"With radical immanentization the dream world has blended into the real world terminologically; the obsession of replacing the world of reality by the transfigured dream world has become the obsession of the one world in which the dreamers adopt the vocabulary of reality, while changing its meaning, as if the dream were reality."
--Eric Voegelin, The New Science of Politics, 1952

I'm betting Voegelin isn't talking about the Matrix. So what's the passage about?

There is no spoon.

WTF?

There is no dark side of the Moon, it's all dark really.

For example...let us change the definition of 'science' and broaden it to accomodate whatever religious myth one might make up and to thereby accomodate 'creationism.' Voila!

Definition of Science:

sci·ence

n.

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company

An explanation of the phenomena that is Mankind remains *still* a theory, no matter what explaination is given, and no matter how much of a crackpot one thinks the explainer is.

So I don't think the definition even NEEDED changing.

I think "radical immanentization" means treating what is either metaphysical, or transcendental as present in time, historically in its perfect form. So not, I guess, the way Aristotle would point to the existence of universals in particulars, nor in the manner that Plato wholly separated the ideas from their material shadows.

For Voegelin the quintessential example of this radical immanentizing would of course be Communists/Marxists, but I think he extends it to anyone who tries to maintain a hope in utopian schemes or of an "ideal" human society.

Guido almost backs into a solid point I think in that the origins of this intellectual error, though not Christian, are derived from Christianity. The Incarnation irrevocably changed our understanding of history and the relationship of the physical and the metaphysical worlds. But although the founding impulse was Christian it was taken outside of its proper context and secularized thus becoming a horribly destructive heresy. The "transfigured dream world" Voegelin refers to could be read variously as the "kingdom of God in history," "heaven on earth," or in Kant's version, the "kingdom of ends."

Homer:
If we can agree that "Science" has nothing to do with miricles or the supernatural, then I rest my case.

If we can agree that the existence of same are "theories" which fall under the definition of science as I quote, then I also rest my case.

Homer:
I don't understand. Existance of what? Is the existance of an earthquake a miracle? When Jushua raised his arms and stopped the sun from traveling around the earth, was that a miracle?
Science may have a lot to do with the former, but nothing whatsoever to do with the latter.

Good point Homer. But we would more productively communicate with one another if we accommodated our definition of science to Einstein's statement "I write fiction." All theories are inadequate attempts to explain observations. Science then would be more productively thought of a process which logically and systematically relates experimental observations to theories. This definition would help scientists avoid Voegelin’s “radical immanentization" problem, a problem from which they think they are immune (see Guido’s first point) but which vexes them continuously. (We shouldn’t forget that Marx thought of himself as a scientist.)

Guido,

I begin to see the difference you see. Things you have a socially acceptable explanation for (like earthquakes) are "scientific" and things you don't have such an explanation for (like reports of the sun standing still) are "miracles."

Isn't the only non-culturally-biased difference the credibility of the reports and isn't only one aspect of that credibility whether or not we think we have found the lawlike principles through which God may have caused the reported phenomena to happen?

Homer:
For "An explanation of the phenomena that is Mankind..."
You might ask Watson and Crick who would tell us (scientifically) that it's all "coordinated" chemistry under control of our individual DNA.
There is a new field where the future is knocking at the door.

Guido,

Asking Watson and Crick to explain the phenomena that is mankind would be like asking two house painters to explain the Mona Lisa. They might know paint. They likely don't know much about the painter.

Doc....Clever

But my example would (if I had to make one) be to ask Kepler and Newton to explain the various movements of the solar system.

I would rather stick to the issue and ask Watson and Crick directly about the human condition connected with a fragile X child or where on the genome is the mutation that accompanies sickle-cell disease. I believe they understand the human condition sufficiently to come up with an answer.