Page History

SCANNED PDF

The issue that concerns me here is how to understand my theory of religion in the light of my more recent reflections on the concept of explicit primal source of authority and thus of all that is existentially authorized. 

...

But now what is here called "an occasion of insight" is evidently one and the same with what I should now speak of as "the explicit primal ontic source of all existential authority," even as what I have previously called "a particular form of faith" is evidently a way of talking about the noetic counterpart thereof. Both of these are expressly distinguished from the religion that is their authorized expression as well as from the basic faith of which they are an understanding, and with which they claim an identity – oridentity—or, rather, which the religion claims for them, insofar as it lies in its very nature to claim that its sources, ontic and noetic, are the explicit primal source of all that is originally authorized existentially, if only implicitly. The point is that the explicit primal ontic source authorizes, first of all, the particular form of faith for which it is the occasion of insight. The primal authorizing source authorizes a certain faith or self-understanding and only indirectly, through such authorization, does it also authorize the system of concepts and symbols essential to the religion. These concepts and symbols, on the contrary, directly express the particular form of faith for which this source is the primal.