Intergalactic Summit

'Chaos' is said in many ways.

There's a difference between chaos as the 'unordered state of matter in classical accounts of cosmogony' (which in itself can be conceived of in different ways) and chaos as 'any state of disorder, any confused or amorphous mixture or conglomeration' or chaos as 'the behaviour of iterative non-linear systems'. It is as well different from chaos as 'the opposite to law and order'.

In general, one can say that in so far as 'chaos' is used to signify 'something that is', chaos is necessarily created by God (as everything that is, is created by God, save for God). If one uses it to signify some sort of non-being (e.g. the privation of order) it is not created by God - and doesn't exist at all, but is merely a linguistic convention to point to the lack of something.

So, if someone says something like 'God created chaos', then one has to pay attention to what 'chaos' is meant to signify here - and given the above one can rule out all instances where 'chaos' refers to some kind of 'non-being' or privation of being.

So, I think just taking Lt. Kernher's 'God created chaos.' out of context and to try to understand it by free association is not decidedly fruitful in an attempt to try to understand Amarrian thinking. Reapplying that free association to Scripture will inevitably lead to confusion.

To look at least on the neighbouring sentences that frame the phrase that caught overproportional (in my humble opinion) attention: "Our society is one that is open to the realities of a dynamic universe. God created chaos. Societies that are too rigid usually break upon encountering things that they cannot comprehend or cope with." Here, 'chaos' is more used to contrast 'stasis', rather than 'order' or 'law' - it is to point out that the dynamics of the universe, the constant change is originating with God. The lieutenant's later excursion about 'deterministic chaos' makes that quite clear, as deterministic chaos is completely subject to rules. It rather points to epistemic limitations of humans to know the exact configuration space in the present, with which an exact prediction would be possible and our relagation to inexact predictions - as in systems ruled by deterministic chaos there is no strong causality (quite similar outset conditions might very well lead to vastly different outcomes).

'Chaos', then refers here to incertainty within the human understanding of things rather than to incertainty in things.

All that said: The idea that God created the cosmos pretty much like a programmer a simulation is quite simplistic. It isn't bad to bring the point home about how God could have included 'deterministic chaos' in creation, but one should still realise that such conceptions are quite insufficent and give us a problematic picture, once we look at it's other aspects. The worth of such (and more sophisticated!) kataphatic theology is in being company for and a background to apophatic theology.

Well, sure. I'll try to make it brief and concise:

Cataphatic theology is the attempt to conceptualise God in such a way, that allows to bring God down (conceptually!) so that we are able to speak of Him.
Apophatic theology is the attempt to come to know God beyond human concepts, accepting the ineffable nature of the Divine.

I hope that helps more, than it does confuse?

(Tl;dr: See post #104 above)

Neither apophatic nor cataphatic theology have any underlying 'mythology'. It should be clear that the need of having the concept of 'God' or 'the Divine' isn't part of mythology. Rather, as far as it concerns God, one only enters mythology if there is a collection of myths about God: And neither apophatic nor cataphatic theology presuppose that and both can work entirely independent from any mythology. (Though it is quite sensible to rely in both cases on Scriptural Exegesis for various reasons.)

As to 'kataphatic' and 'apophatic' for themselves, they are hardly concepts in themselves. As you might have noticed they are words derived both from a common word by adding a prefix: 'phasis', the nominalization of 'phēsei' which means at it's heart: to declare, make known; and so, to say, affirm, assert.

'Katá', now, signifies basically a downward motion or direction and is in compounds often used to signify the same, but also 'in answer to' or simply is stressing the original meaning of the word it's compounded with. 'Kataphatic', therefore means more or less 'down into assertion drawing' or 'asserting/affirming'.

'Apó' on the other hand is indicative of an 'away from', though in that away motion the 'from' of origin is implied. In compounds it is indicative of a 'parting from'. 'Apophatic' is therefore signifying 'away from asserting' or 'with assertion parting'. (And in that it implies that we did assert prior to now parting with those assertions.)

Wether 'parting with assertion' and/or 'drawing something down into assertion' makes sense is entirely dependend on the subject at hand. Neither one nor the other makes sense apart from a subject that is to be asserted or that is refrained from being the subject of assertion. If one ignores that something must be subject to being (non-)asserted, then what one is left with is gibberish.

Suffice to say, though, that the human mind usually works by building propositions about things and thus by asserting - and than working on those propositions. I doubt humans can, qua being human, do entirely without it. I also think that the vast majority of things are properly thought of in this asserting mode. (So, there is no need for 'apophatic natural science' - in fact, that would be a contradiction in terms.) Of all things that can be known, that is of all things which we might approach by asserting, there are only those addressed by the first questions which are - it seems to me - really pointing beyond what we can fully grasp by assertive propositional structures. Those are answered by philosophy and theology: And as philosophy (at least in the stricter sense: one might argue for some overlap, there) confines itself to propositional elucidations, the proper field to locate apophatic knowledge must be theology. (And that's why no one needs to make that distinction outside of theology.)

That is to say, I venture the claim that 'apophatic' makes little sense if not combined with 'theology'. That's not to say you can't go and do 'apophatic arachnology' - it's just to say that you'd go out in pursuit of a rather senseless activity and you'd spend your time better by doing ordinary (that is, kataphatic) arachnology.

If I may humbly interject here, Ms. Jenneth, "stuff about our religion that doesn't make sense" is a very subjective matter and will vary greatly depending on whom is speaking and whom is listening.

I've heard bishops speak on the same topics phrasing the same idea slightly differently and been utterly confused by one while clearly understanding the other.

Cataphatic: God loves you and everything and puppies and bunnies. We should all dance and sing!

Apophatic: God will cast you into the lowest pits. You are a sinner and unworthy and have little to no chance at redemption. Chant mournfully along prescribed scriptural guidelines or burn.


The "stuff about our religion that doesn't make sense" in Amarr is usually met with an apophatic response. You do not need to know, just have faith. Or else. Your betters might explain it to you, but even if they don't, trust in them (i.e. the Theology Council, the Empress) to understand what you don't understand.


Oddly enough, while Amarr tries to maintain a cataphatic approach to God, they are very apophatic when it comes to anything that challenges their spiritual authority. Conversely, the Sani Sabik God is very apophatic, but our faith can be very cataphatic in some very surprising ways.


By the way, do take Nicoletta's words with a healthy dose of skepticism. She's at the forefront of Amarrian theological sophistry. And if you don't agree that the is the absolute authority on everything, then you're a sinner and should be cast out. She is one of the most monochromatic people in the Empire.

I hope you are well. May God smile on you.

Dear heretic,

it is maybe not surprising, but what you list under 'Apophatic' is an example of cataphatic theology, being staunchly affirming something. I'm not sure if this is even supposed to be a straw man, but I am certain that you would do everyone a favour if you'd at least try to be more witty and intelligent next time you do something like this.

Also, I don't agree that I'm "the absolute authority on everything". I'm still waiting for being brandished a sinner by... whomever.

May the Lord have mercy on your poor soul.
-N. Mithra

No. Apophatic theology is very much theology: It's not faith in itself. It's a way of knowing God. That is part of 'faith' but so is cataphatic theology. The crucial point here is how you define 'conventional sense' and whether you deny that there is 'sense' outside 'conventional sense'.

Yes!

They have a very old custom called the "Cleansing Pit" that is supposed to work wonders. Failing that, slavery is an option. But for true heretics they will support your speedy demise.

Is it, now? You state it as if the answer were obvious. It is not.

If you are looking for neutral and pragmatic definitions...

Apophatic also means negative theology, or defining God through what God is not, rather than what it is.

Cataphatic is more or less the contrary, defining God through what God is.

Both are considered to define God in a simplistic way, especially the latter. But any human text will present such flaws.



Apophatic theology is less omnipresent in Scripture, but that makes it even more valuable in my eyes.