I thought of reading Fred Lawrence for the Ratio, thinking of his brilliant phrases: the self that is only eschatologically itself; the divine reversal of the habitual recoil of the self into massive possessiveness; the subject that is not completely master of itself (the authenticity of the subject or lack of it cannot ever be brought completely into the foreground - our course is in the night, our control only rough and approximate)... (see my new file, LAWRENCE anthropology notes, for now in the Revision of the Ratio folder...)
Lawrence / Lonergan's anthropology is complex. is that complexity missing in the Ratio? Given that Lawrence's complexity only reflects the complexity of life and a world in which grace is offered, accepted or rejected, in a multitude of subjects, societies, cultures over time and space, perhaps not. But how to introduce it?
One obvious element: Lawrence insists on the three conversions, and not only on moral and religious conversion.
