Dooyeweerd: The Modal Laws/ Na Laghan Mòdalach

See also HERE and HERE

The disturbance of the meaning of the concepts of the modal laws and their subjects in the Humanistic immanence-philosophy.

     In the Humanistic immanence-philosophy, in its rationalistic as well as in its irrationalistic trends, this concept of the modal subject in its relation to the modal laws has been entirely lost and must necessarily be lost — to the incalculable injury of the philosophic analysis of reality.

     The subject becomes sovereign — either in the metaphysical sense of "substance" (noumenon), or in a transcendental logical or phenomenological sense.

     In KANT'S "theoretical" philosophy, for example, the subject is only subject in an epistemological sense, and as such ἀρχή of the form of the theoretical laws of nature; the "transcendental subject" is itself the law-giver of nature in a transcendental-logical sense.

     The pre-psychical aspects [numerical, spatial, kinematic, physical, biotic] of reality were, after the destruction of the traditional metaphysics of nature, dissolved into a synthesis of logical and sensory functions of consciousness; their modal structural-laws were replaced by a-priori transcendental forms of theoretical understanding and of subjective sensibility in an apriori synthesis.

     That numbers, spatial figures, energy-effects and biotic functions are really modal subjects, subjected to the laws of their own modal spheres, is a conception far removed from modern immanence-philosophy.

     In KANT'S so-called "practical" philosophy, the subject in the metaphysical sense of homo noumenon (pure will) becomes the autonomous law-giver for moral life. In accordance with the dualistic conception of his transcendental ground-Idea he does not accept a radical unity of the order of creation above the polar opposition between laws of nature and norms.

     Two features typify the theoretical concept of the subject in immanence-philosophy, since it gave up the earlier metaphysics of nature.

     1 - It is conceived only in the special sense of the epistemological and ethical functions of consciousness. The empirical things and events are taken into consideration only as objects of sensory perception and of theoretical or practical thought. This was the necessary consequence of the resolution of so-called "empirical" reality into the logical and psychical aspects of consciousness abstracted by theoretical thought from the cosmic temporal coherence of meaning. This resolution was attended by the elimination of the cosmic order of time, and by the proclamation of the so-called critical „Satz des Bewustseins", to be discussed later on, according to which the possibility of our knowledge is limited to our subjective and objective contents of consciousness, received merely by sensory perception and formed by logical apperception.

     2 - In this view, the subject lacks its original meaning of "sujet", being subjected to a law which does not originate from this subject itself. In the last analysis, in its function as a "transcendental subject" or "ideal subject" respectively, it has received the crown of autonomous, self-sufficient law-giver in accordance with the Humanistic ideals of science and of personality (to be discussed later).

     In the classical rationalist conception, the empirical subject is reduced to a complex of causal relations by which it should be completely determined.

     The "laws" are identified here with the "objective". Consequently the empirical subject is conceived of as an "object", which in its turn is identified with "Gegenstand" of the ultimate "transcendental subject of thought".

     Modern so-called "realistic" positivism understands the concept of the lex (in relation to norms as well as to the so-called laws of nature) in the sense of a scientific judgment of probability. Here, too, this concept is completely dissociated from the modal structures of the different spheres of laws and from the typical structures of individuality, which are founded in the cosmic time-order.

     This positivism conceives of laws as "autonomous" products of scientific thought, which tries to order by way of a "logical economy" the "facts", understood as merely sensory data.

     Quite different from the rationalist concepts of the laws and their subjects are those of the irrationalist trends of Humanistic thought.

Rationalism as absolutizing of the general rule, irrationalism as absolutizing of individual subjectivity.

     We have seen in an earlier context, that the rationalist types of immanence-philosophy tend to dissolve the individual subjectivity into a universally valid order of laws, the origin of which is sought in sovereign reason.

     The irrationalist Humanistic types did not tamper with the conception of the "laws" as a product of thought or reason, but fell into the opposite extreme of seeing in this "theoretical order" merely a pragmatical falsification of true reality. The latter in its creative subjective individuality, is not bound to universally valid laws and mocks at all "concepts of thought". Thus the absolutizing of the laws in the rationalist types is replaced by the absolutizing of the subjective individuality in the irrationalist types of the Humanistic immanence-philosophy. This irrationalism is ruled by an irrationalist turn of the freedom-motive.
(Herman Dooyeweerd, New Critique of Theoretical Thought, Vol I, pp 108-111)  

Dooyeweerd: Kant & Elimination of Cosmic Time-order/ Cur Às dhan Òrdagh-Tìm Chosmaich le Kant

Cur-às dhan òrdagh-tìm chosmaich san "Sgrùdadh an Reusain Fhìor-ghlan" le Kant.

Le hupostatachd (is e sin, absolutachadh) an "reusain theòiricich" mar phuing-Aircimìodach fhèin-fhoghainteach na feallsanachd, cuirear as do òrdagh tìme na smaoine feallsanachail, gu h-àraid bhon eipisteimeòlas. San dòigh seo, tha cùl ga chur ris a' bhun-cheist chritigeach dhen fheallsanachd uile, is e sin: ciamar a tha i fhèin comasach? Bha an cur-às a bha seo cuideachd na thobar suibseigeachd ann an tighinn gu ìre na smaoine feallsanachail.

(Herman Dooyeweerd, New Critique of Theoretical Thought, Vol I, pp 107)  

HIROSHIGE: “Drochaid Oshashi is Atake ann am Fras Obann”, 1856

The elimination of cosmic time-order in KANT'S Critique of Pure Reason.    

By the hypostatization of "theoretical reason" as the self-sufficient Archimedean point of philosophy, the cosmic order of time is eliminated from philosophic thought, particularly from epistemology. In this way the critical basic question of all philosophy, namely: How is it itself possible? is relegated to the background. This elimination was also a source of subjectivism in the development of philosophic thought.

     KANT'S so-called Copernican revolution in epistemology (or, should one accept HEIDEGGER'S interpretation of KANT, which in our opinion is by no means convincing, — in "ontology") is the direct proof of the impossibility of a truly critical critique of theoretic reason apart from a transcendental insight into the cosmic order of time. In his Prolegomena zu einer jeden kiinftigen Metaphysik § 4 (W.W. Cass. IV, p. 23) the philosopher of Königsberg writes of The Critique of Pure Reason: „Diese Arbeit is schwer und erfordert einen entschlossenen Leser, sich nach und nach in ein System hinein zu denken, das noch nichts als Gegeben zum Grunde legt, auszer die Vernunft selbst" (I italicize) „und also, ohne sich auf irgendein Faktum zu stützen, die Erkenntnis aus ihren ursprünglichen Keimen zu entwickeln sucht" ["This work is difficult and requires a resolute reader to think his way gradually into a system, which sets at its foundation nothing as given except reason itself, and thus, without supporting itself upon any fact, seeks to develop knowledge from its original seeds."] KANT'S Prolegomena to every future Metaphysics (Works, Cass. Ed.IV, p. 23). 

     What the reader is asked to do here is simply an abdication from the preliminary questions of critical thought. "Theoretic reason", according to KANT'S transcendental conception a manifest product of theoretical abstraction, should be accepted as given. The question as to how philosophic thought is possible is thereby cut off. For the cosmic order of time, by which the relations of meaning of this thought are guaranteed, is lost sight of.

(Herman Dooyeweerd, New Critique of Theoretical Thought, Vol I, pp 107)

Who is Killing Us?/ Cò Tha Gar Marbhadh?

"An t-olc mòr seo - co às a tha e tighinn?

Ciamar an do shiolp e a-steach dhan t-saoghal?

Dè an sìol, dè am freumh bhon a dh'fhàs e?

Cò tha dèanamh seo?

Cò tha gar marbhadh?

A' goid bhuainn beatha is solais,

a' magadh oirnn le aiteal de na dh'fhaodadh a bhith ann?

Am dèan ar sgrios feum dhan talamh?

An cuidich e le fàs an fheòir 's le deàrrsadh na grèine?

A bheil an dorchadas seo nad bhroinn-sa cuideachd?

An deach thusa tron oidhche seo?"

(Bhon fhilm "An Loidhne Chaol Dhearg" stiùirte le Terrence Malick)

________________________________________________

"This great evil - where’s it come from? 

How’d it steal into the world? 

What seed, what root did it grow from? 

Who’s doing this? 

Who’s killing us?

Robbing us of life and light,

Mocking us with the sight of what we might have known? 

Does our ruin benefit the earth?

Does it help the grass to grow and the sun to shine? 

Is this darkness in you too? 

Have you passed through this night?"

(From the film "The Thin Red Line" directed by Terrence Malick)

Dooyeweerd: Philosophy of the Rainbow/ Feallsanachd a' Bhogha-fhrois

      

     Is e lèirsinn cumte a rèir spiorad Crìosdalachd radacaich (san t-seagh seo, Cailbhineach) a th' ann an tuigse seo na smaoine-lagha, le a fòcas teòiriceach air taobhan-cèille ar cosmais. Bidh mi a' cleachdadh samhla gus an lèirsinn seo a dhèanamh nas soilleire dhaibhsan nach eil foghlaimte ann am feallsanachd.

("This understanding of the law-Idea, in its theoretic focus on the meaning-sides of our cosmos is a vision formed in the spirit of a radical Christianity (in this sense Calvinistic). I use a symbol in order to bring this vision closer to those not schooled in philosophy.)

Tha solas na grèine air a ath-raonadh tro phriosam agus thig e am follais dhan t-sùil an riochd sgàinidh dha seachd dathan aithnichte an speactraim. Annta fhèin, tha dathan uile an speactraim nan ath-raonaidhean eisimeileach dhen t-solais neo-bhriste, agus chan fhaodar fear seach fear dhiubh a ghabhail mar bhun-stèidh diofarachadh nan dathan gu lèir. A bharrachd air sin, chan eil dath seach dath ann as eugmhais a cho-leanailt le dathan eile an speactraim. Nuair a thèid an solas neo-bhriste a bhacadh, tha clàr nan dath a' dol à bith buileach glan. 

(The light of the sun is refracted though a prism and appears to the eye as split up into the known seven colours of the spectrum. All colours of the spectrum are in themselves dependent refractions of the unrefracted light, and none of these colours may be regarded as integral to the differentiation of all of the colours. Further, not one of the seven colours exists outside of its coherence with the other colours of the spectrum. When the unrefracted light is intercepted, the whole play of colours vanishes into nothing.)

Is e a th' anns an t-solas neo-bhriste ach iomlanachd ciall thìm-tharcheumnach ar cosmais a thaobh a laghalachd is a shuibseigeachd. Dìreach mar a tha tùs aig an t-solas seo ann am màthair-adhbhar an t-solais, tha tùs aig iomlanachd ciall ar cosmais san Arché aige, Tron is Don a rinneadh e. 

(The unrefracted light is the time-transcending totality of meaning of our cosmos in respect to its law and subject side. Just as this light has its origin in the source of light, so does the totality of meaning of our cosmos have its origin in its Arché, through Whom and to Whom it has been created.)

Is e a th' anns a' phriosam a sgapas na dathan ach tìm chosmach, leis a bheil iomlanachd na cèille ga briseadh na raointean tìmeil.

(The prism that breaks up the colours is cosmic time, by which the fullness of meaning is broken into its temporal aspects.)

San dearbh dòigh nach eil seachd dathan an speactraim an eisimeil air càch a chèile mar mhàthair-adhbhar, chan eil na raointean tìmeil an eisimeil air càch a chèile nas mò, ach tha uachdaranachd aig gach fear dhiubh am broinn a mheud-buaidh fhèin, a rèir brìgh gach meud-buaidh. 

(Just as the seven colours of the spectrum do not owe their origin to each other, so do each of these temporal aspects have, with respect to each other, sovereignty in their own sphere according to the meaning of each sphere.)

Ann an iomlanachd chràbhach na cèille chan eil ach aon lagh Dhè, dìreach mar nach eil ann ach aon pheacadh an aghaidh Dhè, dìreach mar nach eil ann ach aon chruitheachd a pheacaich ann an Adhamh. 

(In the religious fullness of meaning there is only one law of God, just as there is only one sin against God, just as there is only one creation that has sinned in Adam.)

Ach fo loidhne-crìche na tìme tha iomlanachd na cèille ag ath-raonadh (dìreach mar a bhios solas geal a' briseadh ann am priosam), a' toirt am follais an taobh-lagha agus an taobh-suibseig ann an eugsamhlachd torrach nan raointean, agus tha uachdaranachd aig gach raon na mheudan-buaidh fhèin. Tha gach fear dhe na raointean seo a' taisbeanadh iomlanachd na cèille bho thaobh a mhòdaileachd-cèille fhèin, a rèir modh a bhith fhèin ann an tìm.

("But under the boundary line of time the fullness of meaning breaks (just as white light breaks in a prism) into law and subject side in a rich variation of aspects that are sovereign in their own spheres. Each of these aspects displays the fullness of meaning in its own modality of meaning according to its temporal mode of being.")

(Dooyeweerd:"De Wijsbegeerte der Wetsidee" Vol I: 66, Beurla shuas eadar-theangaichte le Glenn Friesen)

"The re-formation of the cosmonomic Idea by the central motive of the Christian religion.

     From the Christian starting-point the cosmonomic Idea of our philosophy obtains the following contents: 

     To the ultimate transcendental question: What is the 'Ἀρχή of the totality and the modal diversity of meaning of our cosmos with respect to the cosmonomic side and its correlate, the subject-side? it answers: the sovereign holy will of God the Creator, who has revealed Himself in Christ. 

     To the second transcendental question, with respect to its cosmonomic-side: What is the totality of meaning of all modal aspects of the cosmic order, their supratemporal unity beyond all modal diversity of meaning? it answers: the requirement grounded in God's sovereignty, of the love and service of God and our fellow-creatures with our whole heart. To the same question, with respect to its subject-side, it answers: the new religious root of the human race in Christ (in which, indeed, nothing of our created universe can be lost) in subjection to the fulness of meaning of the divine law. 

     To the third transcendental question: What is the mutual relation between the modal aspects of reality? it answers: sphere-sovereignty, that is to say: mutual irreducibility, yet in the all-sided cosmic coherence of the different aspects of meaning, as this is regulated in God's temporal order of the world, in a cosmic order of time.

     In order to bring this cosmonomic Idea, in its theoretical focusing upon the modal aspects of meaning of our cosmos, nearer to the vision of those not schooled in philosophy, I use a very old symbol, which of course should not be interpreted in a physical sense.

     The light of the sun is refracted through a prism, and this refraction is perceived by the eye of sense in the seven wellknown colours of the spectrum. In themselves all colours are dependent refractions of the unrefracted light, and none of them can be regarded as an integral of the colour-differentiation.

     Further, not one of the seven colours is capable of existing in the spectrum apart from the coherence with the rest, and by the interception of the unrefracted light the entire play of colours vanishes into nothing.

     The unrefracted light is the time-transcending totality of meaning of our cosmos with respect to its cosmonomic side and its subject-side. As this light has its origin in the source of light, so the totality of meaning of our cosmos has its origin in its Ἀρχή through whom and to whom it has been created.

     The prism that achieves the refraction of colour is cosmic time, through which the religious fulness of meaning is broken up into its temporal modal aspects of meaning.

     As the seven colours do not owe their origin to one another, so the temporal aspects of meaning in face of each other have sphere-sovereignty or modal irreducibility.

     In the religious fulness of meaning, there is but one law of God, just as there is but one sin against God, and one mankind which has sinned in Adam.

     But under the boundary line of time this fulness of meaning with reference to its cosmonomic-side as well as to its subject-side separates, like the sunlight through the prism, into a rich variation of modal aspects of meaning. Each modal aspect is sovereign in its own sphere, and each aspect in its modal structure reflects the fulness of meaning in its own modality."

(Herman Dooyeweerd, New Critique of Theoretical Thought, Vol I, pp 101, 102)

Dooyeweerd is Van Til: Neodrachd

Portraid Duine 1 le Alan Wilson

Ailein,

    Mòran taing airson na sàr chinn seo a shealltainn dhomh. Is fìor thoigh leam an obair-bruis agus smachd na duibhre. Nan nocturnan eileamaideach. Pèant fo sholas na gealaich na bhras-shruth thar creig. Pòsadh dubh-cheisteach de shrian ciùin agus smior air ghoil. Ar leam gur dòcha gur e laoich Arm nan Cùmhnantach a th'anns na daoine-uasal a tha seo!
    Tha fhios gu bheil ùidh agam a chluinntinn gu bheil thu a' toirt sùil eile air an "Sgrùdadh Ùr". Thòisich mi fhìn e a-rìst a-chionn greis. Tha mi air t-d 94 a ruighinn, 's earrann ann a bha air dragh a chur air Van Til, tha mi'n dùil:

    Gidheadh, tha adbharan sònraichte airson ' chiad bhriathar (cosmonomach) a chumail mar  ainm air bhun-Idèa tar-cheumnachail na feallsanachd. Sa chiad dol a-mach, ann a bhith tomhadh ri ceistean tòiseachail na smaoin feallsanachail, feumar bun Idèa na feallsanachd a ghabhail riochd a ghlacas na sùla mar chumha riatanach airson a h-uile rian feallsanachail. Mar bhuil air seo chan fhaodar a bhith an lùib a' bhriathar choitchinn leis a bheil am bun Idèa seo comharraichte càil sònraichte a bhuineas ri grunnd-motaibh a' chreidimh Chrìosdail. Is e cuspair deasbaid àm eile inneach a' bhun Idèa thar-cheumnachail.

     Is e fìrinn na cùise gu bheil Idèa cosmonomach aig bonn gach uile siostam fheallsanachail.  Air an làimh eile, diùltar Idèa na cruitheachd mar bhun Idèa tar-cheumnachail na feallsanachd leis gach smaointear a tha dol às àicheadh cruitheachd, na co-dhiù a shaoileas gum feum a dhubhadh às an smaoin feallsanachail. (Vol I tt-dd 94,95)

    Tha mi feuchainn ri seo a thuigsinn. Tha fhios gu robh Van Til deimhinnte nach eil neodrachd comasach. Bha Dooyeweerd a cheart cho deimhinnte nach robh e cur air adhart neodrachd. Agus nuair a smaoineachas tu air, is e program gu lèir an Sgrùdaidh Ùra gu bhith toirt ionnsaigh air a' fearas-mhòr dhaonnachdail gu bheil puing-tòiseachaidh neo-phàirteach aig smaoin teòiriceil. Uime sin chan eil e coltach gun cuireadh Dooyeweerd an aghaidh a reusanachaidh fhèin gu h-obann mar seo. Air mo shonsa dheth, tha mi dhen bheachd gur ann ri ùbhlan (no persimeanan!) is òrainsearan a tha an dubh-cheist a' buntainn. Smaoinich Van Til gu h-eipisteimeòlach. Dh'fhaodadh argamaid a dhèanamh gur h-e a bh'ann an puingean-tòiseachaidh (ro-bharailean) Van Til ach cùisean-tagraidh (ged a dh'fheumas sinn a bhith mothachail air a bheachd dhaingean gu bheil reusanachadh ("predication") stèite air bunait an "Trianaid onteòlaich"). Chanainnsa nach eil Dooyeweerd san earrann seo a-mach air eipisteimeòlas no air "predication" idir. Thig iadsan seo an uairsin, mar a mhìneachas e. Is e tha Dooyeweerd ris ach an tìr thìmeil ontaigeach a' mapadh. Is e sin ro-chumhachan meicnigeach (mar gum biodh) na feallsanachd. Gus a chur ann an dòigh eile: tha sùil Van Til, dh'fhaodadh sinn a ràdh, air cainnt chiallach, fhads a tha sùil Dooyeweerd (aig a' phuing seo) air ro-chumhachan cainnte; mar eisimpleir, guthlag, claban an sgòrnain, bannas, teanga, fiaclan, sruth-àidheir 7c. Uime sin fhads a chanas Van Til gu bheil cainnt stèite air sealladh-saoghail, tha Dooyeweerd a' cantainn gu bheil cainnt stèite air beul. Tha an dithis aca ceart (ceartaich mi ma tha mi ceàrr). Ann an Leabhar II dhen Sgrùdadh Ùr, tha Dooyeweerd a' gabhail seasaimh eipisteimeòlaich, seasamh leis am biodh Van Til gun teagamh air a dhòigh ghlan!:   

     "Aig a' phuing seo, bithidh is dòcha iomadach leughadair a ghabh an trioblaid a bhith leantainn ar n-argamaid gu ruige seo a' tionndadh air falbh gu diombach. Bidh e faighneachd: Am feum eipisteimeòlas crìochnachadh ann an searmon Crìosdaidh no ann an dogma?  Chan urrainn dhomh ach freagairt a rèir na ceiste co-dhiù a tha an dogma leis a dh'fhosglas an eipisteimeòlas neo-phàirteach mas fhìor, is e sin, glaodhadh fèin-fhoghainteachd comasan tuigse mhic-an-duine, nas àirigh air ar n-earbsa nuair a thig a' chùis gu  eipisteimeòlas.  

     Tha ar n-eipisteimeòlas cho dàna 's gu bhith gabhail ri "ceap-tuislidh crann-ceusaidh Chrìosd" mar chloich-oisne an eipisteimeòlais (1 Cor 1:23). Agus mar sin tha e cuideachd a' gabhail ri crann-ceusaidh an sgainneil, an dearmaid, agus an diùltaidh dogmatach." (Vol II td 562)

- Fearghas.
Bonn-nòta:
Dh'fhaodamaid a ràdh matà gun do ghabh Cornelius Van Til agus Herman Dooyeweerd le chèile ùidh an dà chuid ann an eipisteimeòlas agus onteòlas. A rèir coltais, ge-tà, is e Dooyeweerd a rinn an sgrùdadh nas doimhne air onteòlas. Mar a tha fios agad, is fhada bhon a thòisich mi (mar fhreagairt air ceist bhuatsa fhèin!) air coimeasan eadar Càilbhineachas agus Zen a rannsachadh. Tha an eadar-dhealachadh eadar eipisteimeòlas agus onteòlas (no, nas fheàrr, "an t-ontaig") aig cridhe Zen. Tha na leanas na earrann beag bho leabhar ùr le Peter Ralston, a tha na shàr ealantair-còmhraig inmheadhanail, na onteòlaiche prataigeach, agus na sgrìobhadair Zen:

"Seo againn samhlachas a nì cobhar ann a bhi tuigsinn na th'ann an creidimh: mura do rinn thu càil riamh led chàr ach gas a chur na bhroinn agus dràibheadh mu thìmcheall, is e rud gu tur eile a bhiodh ann dhut a-thaobh fòcais agus spàirn gus ionnsachadh mu ciamar a tha càraichean ag obair. Tha gach gnìomh a tha seo a' buntainn ri càr, ach tha diofar mòr ann eadar tuigse meicnic agus tuigse càr a chleachdadh mar ghoireas-giùlain. Tha diofar mòr ann eadar a bhith air do ghiùlan air adhart led chuid chreideamhan agus tuigse mhothachail a bhith agad ciamar a tha do chreideamhan air an cruthachadh agus dè am feum a th'annta. Mura do rinn thu riamh led chreideamhan ach creideamh a chur annta, dh'fhaodadh e bhith na cheum radaigeach sùil a thoirt "fon hùd" air na tha thu meas mar "fhìor". (The Book of Not Knowing", Peter Ralston, North Atlantic Books, 2010 tt-dd 31, 32)

Portraid Duine 2 le Alan Wilson  

Portraid Duine 3 le Alan Wilson

Alan,

    Thanks very much for a view of these superb heads. I love the brushwork and the tonal control. Elemental nocturnes. Moonlit paint in spate over rock. Enigmatic melding of calm restraint and seething energy. Methinks these gents could well be Covenanter veterans!

    I am of course interested to hear you are having another look at the New Critique. I recently started it again myself. I have reached page 94, where there is a passage which I suspect would have given Van Til pause, to say the least: 

     Nevertheless, there are special reasons for maintaining the first term (cosmonomic) as a designation for the transcendental basic Idea of philosophy. In the first place, in pointing to the preliminary questions of philosophic thought, the basic Idea of philosophy must he so conceived, that it actually catches the eye as a necessary condition for every philosophic system. This implies, that the universal term by which this basic Idea is designated may not include special contents derived from the ground-motive of the Christian religion. The determination of the contents of the transcendental basic Idea is to be a subject of subsequent discussion.

     A cosmonomic Idea is actually at the basis of every philosophical system. On the other hand, an Idea of creation will be rejected as a transcendental basic Idea of philosophy by each thinker who denies creation, or in any case supposes, that it must be eliminated from philosophic thought. (Vol pp 94,95)

    I am trying to figure this. Van Til of course was adamant that no neutrality exists. Dooyeweerd was equally adamant that in no way was he a purveyer of neutrality. And when you think about it, the entire program of the New Critique is of course to mount an attack on the humanist conceit that "theoretical thought" has a neutral starting-point. So it would seem incomprehensible that Dooyeweerd should suddenly shoot himself in both feet. For what my assessment is worth, I am thinking the conundrum has to do with apples (or persimmons!) and oranges. Van Til thought epistemologically. It is arguable that for Van Til starting-points (presuppositions) were propositional (though we must note his insistence that all "predication" presupposes the "ontological Trinity"). Dooyeweerd in this passage is not, I would suggest, talking epistemology or "predication" at all. These are what come next, as he explains. Rather, Dooyeweerd is mapping the temporal ontical terrain. I.e. the mechanical (as it were) preconditions of philosophy. To put it another way: Van Til is, let's say, preoccupied with coherent speech, while Dooyeweerd (at this point) is preoccupied with the preconditions of speech, eg the larynx, epiglottis, palette, tongue, teeth, airflow etc. So while Van Til insists that all utterance presupposes a worldview, Dooyeweerd insists that all utterance presupposes a mouth. They are both right (please correct me if I am wrong). In Volume 2 of the New Critique, Dooyeweerd does take an epistemological stand, and one which would surely have had Van Til cheering!:   

     "At this point, many a reader who has taken the trouble to follow our argument will perhaps turn away annoyed. He will ask: Must epistemology end in a Christian sermon or in a dogmatic statement? I can only answer by means of the question as to whether the dogmatic statement with which the supposed autonomous epistemology opens, viz. the proclamation of the self-sufficiency of the human cognitive functions, has a better claim to our confidence as far as epistemology is concerned.

     Our epistemology makes bold to accept 'the stumbling-block of the cross of Christ' as the corner stone of epistemology (1 Cor 1:23). And thus it also accepts the cross of scandal, neglect and dogmatic rejection." (Vol II p 562)

- Fearghas.

Footnote:
We might say then that Cornelius Van Til and Herman Dooyeweerd both had an interest in epistemology and ontology. However, it would seem that, of the two, Dooyeweerd carried the ontological investigation deeper. As you know, I started a while back (in response to a question from yourself!) looking at comparisons between Calvinism and Zen. The distinction between epistemology and ontology (or better, "the ontic") is at the heart of Zen. The following is a short extract from a new book by Peter Ralston, who is an internal martial arts genius, practical ontologist, and Zen writer:

"Here's an analogy for approaching this belief business: if all you have ever done with your car is put gas in it and drive around, it would mean a huge shift in both focus and effort if you decided to start learning how cars work. Each of these activities concerns a car, but understanding the mechanics involved is very different from using one for transportation. Being driven by your beliefs is a very different matter than consciously understanding how it is your beliefs are created and what purpose they serve. If all you've ever done with your beliefs is just believe them, taking a look "under the hood" at what you hold as true can be a radical shift." ("The Book of Not Knowing", Peter Ralston, North Atlantic Books, 2010 pp 31, 32)

Portraid Duine 4 le Alan Wilson

Dooyeweerd: Inquietum est cor nostrum

Infrared Andromeda (NASA)

Fearghas,

     If the cosmos has no reality without man how do we understand JOB 31:26,27? Do the purposes of God not transcend man? Reality is founded in God’s creation and providence. Alan

Alan,

     Actually, the verses you have specified here are strikingly "Dooyeweerdian"!

26 Ma dh'amhairc mi air a' ghrèin an uair a dhealraich i, no air a' ghealaich a' gluasad ann an soillse, 27 Agus gun do mhealladh mo chridhe os ìosal, agus gu'n do phog mo bheul mo làmh: 28 Is cionta so mar an ceudna air son a' bhreitheimh; oir dh'àichinn an Dia  a tha shuas. (IOB 31:26-28)

26 If I have regarded the sun in its radiance or the moon moving in splendor, 27 so that my heart was secretly enticed and my hand offered them a kiss of homage, 28 then these also would be sins to be judged, for I would have been unfaithful to God on high. (JOB 31:26-28 NIV)

If I in my (supratemporal) heart (v 27) absolutize in the manner of immanence philosophy that which is temporal and therefore relative (v 26) instead of honouring God above as the Arché or Origin of all meaning, the One in whom reality and providence are founded (v 28), then I am committing apostasy, which is the essence of the Fall (v 28). As the image [צלם TSeLeM likeness, cf English simile, similar, same, cf Gaelic samhail, cosmhail] of God, Man has eternity in his heart, and therefore has a vantage point above time, unlike animals which are utterly submerged in time and so dependent on Man to tell them their names, ie their identity, meaning, unfolding, blossoming. Man (in Adam, in Christ) is the Root of temporal Creation. The cultural mandate and the Gospel mandate give Man in principle the capacity and responsibility to point all creation in the direction of the Meaning Giver. Creation has no meaning in itself, and therefore no existence in itself. The notion of "existence in itself", "thing in itself, "ding an sich", is Hellenistic, humanistic, apostate delusion:

     If what exists has a fixed [vaststaande] meaning, that is only because of the Divine giving of meaning. Nothing exists in itself. Nothing exists "apo-state" or separate from the Divine giving of meaning, everything exists in and through the Divine noesis. (Herman Dooyeweerd, Feb 1923 "Advies over Roomsch-katholieke en Anti-revolutionaire Staatkunde", Trans. J Glenn Friesen) 

The totality of meaning of our whole temporal cosmos is to be found in Christ, with respect to His human nature, as the root of the reborn human race. In Him the heart, out of which are the issues of life, confesses the sovereignty of God, the Creator, over everything created... 

Sin is the revolt against the Sovereign of our cosmos. It is the apostasy from the fullness of meaning and the deifying, the absolutizing, of meaning, to the level of God's Being. Our temporal world, in its diversity and coherence of meaning, is in the order of God's creation bound to the religious root of mankind. Apart from this root it has no meaning and so no reality. Hence the apostasy in the heart, in the religious root of the temporal world, signified the apostasy of the entire temporal creation, which was concentrated in mankind.... 

Our thesis...is founded in the Divine Revelation concerning the creation of man in the image of God. Since God has created the 'earthly' world in a concentric relation to the religious root of human existence, there cannot exist an 'earthly' 'world in itself' apart from the structural horizon of human experience.  (Herman Dooyeweerd, New Critique of Theoretical Thought, I, 99, 100, and II, 549) 

 Certainly the purposes of God transcend Man. Therefore Man's call is to eschew autonomy and humbly bow the knee to the transcendent God rather than to the mirage of a "Nature in itself". In His Light we see light. God gives the light of meaning to the Sun and Moon (they are dark without Him), and to Man (who is dark without Him). "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it." Dooyeweerd says  -

     In the Biblical attitude of naïve experience the transcendent, religious dimension of its horizon is opened. The light of eternity radiates perspectively through all the temporal dimensions of this horizon and even illuminates seemingly trivial things and events in our sinful world... 

It would be an illusion to suppose that a true Christian always displays this Biblical attitude in his pre-theoretical experience. Far from it. Because he is not exempt from the solidarity of the fall into sin, every Christian knows the emptiness of an experience of the temporal world which seems to be shut up in itself. He knows the impersonal attitude of a 'Man' in the routine of common life, and the dread of nothingness, the meaningless, if he tries to find himself again in a so-called existential isolation. He is acquainted with all this from personal experience, though he does not understand the philosophical analysis of this state of spiritual uprooting in Humanistic existentialism. 

But the Christian whose heart is opened to the Divine Word-revelation knows that in this apostate experiential attitude he does not experience temporal things and events as they really are. i.e. as meaning pointing beyond and above itself to the true religious centre of meaning and to the true Origin.” (Herman Dooyeweerd, New Critique of Theoretical Thought, III, p29)

Fearghas. 

"Raindrops hanging on a blade of dune grass, Lake Michigan" (Daniel Schwen)

     Great reply Fearghas but I sent the wrong quote!! I meant JOB 38:26-27! The difficulty is that word “reality” : Dooyeweerd says the creation has “no reality” without man? Is there not a latent humanism lurking in such an idea? And does the Job quote not demonstrate that in some sense there are aspects of the cosmos that exist out-with the purposes of man: and that these are real? Alan

Alan,

     So your intended verses were: 

26 A thoirt air frasadh air an talamh far nach eil duine; air an fhàsach gun duine ann; 27 A shàsachadh an fhàsaich agus an dìthreibh, agus a thoirt air cinneas an luis mhaoith fàs suas? 

26 To cause it to rain on a land where there is no one, A wilderness in which there is no man; 27 To satisfy the desolate waste, And cause to spring forth the growth of tender grass? (JOB 38:26, 27 NKJ)

Let us be clear that Dooyeweerd does not trace reality to Man (and certainly not to the individual human) as source, but to God the Origin Who has focussed temporal reality in the human heart, which in turn (it is crucial to note) has no meaning in itself but only in God. Dooyeweerd phrases this in Latin:

     Inquietum est cor nostrum et mundus in corde nostro! (New Critique Vol I p 11)

Which I think would translate as "Restless is our heart and the world/universe in our heart!" Of course the whole Job scenario (whereby God catalogues natural realities) impresses upon Job bochd how vastly beyond his ken are God's creation and providence. Thus Job is called upon to realize that no rationalistic answers to his quandary are forthcoming. Actuality transcends theory. His raw heart-dependency on the Creator is laid bare. Dooyeweerd elaborates:

     Philosophic thought as such derives its actuality from the ego. The latter restlessly seeks its origin in order to understand its own meaning, and in its own meaning the meaning of our entire cosmos! 

It is this tendency towards the origin which discloses the fact, that our ego is subjected to a central law. This law derives its fulness of meaning from the origin of all things and limits and determines the centre and root of our existence. (New Critique Vol I p 11) 

The Archimedean point ... may not be divorced from the concentric law of the ego's existence. Without this law the subject drops away into chaos, or rather into nothingness. Only by this law is the ego determined and limited. (New Critique Vol I p 12) 

Hence, the mode of being of the ego itself is of a religious character and it is nothing in itself. Veritable religion is absolute self-surrender. The apostate man who supposes, that his selfhood is something in itself, loses himself in the surrender to idols, in the absolutizing of the relative... 

We have established the necessary religious nature of the starting-point and have learned of the intrinsically ex-sistent character of the selfhood. Therefore, we can no longer seek the true point of departure of philosophic thought in the individual ego alone. We observed in our Introduction that the I-ness must share in the Archimedean point, but that in this latter must be concentrated the total meaning of the temporal cosmos. The ego, however, is merely the concentration-point of our individual existence, not of the entire temporal cosmos. Moreover, philosophy is as little as science in the narrower sense merely a matter of the individual. It can be cultivated only in a community. This, too, points to the necessity of a supra-individual point of departure. 

Critical self-reflection in theoretical thought is, to be sure, the necessary way to the discovery of the starting-point of philosophy. It is indeed the individual ego which gives to its thought the concentric direction. However, true self-knowledge discovers the ex-sistent character of the selfhood also in the fact that the ego is centrally bound with other egos in a religious community. The central and radical unity of our existence is at the same time individual and supra-individual; that is to say, in the individual I-ness it points beyond the individual ego toward that which makes the whole of mankind spiritually one in root in its creation, fall and redemption. 

According to our Christian faith, all humanity is spiritually included in Adam. In him the whole human race has fallen, and in mankind also the entire temporal cosmos, which was concentrated in it. In Jesus Christ, the entire new humanity is one in root, as the members of one body. 

Our I-ness is, in other words, rooted in the spiritual community of mankind. It is no self-sufficient "substance", no "windowless monad", but it lives in the spiritual community of the we, which is directed to a Divine Thou, according to the original meaning of creation. (New Critique Vol I p 58-60) 

Thus we must not lose sight of the crucial fact that for Dooyeweerd the whole relation of reality to humanity is founded in Christ as the True Man: -

     The totality of meaning of our whole temporal cosmos is to be found in Christ, with respect to His human nature, as the root of the reborn human race. In Him the heart, out of which are the issues of life, confesses the Sovereignty of God, the Creator, over everything created. In Christ the heart bows under the lex (in its central religious unity and its temporal diversity, which originates in the Creator's holy will), as the universal boundary (which cannot be transgressed) between the Being of God and the meaning of His creation. The transcendent totality of meaning of our cosmos exists only in the religious relation of dependence upon the absolute Being of God. It is thus no eidos in the sense of the speculative Platonic metaphysics, no being set by itself, but it remains in the ex-sistential mode of meaning which points beyond itself and is not sufficient to itself. 

Sin is the revolt against the Sovereign of our cosmos. It is the apostasy from the fulness of meaning and the deifying, the absolutizing of meaning, to the level of God's Being. Our temporal world, in its temporal diversity and coherence of meaning, is in the order of God's creation bound to the religious root of mankind. Apart from this root it has no meaning and so no reality. Hence the apostasy in the heart, in the religious root of the temporal world signified the apostasy of the entire temporal creation, which was concentrated in mankind. (Herman Dooyeweerd, New Critique of Theoretical Thought Vol I p 99,100)

Fearghas.