[December 1999 journal entry]
If I had concentrated on restructuring my thought re spirituality and ethics before working thoroughly and radically (i.e., to the root) into methodological matters, it is most likely that no more than variations on ‘religious’ T/O paradigm themes would have resulted. Perhaps another way to put this point would be that rethinking must always include methodological matters, with the consequence that – until methodological matters are exhausted (and I now realize that such a time will not come) – revisions in thought will result in new themes as/more often as variations on existing/previous themes. I am reviewing/analyzing my unwavering commitment since the 1970s to the necessity to fully and intentionally incorporate into my views/judgments the results of ongoing attention to methodological issues – e.g., historiography, archaeology, physics, textual criticism, . . . . I do not think I could have done so had maintaining/protecting a place in the ‘religious’ sphere been a higher goal/value. Or at most, inquiry into methodological issues could only have been conducted in a partial/restricted way. Ideas (oral and written) within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm revert to(ward) un(der)examined/pre-modern assumptions and language (as evident in sermons, hymns, prayers, . . . ).
If I had concentrated on restructuring my thought re spirituality and ethics before working thoroughly and radically (i.e., to the root) into methodological matters, it is most likely that no more than variations on ‘religious’ T/O paradigm themes would have resulted. Perhaps another way to put this point would be that rethinking must always include methodological matters, with the consequence that – until methodological matters are exhausted (and I now realize that such a time will not come) – revisions in thought will result in new themes as/more often as variations on existing/previous themes. I am reviewing/analyzing my unwavering commitment since the 1970s to the necessity to fully and intentionally incorporate into my views/judgments the results of ongoing attention to methodological issues – e.g., historiography, archaeology, physics, textual criticism, . . . . I do not think I could have done so had maintaining/protecting a place in the ‘religious’ sphere been a higher goal/value. Or at most, inquiry into methodological issues could only have been conducted in a partial/restricted way. Ideas (oral and written) within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm revert to(ward) un(der)examined/pre-modern assumptions and language (as evident in sermons, hymns, prayers, . . . ).