THE “KARL JASPERS FORUM” UPDATE 31 (May 16, 2007)– HERBERT’S CONVERSION-QUESTION, LINK TO A REVIEW OF GREGORY WALTER’S PUBLICATIONS
1. The skirmish for conversion power--Mr. Müller’s has formed a religious conversion question. He asks Joseph Ratzinger, a church’s affirmed and confirmed head primate, how one is to make the ontological leap to theistic belief. Herbert is not really asking a question, for he knows the answer: he believes infallibly that nothing exists independent of mind, and mind’s zero-derivational epistemic processes systemically restrain thinkers from leaping or receiving inspiration through grace greater than which can be conceived. This ostentatious editorial questioning is unbecoming to an academician who feels no real need to form begging questions.
2. Atom and cellular nuclearism--But rather than rehash again the banality of the constant state of the minds’ protesting of authority and scrutiny of appearances, we’ll try to make the best of his didactical question and spin off into a Page with some meaningful research on Gregory Walters’ publications. Gregory’s research and appropriation of Jaspers’ views contains invaluable information, and also conducive to communication. In particular reference is made to his book on Karl Jaspers and The Role of “Conversion” in The Nuclear Age, and Jaspers’ view of the place of conversion in the idea of the university setting, etc. The role of conversion applies to the nuclear epoch for the nuclear threat is not only annihilation or totalitarian in the atom sense, but also pertains to the moral battlefront where annihilation of humankind is threatened by the totalitarianism of cellular nuclear-ism.
3. Clear religious information regarding conversion—Everybody (overstatement for universal effect), including Herbert, knows what the Catholic group and catholicity in unreformed Protestant groups’ answer is as to how to make the ontological leap to theistic faith. All one must do is do what one is told including uttering a Creed and group familiar jargon. The performance begins with the acceptance of ecclesiastical authority, which simply decrees that a good member practices what the group seems to have in common. Herbert uses familial jargon, i.e., “the Pope” while, as a family member, obsequiously suggesting it qualifies him for heretical declarations qua questions.
4. Priestly Conversion, Tübingen seat of nuclear (DNA) test site-- Herbert’s question, i.e., declaration, is misdirected if he asks it of Joseph Alois Ratzinger, a German citizen (and “Vatican citizenship” “Pope Benedict XVI”) and fails to direct the question also to Joseph’s Colleague while at Tübingen, Hans Küng, “Ecumenical Theology” and “Emeritus Professor” evolutionist positioned as a Catholic priest in good standing at prestigious Tübingen in the heartland of the Reformation. The former simply has to inform what a Catholic must do to make the ontological leap of faith, whereas the latter holds up the fallibility-end of the “evolving” Catholic Church within his official religious and professional capacity by making the link with the single answer to how and when the potential for faith-leaping emerged. His answer is predicated on those in the United States not given to evolutionism; the first step toward Catholic catholicity is to cease being “naive and un-enlightened” and join the ecumenical movement while in effect laying aside the reformation’s biblical standard. His expertise is ecumenically goal-orientated “praxis”, i.e., via prestigious academic propaganda jargon that updates the custom of Catholic communiqués.
5. The contaminated Nuclear site--A Tübingen’s prime mover was Philipp Melanchthon in the heartland of the protestant reformation in the16th century. It is appropriate to think it is the institutional seat of Catholic authority designed to deal with the threat of a polarity switch in power and standard of conduct. It is the seat of Higher Criticism of the bible, and the testing ground of the first nuclear (DNA) information-blast (1869). DNA is a totalitarian and annihilation threat now being used in the scuffle against the protestant’s biblical standard of conduct vs. Catholicity. It is now being used to put mitochondrial teeth into Mr. Wojtyla’s 1996 proclamation, a conversion demand finely comprehended by Stephen Jay Gould’s grasp of it universal meaning: “Sincere Christians must now accept evolution…as an effectively proven fact” ( Leonardo’s Mount…Worms).
6. Jaspers’ biblical version of conversion—Herbert’s how-to question qua declaration has planted us on protestant soil, i.e., good ground for meaningful protesting while avoiding the nihilism of epistemic zero-derivation; it’s finely cultivated ground for mustard seed spiritual sprouting due to incomings from outer limits at the boundaries of knowledge. A short version can be found in my 2002 Response 14, TA51--Herbert entitled it “ANTI-LEADERSHIP”. R14 will be repeated in part or whole on the new KJSNA Web Page section involving a critique of Gregory Walters’ publications. We will examine how Jaspers answers the question of what one must do to preserve humankind and how it begins with an inner transformation of countless individuals. The biblical form of conversion and Jaspers’ answer to the question will be compared. Questions and answers about how to make a boot-strap leap is more incorrect than humbling and unavoidably misses the mark of infallible revelation at all alleged enlightened levels.
7. REFERENCE AND LINK: BOOK-REPORT ON GREGORY WALTERS’ JASPERS AND THE ROLE OF CONVERSION IN THE NUCLEAR AGE—et al.