Here is the earlier list:
Note: SInce this aspect is post-social, the full development of these themes and kernel issues involves society. There is a personal element (such as an individual's faith and their holding out against the establishment beliefs), but much of this aspect can only be understood in terms of society.
By including this aspect among all the others, Dooyeweerd was saying something very important: religion, vision, commitment etc. are not to be given special status, neither elevated nor set aside, in our thinking. As Russ Reeves has well said,
"The inescapability of religion is also important - in religious studies, there is surprisingly little clarity regarding what 'religion' actually is, and it is defined in a variety of odd ways (and often left undefined), something some people have but others don't. Dooyeweerd's perspective not only makes more sense, but makes religion a universal (and useful) analytical category."
The tendency to elevate or set aside such issues can be linked to the Nature-Grace Ground Motive.
In brief, pistic functioning is to do with two things:
On the latter point, consider the following visions for a business:
Which would most inspire the workers and managers in the firm to work together and make a long-term success of the firm? Consider the firms that have lasted more than 100 years, and ask what proportion of them started off with each type of vision. In the UK and Ireland we have Lever Bros, Cadbury's, Boots, Guinness, and so on. A disproportionate number started off with the fourth vision. While the first vision might inspire the small circle of owner's friends, and the second and third, the mobile middle managers whose sole aim in life is excitement, it is the fourth that can inspire right through the firm. It is not sufficient to have any vision, but a 'right' vision. (Think: what does 'right' mean? Shalom?) (Think: are all faiths equal?)
Most pistic harm comes from absolutization of what should not be absolutized. Many 'isms' are viewpoints in which some aspect is absolutized; aspects should not be. The result includes reduction to an overly narrow view, with consequent problems, an attitude of reductionism, and the marginalization of many valid and important points of view.
To see ontology as involving the pistic aspect helps: ontology involves commitment, whereas epistemology involves only the analytical or lingual aspects (depending on whether you see it as analysis or language games). In real life, we function in every aspect, so we function pistically too, and hence make ontological commitments - that is at least those minor commitments about little things in life. When we go to the loo we don't just hold an epistemological opinion that there is a loo there, we commit to it!
Why has ontology got a bad name? If ontology is pistic functioning, then we can perhaps explain this by harm of pistic functioning, which is idolatry or any giving of undue importance to something. Most ontology, or essentialism, has assumed self-dependent Being. As Clouser (1991) argues, this is a kind of idolatry, giving divine status to something that is not divine. Functioning against the laws of an aspect leads to repercussions, and the pistic has the longest response time, so gradually the harm from this pistic commitment starts to congregate, then have effect, then be noticed, then realised, then reacted against. Hence the reaction against ontology.
But ontology, if we function in line with the laws of the pistic aspect, and give God is proper respect as God, can give us freedom and joy ahd shalom.
Reductions of faith aspect to others. Non-religious thinkers have argued for the primacy of such features as
".. the pistic .. has as its central meaning the relation of the created to its Creator; faith and trust on the subject side and responsibility for the creation towards its Creator. In Jesus Christ we know it as a Father-Child relationship. This can be disbelieved and denied, with disastrous consequences for the whole of cration."
"It [sustainability] is a quite new concept and I think we should ask ourselves why it came to the fore. I think it is a natural and timely event in the course of the unfolding process. Just recently man realised that he made a mess of the creation (his "environment" and his "thinking") in the course of history, and thus mankind became conscious of it's responsibility (and it's guiltyness). This is essentially a process that opens up the pistic modality. Here it is decided how the problems are to be solved. Unwarranted faith in technological systems design (a kind of reductionism ) without a fundamental philosophical insight into the true nature of the creation obstructs real solutions and may cause new, unforeseen problems."
"The main criterion is if it will lead to the whole of creation 'praising the Lord'."
"Artificial Intelligence might offer some quite good methods to be used in ELSIE [a knowledge based system], whether one believes that "human thinking and intelligence" in ALL it's modalities can be "duplicated" on the computer or not. The crucial pistic question is whether ELSIE implicitely suggests to it's users that it (the computer) can take over their responsibility or make them less responsible."
When people in mediaeval Europe used absolute claims about God for their own corrupt or trivial ends one of the most pernicious types of oppression grew. A reaction set in that drove into the deepest recesses of our culture the idea that one should never bring God into the affairs of the world such as science, philosophy, economics or politics (hence some parts of the USA Constitution).
But this cannot be. If God is, then our science, philosophy, economics, politics, and everything else is most deeply affected by that. Now, nobody can prove God is, or even prove what God is like, just as nobody can prove their own existence even to themselves - there is a fundamental limit to reason and proof . But that epistemological limitation does not affect the ontological status of the influence of God on his world. However, there is plenty of evidence on who God is, what he is like: he acted into the world over the last 4000 years and beyond, and communicated with us.
So, while the first two harms above are phrased in neutral form, the third one is not. It is making a bold statement that if we go against who God really is then harm will come - usually in the longest term - while if we go with who God is then ultimate and most wide-ranging good will come.
Roy Clouser (1992) published a book The Myth of Religious Neutrality , whose title I adopted for this section, in which he argues cogently and readably for the non-neutrality of science. He proposes three basic types of religious commitment, and shows how these affect our basic pre-suppositions about a few sciences like mathematics, physics, etc.
But we find scientists everywhere trying to prove their hypotheses, rather than disprove them. Why is this? Most academic papers show positive evidence, not attempts at finding negative.
(Of course, in the initial stages of formulating hypotheses, and getting them to the stage where serious disproof is appropriate, it is useful to look for evidence in favour. But in many (most) cases, that is all that happens. Why is this?)
It would seem that in many cases it is because of a pistic commitment that scientists have toward their pet hypotheses. It is sometimes known as psychological ownership, and is a pistic commitment even though in a mild form. Scientists, as humans, are pistically committed to their pet theories.
This is ironic, in a field (science) which claims to be free of such commitments and to be entirely logical or empirical. Yet because scientists are human, it should not be unexpected.
Indeed (and I'm grateful to Herb van den Dool for pointing this out) Polanyi said almost as much in his Personal Knowledge (which from its title could be seen as an antidote to Popper's Objective Knowledge?). As Herb points out, in referringing to Nick Woltersdoorf, actually "for the most part it is hard to disprove hypotheses, especially when they come in packages of big theories. For the most part scientists will first attempt to see if there was an error in the observations. If only they feel there can be no error there, they will attempt to only make small adaptations to their theories rather than throw them out. So in a sense hypotheses can't really be disproved either."
We also find pistic commitments, of a deeper kind, to paradigms in science - to ways of looking at things. These paradigms dictate what research questions are considered worth exploring (and funding), and what types of answers are deemed satisfactory. In too many cases these adherances to paradigms take the form of almost unthinking following of (intellectual) fashions. Things outside these paradigms are sometimes sneered at. This is the downside of pistic commitments.
"The Jews sinned in this manner worse than the Pagans not because they were further from God but because they were nearer to Him. For the Supernatural, entering a human soul, opens to it new possibilities both of good and evil. From that point the road branches: one way to sanctity, love, humility, the other to spiritual pride, self-righteousness, persecuting zeal. And no way back to the mere humdrum virtues and vices of the unawakened soul. If the Divine call does not make us better, it will make us very much worse."
This fits well with the pistic aspect being the last aspect, and even more with the kernel of the pistic aspect being our vision of who we ultimately are, what we place our faith on, what we commit ourselves to at the deepest level. It is, if you like, the deepest aspect.
What that means, or at least implies, is that 'spiritual' does not equate with 'good'. There is a tendency today, as we move away from materialism, to think that materialism = bad and therefore spiritual = good, but both C.S. Lewis and Dooyeweerd would suggest otherwise. Dooyeweerd suggests otherwise because he proposes that the pistic is merely one aspect of our functioning, rather than as a 'higher' level of reality.
The upshot of this is that our functioning in the pistic aspect can be either good or bad, beneficial or harmful, in line with or against the grain of pistic reality. So it is in principle possible for people to be very spiritual and yet very wrong in their pistic functioning - and even to be very good in their ethical functioning, to boot, so they seem such nice, good, wholesome people. And C.S. Lewis suggest that it is also possible in practice, and even common in practice.
What is good pistic functioning, and what is bad, is another issue. But Dooyeweerd would claim something that today would be unacceptable.
One issue that came high on the agenda was that animals should not be treated in such ways - as mere artifacts for human convenience - but one witness suggested that actually the animals were well treated. This set me thinking: there are at least two types of 'treatment' of animals here. One was speaking about our (pistic) view of what animals are, the other about whether we threaten the life functions of the individual animals.
Let's take it further: it seems there are at least four different types of animal treatment here, each related to an aspect. (I admit it: I have used the aspects as a given taxonomy in order to help me tease out the differences - but they do seem helpful; see what you think.)
Juridical treatment refers to giving animals what is due to them - their rights, if you like. Pistic treatment refers to what we think animals are - and influences what we believe animals are due.
Well, cloning a sheep might satisfy the biotic and sensitive aspects, and, in the case of the individuals involved, might even largely give them what is due to them. But it (might) go against the pistic, namely that animals are created by God, belong to him, are loved by him, and given their own dignity by him, whereas we treat them as merely convenient media for our drug research, or as mere economic objects.
(The question of eating animals is, arguably, another matter: eating something does not necessarily detract from its dignity - or does it? I will not discuss that here.)
Even so-called neutral scientific research is influenced in this manner. For instance, during the age of behaviourism in psychology there was an assumption that "Thou shalt not ask what goes on inside the human mind" and that only inputs and outputs could be studied. For instance, in architecture during the 1960s in the U.K. anyone who proposed a pitched roof was considered a 'traitor'. These are pistic influences.
I think Dooyeweerd's view would have been that what sets humanity apart is that we can function as subjects in all aspects, while animals etc. can function as subjects in only the earlier aspects and only as objects in later ones. This sort-of includes the R.C. view, in that functioning as subject in this pistic aspect allows us to have a relationship with God.
Much more to be written and discussed here.
I posture a separate modality: Hope, retrosipating on Love and anticipating on Faith. This is the guiding aspect for the act of education of a child. The kernel of hope is Anticipation (verwachting).
Sounds good. But is hope really part of this pistic aspect? Certainly, it seems intimately tied up with our vision of what/who we are. I've asked him to examine the possibility in more detail, especially guided by our 'A New Aspect?'.
Copyright (c) 2004 Andrew Basden. But you may use this material subject to conditions.
Number of visitors to these pages: . Written on the Amiga with Protext.
Created: by 7 May 1998. Last updated: 18 May 1998 (added thing from Herb vdDool). 29 May 1998 added theme of worth etc. 31 May 1998 moved Real Downsizing to ethical aspect where it belongs. 30 August 1998 Marx. 30 August 1998 rearranged and tidied. 2 November 1998 added re Hope. 29 November 1998, 1 December 1998 Added a few more themes. 31 January 1999 Added re. how to discern pistic. 10 January 2000 CS Lewis about best and worst. 7 February 2001 quote from Russ Reeves, removed mailto. 5 March 2001 shalom added to an moved earlier. 21 March 2001 Ontology section; categorised the many themes. 21 September 2001 two-bullet summary added to themes. 14 March 2002 new list of kernel. 1 April 2002 dr. Johnson quote, rearranged ending. 24 April 2002 added Bourdieu quote to show effect of pistic on economic; moved creeds to dependency. 1 August 2002 people not going quiet. 14 September 2002 Note after themes about being post-social. 10 March 2003 .nav, 'certitudinal'. 22 July 2003 para on 'right' vision. 30 November 2003 life-giving commitment. 14 January 2004 all actuality is commitment. 28 April 2004 harm of absolutization; admin. 1 November 2004 Canada diverging; a misconceptions; some tidying. 24 August 2005 new .nav,.end, changed kernel, themes. 5 January 2008 rearranged 'harm'. 9 February 2008 link to absolutization. 8 September 2008 role models. 16 December 2008 branding. 12 June 2009 reputation. 30 April 2010 Buck-fuller. 22 September 2010 Dooyeweerd's and Basden's kernel. 12 October 2010 illusion. 4 February 2011 Seerveld 'confessional'. 6 March 2011 reductions to other aspects. 19 March 2013 link with ethical. 26 March 2013 dependency in cognitive science of religion. 16 May 2013 research.