finite.

 Thus, mystery proceeds in both directions, as it were:

both the natural world as well as the experience of transcendence revealed in human knowing testify to God's existence, even if the divine nature remains unknown, for God remains incomprehensible mystery.

This reminds me of Voegelin's conception of living in the dynamic space between the twin mysteries of immanence and transcendence. 

For man qua man is "spirit-in-the-world, open to the absolute" (Rausch). Or, in the words of Rahner, man is "absolute openness to being in general." 

Which leads to the subject of grace, what it is and where it comes from. For a Trailer Thomist such as myself, it seems to be in the nature of things, hence my pneumaticon (↓), which comes down to meet our transcendental striving (↑) toward the Absolute (O). Rahner says something quite similar, that

While still gratuitous, grace is revealed in the constitution of the human person as openness [o] to the absolute. Grace is God's free self-communication... (ibid.)

Rahner maintains that "a purely graceless world has never existed." He "sees the structures of human subjectivity as informed by grace a priori," such that -- and this is big -- "Anthropology is theology and conversely, theology is anthropology" (Rausch).

For me, this is just drawing out the implications of our being made in the image and likeness of the Absolute: we can start at either end, but especially with the Incarnation, we see that man and God are like two mirrors held up to one another. I suppose that fallenness means a disruption in this dynamism, but Christ represents its restoration. 

As it so happens, the very next section in the book goes into the meaning of the fall, and here again I find myself relating to Rahner's approach, whereby 

grace is understood as God's self-communication, God's gracious, enabling, salvific presence, offering to each a participation in the divine life, though of course God's free offer must also be freely accepted.

And the Incarnation "realizes perfectly what every person is potentially," which leads to the subject of divinization or theosis. Rahner sees a "fundamental unity of spirit and matter," and regards the Incarnation as "a moment toward the divinization of the world as a whole."

Or, as a multi-undiscplinary Trailer Thomist would put it, One Cosmos Under God.

All I got this morning.