💾 Archived View for gmi.calebfiggers.com › gemlogs › 2024-09-28.gmi captured on 2024-09-29 at 01:43:48. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-12-17)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
It seems to me that the distinctive mindset that defines and suffuses Theology as a discipline is the effort to understand and faithfully articulate, as far as possible, the unique dynamics of interaction between infinite and finite being.
Dr. Charles Isbell, Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs at the University of Wisconsin–Madison and formerly the Dean of the College of Computing at Georgia Tech, has said the following on the subject of defining "Disciplines," and particularly, the discipline of computation:
[1:17:10] People often think about "tools" and "toolsets." And when you're really trying to be good, you think about "skills" and "skillsets." But disciplines are about **mindsets.** Right? They're about fundamental **ways of thinking**. Not just the hammer that you pick up, whatever that is, to hit the nail. Not just the skill of learning how to hammer well. It's the **mindset** of, like, what's the fundamental way to think about the world. And different disciplines, give you different mindsets. They give you different ways of **thinking through [different things].**
[1:17:41] So... with that in mind, I think that computing—to even ask the question whether [something is] a discipline, you have to decide, "Does it have a mindset?" Does it have a way of thinking about the world that is different from, y'know, the scientist—who is doing discovery and using the scientific method as a way of doing it. Or the mathematician—who builds abstractions and tries to find steady-state "truth" about the abstractions that, may be artificial, but whatever. Or is it the engineer—who is all about building demonstrably superior technology with respect to some notion of trade-offs, whatever that means.
[1:18:13] What is computing? How is computing different? I've thought about this for a long time and I've come to a view about what computing actually is, what the mindset is. And it's a little abstract, but that would be appropriate for computing.
[1:18:26] I think that what distinguishes the computationalist from others is that he or she understands that **Models, Languages, and Machines are equivalent.** They are **the same thing.** And because it's not just the Model, but it's a Machine that is an executable thing, that can be described as a Language—that means that it is dynamic. It is mathematical in some sense, in the sense of abstraction. But it is fundamentally dynamic and executable.¹
I find this notion incredibly insightful—first the general concept that Disciplines are distinguishable (perhaps best or primarily or most productively distinguishable) in terms of the unique _mindset_ that characterizes that Discipline's activity and perspective on the world and how it works; and second the specific insight into computation that Dr. Isbell has arrived at.
Two things stand out to me about this framing of what a "Discipline" is:
I also really appreciate the specific insight about Models, Languages, and Machines having a deep isomorphism. That's an idea worthy of deep reflection.
My educational background is in "Divinities." By that I mean, my Master's program was a "Master's of Divinity," i.e., an "M.Div."
What does "Divinities" mean? I understand the word "Divinities" to mean the _activity_ and _practice_ of working with Theology as a field of study. "Theology" is both a body of knowledge and field of study. God, his works, and his ways are the final object of Theology. In other words, while "Theology" is a body of things one can learn and learn about, "Divinities" (if it is to be distinguished from Theology) is the _discipline_ of doing that learning and of applying what is learned there to the rest of life.
(In practice, I don't generally distinguish between "Theology" and "Divinities." I generally think about "Theology" and "Divinities" as close to interchangable terms in most contexts. I generally don't define them adversarially, that is, as in contrast to one another—rather I think of the two terms as mostly converging, covering largely similar ground with some differences at the very outside edges. And those edges are unavoidably fuzzy, but that's not special to these specific terms. Nearly every human definition has fuzzy edges eventually.)
So, as I think about Dr. Isbell's concept of a "Discipline" as having a _unique mindset_ that sets it apart from other disciplines, I'm led to wonder: Does "Theology"/"Divinities" have a mindset? A unique way of thinking about the world that makes it distinct?
I think so, and I would articulate that mindset like this:
Theology is uniquely defined by its concern with, and effort to faithfully communicate about, the **unique dynamics of interaction** that must exist if infinite being and finite being are to meaningfully engage with one another.
Or, another way to make the same statement:
What distinguishes the theologian from others is that he or she understands that if there is to be meaningful engagement between finite being and infinite being, that interaction will necessarily have **specific dynamics** that are neither required, nor indeed observed at all in interactions between finite beings. The recognition of and careful regard for those dynamics uniquely characterizes and defines the discipline of Theology.
In much the same way that Dr. Isbell's summary of his essential insight into the field of computation does not flesh out every concievable aspect of computation in more than kernel form, my summary of the "Soul" of Theology does not attempt to exhaust every distant corner contained within the study of Theology as it exists in all its forms. But I am convinced, and more and more so as I think on it over and over, that this essental kernel does suffuse and define Theology/the Divinities _as a discipline_. This is important for at least two reasons:
I use the term "dynamics" in both of my statements above in a self-conscious way. I'm mildly embarrassed by how "highfalutin" and academic and pretentious—maybe even vacuous—the term "dynamics" is. So, to combat the slippery and generic quality of that term, let me give some examples of the "dynamics" I am trying to gesture at:
In my view, all theological projects must eventually grapple with (or conspicuously fail to grapple with) the realities of each of these "dynamics of interaction."
The actual (i.e. as found in actuality) nature of finite-infinite interaction produces surprising and frequently counter-intuitive results (counter-intuitive precisely because our intuitions are formed in a completely non-analogous arena, vis., the arena of the finite).
Like the way that gravity literally curves spacetime in order to make paradoxical outcomes not just possible but inevitable, the nature of infinite and finite being interacting "curves" our "cartesian" conception of many subjects, not least our understanding of our own selves, in ways that are hard or maybe even impossible to predict or navigate at all. Because of this seeming "distortion" (as it appears to our limited perceptions), I believe it is fundamentally true of theology that it cannot be done at all apart from the direct intervention of the infinite being it studies—specifically, his intervention to progressively reveal himself to us. Without God disclosing that which we cannot model or calculate, I believe it is quite obvious that success in the domain of Theology would be completely impossible.
But as it is, God wishes his children to know him; and so know him they do.