re: lonergan's imperatives

as I see such matters, much less do the imperatives/conversions have to do with attainments of any sort, such as regarding any given intellectual position, any particular affective attunement, a certain degree of moral perfection or social alignment or even a certain religious position ...

instead, they have much more to do with dispositions than positions, much more to do with an openness, exchanging willfulness for willingness, an expectant orientation toward these horizons ...

and so with that knowledge that comes moreso from cooperation with and participation in one's being in love, which results more often in successful engagements with and successful references to rather than successful descriptions of the beloved ... ...

thus it is that even those of explicit faith falter with god-descriptions, whether mythic, metaphysical or theological ... ...

thus it is, too, that the secular and religious are separated only by lack of overt references to and not by lack of cooperation with the spirit ... ...

thus it is that our spiritual horizon of concern opens with the philosophic and not the theistic ... ...

thus it is that the theotic gifts one with a superabundance as our essentially spiritual quests undeniably already gift us abundantly ... ...

thus it is that lonergan's methodology gifts us not with the right answers but the right questions, although, even at our most attentive, most intelligent, most reasonable and most responsible, our methods, per a peircean critique, remain ineluctably fallible

thus I consider authenticity an essentially spiritual reality marked by that openness and willingness entailed in the first four imperatives and consider the 5th imperative (with other people the love-object, where love of god is undeniably derivative) essential for sustained authenticity, while the 5th imperative, where god is made consciousnessly and explicitly the love-object, gifts one with religious authenticity, the deepest form realizable

thus it is that frankl considered self-actualization a by-product of self-transcendence

whatever lonergan's questions otherwise might be considered to entail, ultimately, love is their answer By declaring that man is responsible and must actualize the potential meaning of his life, I wish to stress that the true meaning of life is to be discovered in the world rather than within man or his own psyche, as though it were a closed system. I have termed this constitutive characteristic "the self-transcendence of human existence." It denotes the fact that being human always points, and is directed, to something or someone, other than oneself--be it a meaning to fulfill or another human being to encounter. The more one forgets himself--by giving himself to a cause to serve or another person to love--the more human he is and the more he actualizes himself. What is called self-actualization is not an attainable aim at all, for the simple reason that the more one would strive for it, the more he would miss it. In other words, self-actualization is possible only as a sideeffect of self-transcendence. Viktor E. Frankl, Man's Search for Meaning