Isomorphic Indicators in Theological and Psychological Science

1989 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 368-375 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ray S. Anderson
Keyword(s):  
Religious Experience ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Human Experience ◽  
The Self ◽  
Common Interest ◽  
Psychological Science ◽  
Alternative Approach ◽  
The Common ◽  
Science And Theology ◽  
Isomorphic Structure

The culture split between science and theology by which theology tends to abandon the concrete observable world to science, while science tends to dismiss questions of ontology (God), is presented as a framework within which to examine the preceding articles in this issue. The inadequacy of attempting to bridge this dichotomy by constructing a synthesis between psychology and theology on the common ground of religious experience is shown. An alternative approach to theology as having its focus on the interaction between the human self, others and God is presented, suggesting that a convergence between theology and psychology can be found in their common interest in the nature of the human self as being-in-becoming. This convergence is examined as an isomorphic structure where, despite different “ancestry,” theology and psychology attempt to explain and give meaning to human experience as grounded in being (ontology), experienced in a knowing way (epistemology), and open to change by the reality of transcendent being which moves the self toward goals which offer healing and hope (teleology).

scholarly journals Evolutionary theology: a new chapter in the relations between theology and science

2020 ◽  
Vol 56 (3) ◽  
pp. 101-123
Author(s):  
Wojciech Grygiel
Keyword(s):  
Common Ground ◽  
Major Step ◽  
Conceptual Foundation ◽  
Intellectual Inquiry ◽  
Theology And Science ◽  
The Common ◽  
Science And Theology ◽  
Unique Framework ◽  
Scientific Atheism

Despite many arduous attempts to reconcile the separation between theology and science, the common ground where these two areas of intellectual inquiry could converge has not been fully identified yet. The purpose of this paper is to use evolutionary theology as the new and unique framework in which science and theology are indeed brought into coherent alignment. The major step in this effort is to acknowledge that theology can no longer dialogue with science but must assume science and its method as its conceptual foundation. This approach successfully does away with any tensions that may arise between the two disciplines and establishes a firm ground on which neither of them will turn into ideology. Moreover, it enables the dialogue with contemporary scientific atheism on solid grounds and the restoration of the credibility of theology in the secularist culture of the day.

Contextualism, Decontextualism, and Perennialism

1998 ◽  
pp. 142-146
Author(s):  
Timothy A. Mahoney
Keyword(s):  
Religious Experience ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Mystical Experience ◽  
Ultimate Reality ◽  
Religious Epistemology ◽  
Religious Traditions ◽  
Perennial Philosophy ◽  
The Common ◽  
Mystical Experiences ◽  
Central Claim

This paper addresses religious epistemology in that it concerns the assessment of the credibility of certain claims arising out of religious experience. Developments this century have made the world’s rich religious heritage accessible to more people than ever. But the conflicting religious claims tend to undermine each religion’s central claim to be a vehicle for opening persons to ultimate reality. One attempt to overcome this problem is provided by "perennial philosophy," which claims that there is a kind of mystical experience common to all religious traditions, an experience which is an immediate contact with an absolute principle. Perennialism has been attacked by "contextualists" such as Steven Katz who argue that particular mystical experiences are so tied to a particular tradition that there are no common mystical experiences across traditions. In turn, Robert Forman and the "decontextualists" have argued that a certain kind of mystical experience and process are found in diverse traditions, thereby supporting one of the key elements of perennialism. I review the contextualist-decontextualist debate and suggest a research project that would pursue the question of whether the common ground of the world’s mystical traditions could be expanded beyond what has been established by the decontextualists. The extension of this common ground would add credibility to the claims arising out of mystical experience.

TEOLOGIA FILOSÓFICA E DIÁLOGO RELIGIOSO

2016 ◽  
Vol 42 (134) ◽  
pp. 423
Author(s):  
Josef Schmidt
Keyword(s):  
Common Ground ◽  
The Self ◽  
Christian Faith ◽  
Rational Potential ◽  
Religious Dialogue ◽  
The World ◽  
The Common ◽  
Per Se ◽  
Object Of Study ◽  
Universal Reason

Resumo: O diálogo entre as diversas concepções do mundo, hoje tão urgente, especialmente o diálogo com as religiões e entre as religiões, só poderá ter sucesso se os parceiros estiverem dispostos a e forem capazes de levar a sério uns aos outros no cerne de suas convicções. Já que se trata de convicções últimas que de per si contêm uma pretensão universal, a razão é o espaço comum de tal diálogo. O seu cultivo é tarefa da filosofia, que se torna neste caso um parceiro qualificado, porque a transcendência como tema das religiões é também seu objeto. É o que mostram os diferentes argumentos da transcendência elaborados na filosofia, que como demonstrações de Deus constituem a ponte para a religião. São argumentos nucleares da filosofia, já que neles a razão tematiza sua capacidade para superar em princípio seus limites. Os tipos particulares desses argumentos são maneiras intimamente relacionadas da autoexplicitação da razão universal. A dimensão da normatividade e da bondade que assim emerge leva ao problema da teodicéia com o qual a filosofia e a teologia são conjuntamente confrontadas. A respeito desse problema a fé cristã possui um potencial racional especial que tem intensificado nos últimos tempos o diálogo com o budismo.Abstract: The dialogue between the different conceptions of the world, so urgent nowadays, especially the religious dialogue and that between religions, can only succeed if partners are willing and able to take each other seriously, at the heart of their own convictions. As these ultimate convictions contain per se a universal claim, reason must be the common ground for such a dialogue. The task of philosophy, acting here as a qualified partner, is therefore to cultivate dialogue since transcendence is an object of study for both religions and philosophy. This is what the different arguments of transcendence, developed in philosophy, show. Their demonstrations of God serve as a bridge to religion. They are core philosophical arguments since it is through them that reason expresses its ability to overcome, in principle, its own limits. The particularities of these arguments are closely related to the self-explanation of the universal reason. The dimension of normativity and kindness that emerge, brings the problem of theodicy to which both philosophy and theology are confronted. Regarding this issue, the Christian faith has a rational potential that has recently favoured the dialogue with Buddhism.

scholarly journals МОРАЛЬНІ ВИМОГИ В ПРАКТИЦІ СУЧАСНОГО КОМУНІКАТИВНОГО МЕНЕДЖМЕНТУ

2019 ◽  
pp. 18-26
Author(s):  
О. П. Проценко ◽  
О. О. Агапова
Keyword(s):  
Management Strategy ◽  
Moral Values ◽  
The Self ◽  
Common Interest ◽  
Special Role ◽  
Normative Sample ◽  
Normative Model ◽  
Economic Relations ◽  
Methods And Techniques ◽  
The Common

Moral refers to the management strategy as a mechanism that regulates the methods and techniques for solving social problems through the management and organization of people within the boundaries of social institutions.Moral management «works» as a stereotype of actions, to create special «matrice» of actions that contribute to the consolidation of the efforts of people and the productivity of their labor activity. A special role is played by the management strategy, taking into account the unity of the private and the common interest of the balance between aims and means, expansion of interests based on tolerance, trust, and the principle of mutual obligations.The corporate moral of modern management goes back to the entrepreneurial ethos of the 15th – 16th centuries.Even then, there was a tendency to create normative codes that broadcasted moral values into economic relations: hard work, thrift and orderliness.Gradually, in the space of communicative management, the emphasis is transferred from a normative sample of a person striving for success, to an example of a person who easily adapts, adjusts, demonstrates new, more effective acts and actions. An example of it can be the advice of B. Franklin and the theory of A. Maslow about the self-actualizing personality.Within time, the moral ability of management acquires particular features and some indicators of the exemplary normative model of a manager become of the textbook case. A special role in the manager’s charismatic potential belongs to etiquette, in its concrete  orientation to the «case» and business. Following moral rules becomes a metalanguage of business contacts.

scholarly journals They are kind of/sort of similar: a parallel corpus-based analysis of English KIND OF and SORT OF and their Lithuanian correspondences

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-32
Author(s):  
Audronė Šolienė
Keyword(s):  
Research Method ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Discourse Markers ◽  
The Self ◽  
Context Dependence ◽  
Contrastive Analysis ◽  
Parallel Corpus ◽  
Demonstrative Pronouns ◽  
The Common ◽  
One To One

The present paper reports on the English type nouns kind of and sort of and their Lithuanian correspondences in a contrastive perspective. This paper aims to describe the quantitative and qualitative distribution of the English kind of andsort of, to determine their translational correspondences in Lithuanian as well as to reveal how Lithuanian correspondences correlate with the functions (textual and interpersonal) that kind of and sort of perform in original and translated fiction texts. The research method is a quantitative and qualitative contrastive analysis based on data extracted from the self-compiled bidirectional corpus ParaCorpEN→LT→EN comprising fiction texts. The results show that kind of and sort of are prone to be used NP-internally; however, even in this construction they can feature as DMs. Kind of and sort of function as unambiguous DMs when they completely lose their nominality, i.e. are used NP-externally. The functional and semantic potential of the type nouns is fully reflected by their TCs. Very rarelykind of and sort of denoting a type are translated congruently into a Lithuanian type noun; they usually correspond to demonstrative pronouns. As discourse markers, kind of and sort of are realised by different Lithuanian correspondences which may help establish the common ground between the speaker and the hearer or refer to the previous context, may indicate epistemic imprecision, approximation or downtone a proposition. The high number of zero correspondence shows that the Lithuanian type nouns have not advanced on the grammaticalization path the way the English type nouns have and due to the multifunctionalilty, non-propositionality and context-dependence there is no one-to-one correspondence of the markers under scrutiny.

Speed vs. comfort: Testing the efficacy of a single question for predicting transit users’ route choices

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph John Pyne Simons ◽  
Ilya Farber
Keyword(s):  
Data Collection ◽  
Efficient Method ◽  
Choice Task ◽  
The Self ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Model Parameters ◽  
Single Item ◽  
Alternative Approach ◽  
Single Question ◽  
Insight Into

Not all transit users have the same preferences when making route decisions. Understanding the factors driving this heterogeneity enables better tailoring of policies, interventions, and messaging. However, existing methods for assessing these factors require extensive data collection. Here we present an alternative approach - an easily-administered single item measure of overall preference for speed versus comfort. Scores on the self-report item predict decisions in a choice task and account for a proportion of the differences in model parameters between people (n=298). This single item can easily be included on existing travel surveys, and provides an efficient method to both anticipate the choices of users and gain more general insight into their preferences.

The Semantics of Evidentials

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah E. Murray
Keyword(s):  
Recent Work ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Formal Semantics ◽  
Empirical Support ◽  
Propositional Content ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
Truth Conditional ◽  
The Common ◽  
Issue Content

This book gives a compositional, truth‐conditional, crosslinguistic semantics for evidentials set in a theory of the semantics for sentential mood. Central to this semantics is a proposal about a distinction between what propositional content is at‐issue, roughly primary or proffered, and what content is not‐at‐issue. Evidentials contribute not‐at‐issue content, more specifically what I will call a not‐at‐issue restriction. In addition, evidentials can affect the level of commitment a sentence makes to the main proposition, contributed by sentential mood. Building on recent work in the formal semantics of evidentials and related phenomena, the proposed semantics does not appeal to separate dimensions of illocutionary meaning. Instead, I argue that all sentences make three contributions: at‐issue content, not‐at‐issue content, and an illocutionary relation. At‐issue content is presented, made available for subsequent anaphora, but is not directly added to the common ground. Not‐at‐issue content directly updates the common ground. The illocutionary relation uses the at‐issue content to impose structure on the common ground, which, depending on the clause type (e.g., declarative, interrogative), can trigger further updates. Empirical support for this proposal comes from Cheyenne (Algonquian, primary data from the author’s fieldwork), English, and a wide variety of languages that have been discussed in the literature on evidentials.

Can Groups Assert That P?

2019 ◽  
pp. 326-344
Author(s):  
Deborah Tollefsen
Keyword(s):  
Common Ground ◽  
Speech Act ◽  
Single Individual ◽  
Constitutive Rule ◽  
The Past ◽  
Group Members ◽  
The Common ◽  
Declarative Statement ◽  
John Macfarlane

When a group or institution issues a declarative statement, what sort of speech act is this? Is it the assertion of a single individual (perhaps the group’s spokesperson or leader) or the assertion of all or most of the group members? Or is there a sense in which the group itself asserts that p? If assertion is a speech act, then who is the actor in the case of group assertion? These are the questions this chapter aims to address. Whether groups themselves can make assertions or whether a group of individuals can jointly assert that p depends, in part, on what sort of speech act assertion is. The literature on assertion has burgeoned over the past few years, and there is a great deal of debate regarding the nature of assertion. John MacFarlane has helpfully identified four theories of assertion. Following Sandy Goldberg, we can call these the attitudinal account, the constitutive rule account, the common-ground account, and the commitment account. I shall consider what group assertion might look like under each of these accounts and doing so will help us to examine some of the accounts of group assertion (often presented as theories of group testimony) on offer. I shall argue that, of the four accounts, the commitment account can best be extended to make sense of group assertion in all its various forms.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document