“ Inward Lite at the lowest moment, such endless vitality within me: Yet this experience ‘ofvim and vigor could easly be something peculiar toan elite group—actists and athletes, say, or more broadly the young and those with particularly good constitutions —and Hency’s claim is more general. A Freudian can say that a verbal slip can reveal the unconscious. Is there an equivalent for Henry? There {s,andhetakesit directly from Descartes’ Pasionsde!'ame (1645-1646). Con- sider article 26, which Henry takes to be a Cartesian reduction, which enables phenomenality to show itself: “Thus often when we sleep, and sometimes even when we are awake, ‘ve imagine certain things so forcibly, that we think we see them be- fore us, oF feel them in our body, although they do not exist tall; bt although we may be asleep, or dream, we cannot feel sad or moved bby any other passion without its being very true that the soul actually has this passion within it ‘Indreams representations are usually misleading, yet the passions wefeel when ‘dreaming nd sometimes recall on waking are genuine: theybespeaktthe deep suffering and joy of life that precedes intentionality. Henry could also cite Des- cartes when he indicates, in article 17, that notall our passions come from out- side the soul and, in article 91, that intellectual joy “comes into the soul by the action of the soul alone” (372). There we have a clear case of auto-affection. ‘To admit that we feel life in the self-experience of the soul would be consis- tent with an entirely secular view of reality, and yet Henry goes further than that frame allows. "Life, afterall, is his name for what Descartes calls the soul. Fichte's Religiontehre, itself translation from eligion to philosophy, is very close to what Henry wants to affirm in his material phenomenology. The Ger- ‘man understands that the absolute is immanent, yet tells us that we cannot iknow anything ofthis “divine lif," and Henry thinks that this ignorance ex- {sts because Fichte does not take the short step of recognizing thatthe selfs, identical to this absolute, that life is one with itself in al its forms (308-309). ‘The manifestation of the absolute is self manifestation in the self not in the ‘world, Similarly, when Henry turns to Meister Eckhart he finds a philosophy that overlaps significantly with the one he wishes to afiem,* Once again, he thas to translate from religious to philosophical language in order to find his own philosophy largely confirmed: a task that may be more difficult than he Tawatd Life: On Fite and Henry * anticipates, Eckhart preaches that humility and poverty will bring God into the soul, achieving union between the soul and God. To this teaching, Henry responds with a chetorical question: “must not humility and poverty rather be interpreted as bearing is themselves an ontological meaning and their appearance {nthe problematic as pertaining oa type of thought which aims atthe essence and ‘more precisely at the determination ofthisessence and ts internal structure? (313). ‘The ontological meaning in question is that God and the soul are fundamen- tally one, requiring for salvation only that the soul form an existentill unity with God; they are one as Life and life, without images (that is, in humility and poverty), and love supplies only an existentiell unity that is added to on- tological unity. Iti easy to see what attracts Henry to Eckhart, forthe master argues that esse est deus (rather than Thomas Aquinas's deus estes) and, for Henry, this quickly becomes Life is God (rather than Aquinas’ Gods Life”)." Also, Henry is fond of quoting a passage from a version of Eckhart’s thirteenth sermon, In hoc apparuitcaritas dei in nobis: “Ifa man asked life for a thousand years, "Why do you live?’ iit could answer it would only say, ‘Ilive because I live” That is ‘becauselifelivesfromits own ground, and gushes forth fromits own. Therefore itlives without Why, because it ives for itselé™ This is Henry's answer to the ‘question posed earlier about the weight of the word “So,” which in “life feels its own activity... and so it incessantly transforms itself” One thinks also of a passage such as in sermon seven, Videte qualem charitatem dedit nobis Pater: “But so that nothing may be hidden in God that is not revealed to me, there ‘must appear to me nothing like, no image, for no image can reveal to us the Godhead or its essence. Should any image or any likeness remain in you, you ‘would never be one with God” (74). Itis this sort of remark that allows Henry to see Eckhart asa corrective to Ficht. In his third lecture, Fichte tells us that in“the lower grades ofthe spiritual life of man... that Divine Being (Seyn), as such, does not reveal itself to Consciousness” but that a revelation does occur “in the true central-point of spiritual lif,” and that it assumes the form of an image, representation, or conception” (einem Bilde und einer Abschiderung, der eimen Begrife] (345). These remarks about the absolute allow Henry to catch Fichte in the crosshairs of his sights: “Itis necessarily atthe moment when it [God or the absolute] is thus understood by way of Fichte that its phenome- nological character suddenly becomes uncertain, or better, questioned and fi- nally denied” (304). The very next paragraph, § 39, is entitled "Eckhart," and this masters the one who shows us that God is “without image” (304, 330).286 Notes to Pages 39-43, 121, Hussed), Ideas Pertaining toa Pure Phenomenology and toa Phenomenological Phi Losophy 1: General Introduction to « Pure Phenomenology, trans. Fred Kersten (Dordrecht Kluwer, 1983), 79. On cagittio see Hussel,On the Phenomenology of the Consciousness of Internal Tie (1893-1917), ean, John Barnett Brough (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1991), 37. 22. Huser Ideas 1: 171. 23 Martin eldegge,TheMetapysial Foundations of Logic tans: Michael Heim (Bloom- lngton: Indiana University Press, 1984), 16S. Also see Being and Time, trans John Mac quarrie and Edward Robinson (Oxford: Blackwell, 1973), 417 124, See Heidegger, Being and Time, 120, 184-185. 1 Heidegge,“A Trade Conversation ona Country Pathbetweens Scientist a Scholae, anda Guide" ia Country Path Convereations tras. Beet W. Davis (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2010), 93. 126. Heidegger, Contributions to Philosophy (Ofthe Event tans. Richard Rojcewitenand Daniela Vallea-Neu (Bloomington: Indiana Univesity Press, 2012), 188, Cf the earlies ‘translation, Contributions to Philosophy (From Enowning) trans. Parvis Emadand Kenneth ‘Maly (Bloomington; Indiana Univesity Press, 1999), 169. Ofcourse, Henry could not have read the Being (1989) when writing Essence dela manifestation. 127, See Henry, The Esence of Manifestation, 367-368. For Heidegger's remarks on lif, see Being and Time, 10. 128, Henry, The Esence of Manifestation, 2. 29, See Henty, The Esence of Manifestation, 360 '30.See Henry, Mars: A Phlsaphy of Human Reality tans. Kathleen MeLaoghlis (Bloom {ington Indiana University Pres, 1983);and Du Communiame au captalisme: Théorie d'une catestrophe (Pais: Odile Jacob, 1990). ‘31. Henry, The Esenc of Manifestation 4 132, Henry, The Essence of Mangesttion 240, 33.See Ka Barth, Protestant Theology inthe Nineteenth Century (Valley Forge, Pa. Jud son Press, 1973), 307 ‘34 Henry, The Essence of Manifestation, 401, Smith translates the passage a follows: “Divine life... abides there, where alone it canbe, in the hidden and inaccessible Being (Seyn of Consciousnes, which no conception can each” (360). Te italics in The Essence of Manifestation are ofcourse Henrys. 36, Fihte,"“The Way to the Blessed Life” 315,316 36. Fite, “The Way tothe Blessed Life,” 307. '37.See Fichte, Die Staaslhre (Berlin: G, Reimer, 1820), 437. The only English transa- tion ofthe tertisa very partial one, ofselections fom the third chapter. See GH. Trnall, ‘The Educational Theory of G, Flhte: A Critical Account, Together with Translations (Lon- don: Univesity Press of Liverpool, 1926), 268-283. 138, Se Heidegger, “Memorial Address” in Discourse on Thinking, trans, John M. An- derson and E, Hans Freund San Feancisco: Harper and Row, 1966), 46. 39.6. W. F. Hegel “The Sprit of Christianity and Its Fate" in Early Theological Writ ings teans. TM. Knox (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1971), 268, 274 See Henry, The Essence of Manifestation 402,407, Notes to Pages 43-49 287 40. For Henry’scitation see The Esence of Manifestation, 408, For Smith's translation, see"The Way to the Blessed Life” 405, 41, See Henry, The Estone of Manesttion, 405} nd Willis Blake, “To Nobodadey,” in The Complete Poetry and Prose of William Blake, ed, David V. Eedman, commentary by Harold Bloom, re. ed (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1982) 471. Blake has ln mind not merely this God's ontic transcendence but also that he is “Father of Jealousy.” 42, See Fichte, Statslchre, S16. Cf. Fichte’s earlier view of community formed by in- nee conditions in his Foundation of Natural Right According to the Principles ofthe “Wisen- ‘shafslere,” ed Frederick Neubouser, tans. Michael Baur (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni ‘verity Press, 2000), § 7. Also see Fredrick C. Beisers contrast of Fite and Spinoza in their understandngs f the Kingdom in his The Romantic Imperative: The Concept of Early German Romanticism (Cambridge, Mass Harvard University Press, 2003), 17; and, more ‘generally, Eric Voegelin's account ofthe Kingdom according to Fichte’s Staaslehre in is, Race and Stat trans. Ruth Hela, ed and intro. Klaus Vondung, Collected Works of Eric ‘Voegeli, vol.2 (Biton Rouge: Louisiana State University Pres, 1997), 142-148. 43.See Benedict de Spinona, Ethics: Preceded by On the Inprovementofthe Understanding, and intro. James Gutman (New York: Hafner Publishing Co, 1948), Pat prop. 18. “44, Honey, Am the Truth: Toward a Philosophy of Christianity, tans. Susan Emanuel (Stanford Calif: Stanford University Press, 2003), 50. 45, Henry, "La Question de a Vie t de a Culture” in Phénoménologie de lave, 4 vols, 4 Sur ethiqu eta religion (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2004), 29, 46, For Henry on the reduc, see The Esence of Manfstation, 4S. Also see Sébastien Laoueeux, LImonanence dla mite: Recheces su la phénoménolgie de Michel Henry (Paris Cerf 2008), 73 47. Henry distinguishes self and aato-aflectivity in Te Bseneof Manifestation, 187— 189. Herejecs the notion ofauto-affectvity a se-bjectifyingas proposed by Kantin the Critique of Pare Reason BOT andas discussed by Heideggerin Kant andthe Problem of Meta hysicg, trans. Richard Taf (Bloomington: Indiana University Pest, 1990), 6 34, 48. Henrys notion of barbarism shouldbe distinguished from Nietsche's notion of “semi-barbarism”" See Nietsche, Beyond Good and Eui: Prelude fo a Philosophy ofthe Fu ture, tans. and intro, RJ. Hollingdale (Harmondeworth: Penguin, 1973), 6 224 49, Charles Simic, “Boredom,” in That Litle Somethin: Poe (New Yor 2008), 10. 0. Peter Cons Iris Murdoch: A Lfe (New York: Norton, 2001), 228, 51, René Descartes, “The Passions ofthe Soul” in The Philosophical Works of Descartes, vols trans Elizabeth S. Haldane and G. RT Ross (Cambridge: Cambridge University ress 1931), 1: 343-364. Henry als cites the passage in “Le corps vivant, Auto-donation, 114 See Henry, The Genalogy of Peychoanalyss 27-28. For Henry on the reduction, see ‘Te Esenc of Manifestation, 83. ‘2, It is worth notin that Hussel fle much the same. See Dorion Cairns, Conversa- tions with Husserl and Fink (Ibe Hague: Martinus Nol, 1976), 91 '3,See Meister Eckhart Parisian Questions and Prolgues rans. Armand A. Mauer (To- ronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1974), 85; and Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologia, Lg. 18.288 [Notes to Pages 49-61 ‘$4. Maurice O'C, Walshe, tans, and ed, The Complete Mystical Works of Meister ck shart re. and foreword Bernard McGinn (New York: Herder nd Herder, 2009), 110. See, for example, Hency, Du Communisme a capitlisme, 27. '85.See The Complete Mystical Work of Meister Ecthart, 62. '6.See Augustine, Sollogues and immortaty ofthe Sout, trans. and into. Gerard Wat- son (Warminister, England: Aris and Pili, 1990) 31 ‘7. See Henry, The Esenc of Manifestation, 310- Alo see Eckbart, Selected Writings ed. and trans, Oliver Davies (London: Penguin, 1994), 248. ‘8, The Complete Mystical Works of Meister Bchart, 109, Yet see the opening of sermon 78: "The souls one with God and not united” $9. The Complete Mystical Works of Meister Eckhart 421 60. Valestinus argued thatthe inner man” saved through yv@uis, See Irenaeus, Ad- versus aereses 24.4. G61. For Henry’ se of “historia” se his Mars 14 (2. See Henry, The Eosence of Manifestation, 406. (63,See Henry-Chares Puech, En que dela gros, 2 vols, 1 La Gnoseet le temps (Pais Gallimard, 1987) 211. (64. The Complete Mystical Works of Meister Eckhart 87, 36; and Henry, The Essence of Manifestation, 330,331. 165, See Henry Scing the Invisible: On Kandinksy, trans Scot Davidson (New Yorks Continusm, 2009), 20, 3.An Infinite Relation to God” 1..W.F. Hegel, Lectures on te Philasophyof Religion, 3 vos, ed. Peter C, Hodgson, ‘ans. R. Brown, P.C. Hodgson, and. M.Stewart (Los Angeles: University of California ress 1985),3: The Consummate Religion, 312. For the most part willeonfinemyselito the 1827 lectures, refering when need be tothe 183 lectures Both are student transcripts. ‘Oa the difereaces between the diffrent presentations ofthe lectures, ste Peter C. Hod ‘son, Hegel and Christian Theology: A Reading ofthe ‘Lectures onthe Philosphy of Religion” (Cnford: Oxford University ress, 2005), expecially forthe considerations ofthis chapter, chap. 8. ">, Hegel arms this postion consistently from 1800, Se, for example, “Neufissung, des Anfang” a supplement to “Die Positvit der christlichen Relighon,” Werke in Zan ig Bide, 1, ed. Eva Moldenauer and Kael Markus Michel Frankfurt Suhskamp, 1971), 225-226. 4. See Hegel, Enoylopediof Philosphy (1817), trans. andannotated Gustav Emil Mul lee (New York: Philosophical Library, 1958), $$ 192-196 “4 See Hegel, The Phenomenology of Mind, trans. and intro. J.B. Bailie, intro. George ‘Lichtheit (New Yok: Harper, 1967), B12. See St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa theolgiag IIL. qq. 73-83, 6. On this theme, see Hegel, “Ober eine Anklage Wegen Offeaticher Verunglimp® sang der Katholischen Religion,” in Berner Schriften 1818-1831, ed. Jobanaes Hofmeister (Hamburg: Felie Meier, 1956), 72-875. Notes to Pages 62-67 289 17 Of Augustine Hegel writs “So the West koew litle moe than the compen of Boethivs on Aristotelian lg, Prophycy’s age an unsatisfactory treatise De dle tay Augustine and Decatgori,whichtsabd pasphrase of Arstales Categories This qt external and highly formal material was ll that was known a that tie." Lectures on the History of Philosophy 1825-6, 3 vos, 3: Meleval and Modern Philosophy, rev ed ed Robert F.Browa ans .F Brown and J.M. Stewart wit the assistance ofS. Hats (xior: Clarendon Press, 2008), 42. Hegel devotes single page to Aquinas, Lectreson the Hitoryof Philosophy, 3, 46-47 {8 Hegel Sytem of EhicalLife (1802/3) and it Phibsophy of pnt (Part I of he System of Speculative Philosophy 1803/8) ed and tans HS. Harris and M, Knox (Al bang: State Univesity of New York Pres, 1979), 18 9, Hegel, "Berne Fragments in Tre say, 1783-1795, tans nto, and notes eter Fuss and oa Dobbins (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame rest 1984), 86, 10, Hegel, "The Lf ofJesus Tre Esa 168 11, Hege “The Spirit of Chistanlty and Ts Fate" Early Theological Wings ta ‘T.M Kos ato and fragments trans. Richard Krone (Philadelphia University of Pena sylvia Pes, 1971), 292. 12, Hegel Futh and Knowledge trans, Wale Cerf and HS. Hass (Albany: State Uni verity of New York Press, 1977), 19. 13,"TheLoriwas asked, yousee Show us the Father andthatsenough orus (Ja 48). “he person who sts wast able to recognize the Faterinthe Son What he could se, afl was what the Jews could crucify becouse the oe who wasthe iden stun- bilagblockfocthe jew” Augustine Sermon229G, Sermons ;6 (184-2292): On heLitur al Seasons tans. and notes Edmand Hil John ERotelle, The Work ofSuntAugus- tine: A Translation forthe 21st Century (New Rochelle, NY: New City Press, 1993), 289. 14 See Hegel, “he Spit of Cheistunty,"212, 238 15. The pois well made by Eberhard Jngelin his Gd asthe Mystery ofthe Word: On the Foundation ofthe Theology ofthe Crucfed One in the Dispute Between Thesm and Athe- 4m, ans. Darel L. Guder (Grand Rapids, Mich: William B. Eerdmans, 198394; and Death The Riddle and he Misery tan. Iain and Ute Nia (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 197), 108-108. 16 Hoge, The Phenomenology of Mind 17 Se Hans Us von Balthasar’ conmentson this problem especialy iscaton over deatifyngthe worl process andthe tmeles procession ofthe divine hypostse,inThe- rama: Telia Damatie Teary 4 TheActin rans. Grabam Harison (San Francisco Ignatos Press 1994 ILC 1a. For Balthasar on the relation ofthe cross andthe Tiny, see Mysteriam Paschal: The Mystery of Easter tans. and intr. Aidan Nichols (San Fran cisco: gnats Pres, 1990) 136-140, 18. See St. Hilary of Poti, The Tiny trans Stephen MeKensa (New York: Fathers ofthe Church, 1954), 236, 19. See Robert L Wilkes, The Spirit of Erk Christian Thought: Seeking the Fae of God (New Haves, Conn. Yale University Pres, 2003), 9, 20. See Hegel, “Berne Fragments 86,ANY WUT F Wt m Manifestations loving rule of the Father. tis in passing from the everyday attitudes to human existence, including religious existence, to the Kingdom of the Father that we draw close to God and to ouroriginal and primary engagement with life as cre- ated beings. Self interest tthe level ofthe individual, the family, and the State issetaside, and we ae enjoined to be compassionate toward one another, even ‘when this appears to go against the rules and regulations of religious practice, asin the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10: 25-37). ‘What we see here isa different mode of phenomenality than the one that “Husserl alerted us to. For Husserl, writing in 1925, the éxoy switches off the allure of natural objects and psyches, and “reduces all that to its phenomenal- ityand takes its own position not in the world, bt in the subjectivity For which the world is experienced ... pure subjectivity.”® Three years later, lecturing in Amsterdam, he adds, “Accordingly, phenomenality as a characteristic that specifically belongs to appearing and to the thing that appears, would, if un- derstood in this broadened sense ofthe term, be the fundamental character- istic ofthe mental." Ifwe pass from phenomenology as practiced within phi- losophty to phenomenology within theology things change, however. We see in the New Testament that Jesus is a phenomenon, to be sure, but he is also the phenomenality of God, the singular mode in which God gives himself to us. The Christian God is not abstract but is one with Jesus of Nazareth. So {Jesus is the one by whose light we see the Kingdom ofthe Father, and when ‘we look back in belief from the dogmatic definition of God as triune we can ‘grasp that he is the phenomenality ofthe triune God. Yet how do we see Jesus as the Christ? The same belief will require us to say: by the light ofthe Holy Spirit, whois another phenomenality ofthe same deity. A Christian might ven- ture to say that Husserl isnot the father of phenomenology; he supplied a vo: cabulary and an approach tot in the field of modern philosophy, but what he discovered had long been around, although in another mode, Husser purifies phenomenology; he does not inaugurate it. And in theology, at east, we need towean ourselves from the mentalist account ofit that he offers. After these initial responses to the five ideas thrown out by the conversa- tion between A and B, I propose to say little more about two of them, 4 and S: the view thatthe triune God dwells within us in a non-intentional manner, and the claim that Jesusis the phenomenality of God. “They will get it straight one day at Montpellier” “Michel Henryhas long argued for anon-intentional phenomenology of God, that i, that God is immanent in human being. Seen negatively, his position [Notes toward a Supreme Phenomenology m3 seeks to reverse the phenomenology of Hussed and Heidegger; and seen posi tively it draws from the Gospel of John, Mester Eckhart’ homilies and JH. Fichte’s Die Anweisungzum Sligen Leben (1806). Put very briefly, Henry rejects the Hussedian and Sartrean account ofthe transcendence of the ego and, with , the doctrine that phenomenalogyis governed by intentionality. On the tra- ditional understanding of phenomenology, human being, whether intentional consciousness or Daseia, is directed to the world. Intentional phenomenology regards each thing as becoming manifest by the shining of being o, for Hus- serl, consciousness. There isa split, then, between the phenomenon and phe- nomenality, or, as Henry likes to putt, between whats deemed tobe true and the truth ise" Itis Henry's view that this pli, this “ontological monism,”in ‘which all being must be subject tothe transcendence of the ego, and in which mundane visibility i privileged, hides a prior immanence of subjectivity.” It is amoverent of losing interiorty that has been coming upon the West since Galileo, with only minor tradition, including Fichte, Schopenhauer and Nietz- sche, to contest it. *What, then, i a truth that differs in no way from what is true?” he asks. And his answers “If truth is manifestation grasped in ts phe ‘nomenological purity —phenomenality and not the phenomenon —then what is phenomenalizedis phenomenality itself” (28). Alltranscendence ultimately, relies ona prior immanence in human subjectivity. It follows for Henry that God is not a being or being itself, and is certainly ‘not subjectto intentional analysis. Ch 1 beliefin God is nota question of sincerely affirming creedal statements in the existence or saving acts ofa tran scendent being (or being as transcendent) but of acknowledging the priority of Life and bringing one's life into strict conformity with it. One does this by rejecting the lure ofthe world, its commitment to exteriority, representation and production, and by living life asan individual, working with creative force, and in the light of subjectivity." God, therefore, is Life, pure self-revelation, and we are “livings."* We experience God in the auto-affecton of Life: its pa- thos and its self development. This may bring comfort to process theologians, although it does not mean that God isan epiphenomenon of human or animal life.“The relation between the Ipseity of absolute Life and the me ofeach liv- ing being implies no reciprocity,” we are assured: “God could just as well ive eternally in his Son and the later in his Father without any other living ever ‘coming to Life” (129). Ths isan echo of Aquinas’ account ofthe asymmetry ‘of Czeator and creation, in which our relations with God are real, relatio reals, bbut God's relations with us are unreal, relatio rations tantum: we depend on God for our existence but he does not depend on us for his." Nonetheless thisAGYUGE EY hies 14 Manifestations God does not create ex nihil, for Life is an endless process, Henry believes, and so orthodox Christians will be wary of Henry and regard him, with good reason, asa modern Gnostic.” ‘One will therefore not look to Henry for a Trinitarian understanding of God, even though he proposes to offer a discourse converging on “une philos- ‘ophie du christianisme,” as the subtitle of Cest moi la vérité (1996) proclaims. His philosophy of the faith, atleast inthe frst volume of his trilogy is bini- terian rather than Trinitarian, answering to Semi-Arianism and not to ortho- ddox Christianity." For Henry, the Father gives birth to the “Arch-Son” who Js “consubstantial’ with the Father’—the scare quotes around “consubstan- tial” should be noted—and we, in conforming ourselves to His self xevelation, become sons of God as well. We are truly born not when we enter the world as children but when we enter Life. As Henry stresses: “no man isthe son of ‘man, or ofany woman either, but only of God” (70). Relying heavily on the fourth gospel, especially the "Farewell Discourse” and setting the synoptic gospels and the Pauline epistles to one side, Henry dwells on verses such as “And he that seeth me seth him that sent me” (John 12: 45) and would seem to follow C,H, Dodd's reading of the fourth gospel as having a Hellenistic pneumatol- ‘ogy. Instead of seeing the Holy Sprit in all its vibrant activity as presented in Acts 2: 1-4, we are pointed to the “reciprocal phenomenological interiority ‘of Father and Son” and informed that it is ‘phenomenological in its very es- sence, being nothing other than the mocte in which phenomenality originally phenomenalizesitself—as the original phenomenality thatisLife” (91). When Henry admits "The Spirit blows where it will” (232) we are not tld if this is a divine person, and in the absence of any Trinitarian framework we have no reason to think that Henry thinks itis, Now one may well take Henry’s binitarianism as a caution for developing any phenomenology of the Christian God along enstatic lines. At the same time, one might ask f this account could be reformulated so that itis an ade uate “philosophy of Christianity,” one that acknowledges the triune God, oF indeed could be rethought more radically so that itis a part of Christian the- ology? Let us follow this thread fora moment. We might say with Henry that God isradically immanentin each ofus, pure phenomenality truth thats also what is true, God's power; it merely indicates that transcendence, the world, emerges out of immanence and relies upon it. Henry proposes thatthe Father generates the Arch-Son, the Christ, and while we may find his way of articulating this fe itself. Immanence, here, does not imply any restriction of Notes toward a Supreme Phenomenslogy Ws teaching somewhat odd, and perhaps indebted to Eckhart, there isno reason immediately to deem it unorthodox: the generation of the Son isa mystery." Could one also add, as Henry does not, thatthe Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (or peshaps, as the Greek and Russian Orthodox teach, simply from the Father)? Te difference between generation and procession is profoundly obscure at best, and perhaps this obscurity hasa positive function: to deter philosophers from attempting to offer too full an account of Trinity solely by the light ofnatural reason or transcendental consciousness. In terms of Henry's enstatic phenomenology, however there would be no philosophical reason to posit or even countenance the Holy Spirit: God the Father would be regarded as pure phenomenality, and we would participate in this radical Life by resisting the allure of “the world” Henry goes further than this, as already noted, and acknowledges the life of the Arch-Son. And yet, strictly speaking, Henry does not need to posit even the sacrifice of the Son for his phenome- nology to become a religious discourse If God is radically immanent in each ‘of us, pure phenomenality that phenomenalizes itself through the sensus amo- ris say, Henry does not actually require the mediation ofthe Son. Allheneeds is the dyad of Life and living, Not onlyis Henry's ‘philosophy of Christianity” ‘ot Trinitarian, but aso it does not need, onits own terms, to involve the his- torical Jesus at all. Christ who comes to us more surely from Neoplatonism than from the New Testament will suffice perfectly well. ‘The Phenomenalities of the Trinity ‘otto accept Henry's enstatic phenomenology of Christianityisnotthereby to reject his insights into immanence. Its only to indicate that his phenome- nology willbe of ao help in describing the triune nature of God or rendering it present to consciousness or Dasein. Finally, then, let us return tothe one re- maining possibility that A and B canvassed in their introductory dialogue, the ‘view that Ihave refined through preliminary discussion to be that Jesusis the phenomenality of God On this understanding, “God” when used generally is a purely abstract no- tion, although in Christianity itis concrete because the words and acts of Jesus cof Nazareth, and the Church’scontinuing reflection on him, disclose the triune God. From the viewpoint of phenomenology, it cannot be sad that Jesus actu- allyrenders God present asamatter ofhistorical fact, for phenomenology estab- lishes and proves nothing. Considered within philosophy, phenomenology can speak ofthis manifestation only as an eidetic possibility. Iit has been experi-306 [Notes to Pages 167-174 [Norwich anticipates the claim, See Te Waiting offen of Norwich ed Nicholas Watton and jacqueline Jenkins (University Park: Pennysiania State University Pes, 2005) 135. 19, See Aquinas Summa Conta Gentiles 3.40.6 20, Hasse, Logie Imestgtions tan, J.N. Fil 2 vols. (London: Routledge and Kegan Pal 1970) 2: 40. 11. See Karl Rahnes, “Experience of the Haly Spiel" Theological vestigations 1, rans. ‘win Quinn (New York Crossroad Publisher 1963). 7. J.M. Coben, tas. nd nea, The Life of Teresa of ila by Herel (London: Pen- sin, 1957), 187-188 23, Thomas Aquinas, Summ thesia 1a,q yar 4 responsi. 24. See Bernard of Chirvans, On the Song of Songs trans rene Edmond into. Jean Lecerq 4 vols, (Kalamazoo, Mich: Cistercian Publications, 1980), 4 Sermon 74.25 26. Huser, AV 21,128. 1 quote James G, Hart's translation ofthe passage in his“A Peéisof Hussein Phenomenological Theology” in Esysin Fenomenalogisl Tela, edz Steven W Laycock snd James G, Hart (Albany: Sate University of New York Pres, 1986), 148. More generally see Angel Ales Bello, The Divine in Huser and Other plas tins, Analecta Hasserana 98 (Dordrecht Sprnget 2003). 26. Carns, Comeration wt Huser and Fink 47. 27, Descartes, "Meditation I,"in The Philosophical Works of Descartes trans, Elizabeth HaldaneandG. RT. Ross,2 ols (Cambeidge: Cambridge Univesity res, 1931), 1:16, 28, SeeSt GregoryofNyssy, Nien and Post Nicene Fthes2ndseresed Philip Shaft (Ceabody Mass: Hendrickson, 1994), 1, 673,2, $54-SS7. 29, Hassel, Phenomenol Pachlogy Lectures Summer Sense, 1925, tens Joba Scanlon (The Fagoe: Martinus Nijho 1977), 179. 3. Husted “he Amsterdam Lectures, in Pycologial and Transcendental Phenome: ology and the Conrotation wih Hedeger (1927-1931) ed. and tans. Thomas Sheehan and Richard , Palmer, Colleted Woes 6 (Dordrecht: Kise, 1997), 218. 5. See Michel Hency, [Am the Truth Toward «Philosophy of Christan tan, Susan manuel Stanford, Calis Stanford Univesity ress, 2003), 24, Formore eailon Hey, see chap.2. 52. See Henry, The asencof Manfetation tans Girard Eakorn (Dordrecht Kawes, 1973),74 433 See Henry, The Genealogy of Pchoanalss trans, Douglas Brick (Stanford, Cal ‘Stanford University Press, 1993). $4. See Henry, Du Commanisme au captalome: Toric dune catastrophe (Pais: Bale tions Ole Jacob, 1990) 28. 3. Although nowhere mentions ber, Henry wouk! be close to Hildegardin her afi smation of Goalie Seer Syphona: A Critical Edition ofthe Symphonia ArmonieCels- ti Revelation, e, Barbara Newman (Wthaca,N-Y: Cornell Univers Pres, 1988) 13, 36.See Aquinas, Summa theolg 1,9.13 a. 7563 bq 28 ar 1,ad3;1, 4 4S aR. 3, De ott, 93,3 and Teh 1g 4a § responsi 237 See Henry, Am th Trt 82 ‘Notes to Pages 174-183 307 436, Farless worrying with regards to orthodany is Heney’s inal work, Words of Chis trans Christina M. Gochwandtne, into, Jean-Yves Lacoste (Grand Rapids, Mich W-B Eerdmans, 2012) 139. Henry, Am the Truth, 109. 440. See ©. 1. Doda The Interpretation of the Pourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1952), esp. 222 “1. See Heny, IA the Truth, ST 42. SeeScheles,Om the Eternal in Man, 255. “th see Gerard Maley Hopkins, "Pied Beauty” in Poems, 3rd ed, eds Robert Bridges (London: Oxford University Press, 1948), 74 9. Kingdoms of God 1 mmanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason trans. Norman Kemp Smith London: Mae smillan, 1933), A808/B 836 1 Kant Critique of Pare Reason, A 808/3836. +3 Gotiried Leiba, “Monadology”in Discoure on Metaphysics Correspondence ith “Arnauld, Monadolgy, trans. Montgomery, rev. Albert R, Chand intro, Paul Janet (Lt Sule Ils Open Court Publishing 1973) 66 86,87. Also see Lelbnirs Discourse on Met physies"$ 36 nt See Origen, Homilies on Jeremiah, Homily on 1 Kings 28, trans, John Clark Smithy “theater ofthe Church Washington D.C.: Catholic University ofAmetia Pres, 1998), omy 9.2. ‘See Avgustine De Cty of God 14,28, Henrie Lubacofersa concise account of arse image ofheaven ascii Catholicos Christ andthe Connon Destin of an are Lancelot C, Sheppard and Elizabeth Englund (Sn Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), 12-119, Kan, Groundwork ofthe Mtapiysicof Moral trans. and analyzed by HJ, Paton (New York: Harper and Rov, 1964), 88. . "See Kant -On the Proverb: That May Be True in Theory bot Is ofNo Practical Use in Perpetual Peace and Otker Esnyson Poti itary and Moray tans. Ted Humphrey (indianapolis: Hacket, 1983), 67 ib See Kant Critique of Practical Reason, tans, and into, Lewis White Beck (Indiar napoli; Bobbs-Merill 1956), 114,124 ‘Kant Religion within the Limits of Reason Aloe tans intro, and notes Theodore 1M. Greene sad Hoyt H. Hudson (New York: Harper and Row, 1960), 12S, When talking about the fnal end that is defined for us by the moral law, Kant observes “This end isthe vonumum brainy as the highest good inte word posible through freedom, The Critique op fudgmen tans James Cred Meredith (Onfod: Clarendon Pres, 1952), 18 10; Kant, Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone, 124-125, 126. LL Andrew Reath distinguishes the “theological” andthe “secular” in this way. See his “Two Conceptions of the Highest Good in Kan," in Immanuel Kant: Critical Asses nants ed Ruth E, Chadwick, 3: Kan’ Moral and Foie Philosophy (London: Routledge, 1992),228.