the outline, below, basically sets forth some "hermeneutical spirals" (as i write this, it occurs to me that lonergan

should be added, too) of interest is the notion that epistemology models ontology, which leaves a question begging of how some get a god-ontology (e.g. panentheism) correct but epistemology (e.g. arational gnosticism) wrong? (not really a theo-ontology but a theology of nature that begins within the faith and not, rather, from metaphysics) part of the answer lies in the fact that just b/c someone tenders an erroneous account of how it is that they know what they know doesn't mean they're wrong re: what they know; rather, they are the beneficiaries of a good formation, which they simply don't fully understand or appreciate (and that formation is, imo, most often liturgical & devotional, instilling, via a participatory imagination, an unconscious competence that is too often not complemented by such an authentic & robust catechesis as would make them consciously competent & good apologists) i'm not developing this further, presently, but maybe it'll evoke a musing of your own below, i juxtapose kant's interrogatories (as they say), the 4 senses of scripture (classical), the categories of my axiological epistemology and the theological virtues (+awareness, but maybe some gift of the spirit would be a better analogue?) what can i know or literal or descriptive or awareness what can i hope for or anagogical or evaluative or hope what must i do or moral or normative or love what does this mean or allegorical or interpretive or faith