Amazon.com Widgets

Damian P. Fedoryka

Joined: Aug. 23, 2012

No bio


Most recent posts by Damian P. Fedoryka:     (See all of them)


No posts yet


Latest comments by Damian P. Fedoryka:     (See all of them)


Re: Why gender matters

Dec. 6 at 1:21pm | see this comment in context

 Jules,

Jules van Schaijik, Dec. 6 at 9:13am.

 macro-evolution.....the contradiction between it and dignity.  a topic for a new post.

 You are right, it would be the topic calling for a new post.

The relevance of macro-evolution for marriage and gender is this: the former makes radically impossible the self-possession that is a metphsyical precondition for receiving and giving of self, the "total" mode of which is marriage.

It also makes impossible the feminine and masculine genders, each of which is a "mode" or "tone" in the articulation of the person as spiritual: the feminine in the "mode" or "key" of receptivity, the masculine in the "mode" of spontaneity or "going out" of one self in giving. Each is equally called, as person to give and receive in an interpersonal relation. The distinctive mark of the spousal reciprocity is not simply the "totality" of the reciprocated gift of Self but the ontological intention and possibility of "becoming one" that is not tha same as a "sharing" of Self that is metaphsyically distinct in all other kinds of love that neither achieve nor intend, the "becoming one" of spousal love, which alone is fruitful in the full, personalist, sense.

That's why gender matters.

Re: Why gender matters

Dec. 6 at 10:12am | see this comment in context

Jules van Schaijik, Dec. 6 at 9:13am

... the contradiction between it and dignity. Still, there must be people who have made the attempt to reconcile them, and I would like to know how they go about it.  

 De Chardin did, following Hegel and Marx. Heidegger did. So also those who defend "guided evolution." As to the "how," it involves a redcutive deconstruction of "self-possession," "ownerhsip" and "sovereignty" to the act appropriation, - the antithesis of receiving, - which rejects St. Paul's reminder that everything we "have" we have received.

Re: Why gender matters

Dec. 6 at 8:40am | see this comment in context

Gregory Gronbacher, Dec. 6 at 2:43am

our vantage points might be further apart than originally thought. Perhaps I am wrong. 

 You are entirely right. It is the distance of the metpshysical contradition between marriage as the mutual gift of love between man and woman and the usage of the term "marriage" to designate sexual but genderless activity. 

It is not a matter of time but of insight: two products of evolution are metphysically incapable of self-possession, a necessary condition for the gift of selves.

And that is the inherent problem of evolution which has produced eyes so that they may not see. The evolutionary vantage excludes the possibility that its product pray to God for sight to see the beauty of the beloved or the splenfor of spousal love.

Sunt lacrima rerum

Re: Why gender matters

Dec. 5 at 9:26pm | see this comment in context

Material evolution is not a fact. In other words, it is not the case.

Organic micro-evolution is a fact. In other words, organic evolution obtains within a species.

MicroEvolution presupposes an essential identity in the nature of what evolves. The process of evolution entials the actualization of an active potency, i.e. a power to actualize a possibility that is already inscibed in the genetic structure of an organice being. In organic evolution, therefore, the belong X does not become something different, a being Y, but remains essentially the same kind of being.

The hypothesis of Macroevolution was proposed as explanation of the origin of species that were considered different species: the "species" man was explained as orginating from the different species, "anthropoid."  The  attempt to identify the the so called "missing link," as evidence for precise process that caused the "minute" variations in what was also a continuity of generation, was a scientific failure. This was masked or disguised by the metaphysical rejction of the opriginal state of affairs that was to be explaiend: the real, irreducible difference of species was now replaced by the essential identity of everything in the universe as matter, marked by different degrees of complexity. Period. Spirit is material. 

Re: Why gender matters

Dec. 5 at 4:17pm | see this comment in context

Gregory Gronbacher, Dec. 5 at 3:50pm

A question for clarification - do you deny any sense of material evolution? 

Our evolving from past material causes does not necessarily imply being pushed around nor victimization. They are merely facts. 

If we examine the human person - consider his or her faculties, selfhood, uniqueness, interiority, and so on - we understand the proper response is one of wonder and recognition of immense dignity and value. This does not depend on our origins or cause - it is rooted in our being, as it is now. 

You ignored the substance of my post: (macro)evolution entails the cause-effect and that the colloqial for my being and acts as "effects" it to be "pushed around". Also dignity entails "being my own" and this entials not being the effect ... even of God as "first cause of my being and acts."  If God is simply "first cause" then the cause-effect process is quite compatible with God, who must then also be a part of the process of evolution as his own "externalization." 

Answer: material evolution - No. Organic micro-evolution - Yes. Macro-evolution - No-no!.  "Mere fact" = the state of having no meaning, requiring neither proof nor explanation

Stay informed

Reading circles

Lectures

Latest comments

  • Re: Everybody's a Critic
  • By: Devra Torres
  • Re: Everybody's a Critic
  • By: Patrick Dunn
  • Re: Everybody's a Critic
  • By: Devra Torres
  • Re: Everybody's a Critic
  • By: Kate Ernsting
  • Re: Marriage and Freedom
  • By: Katie van Schaijik
  • Re: Marriage and Freedom
  • By: Matt D
  • Re: Marriage and Freedom
  • By: Rhett Segall
  • Re: Marriage and Freedom
  • By: Kate Whittaker Cousino
  • Re: Marriage and Freedom
  • By: Katie van Schaijik
  • Re: Marriage and Freedom
  • By: Kate Whittaker Cousino

Latest active posts