Union Theological Seminary Goes Binary
I could have warned Union Theological Seminary. I went there long ago when the NAMES they evoke were about. It was no great shakes. The best lecture I heard in three years was by H. Richard Niebuhr who taught at Yale. He said that liberalism was dead and had no idea what would take its place. That was better than anything in my book. The year was 1961.
Lately, I have written to each succeeding President of Union Seminary offering them my services free and those of my spouse who can teach people how to communicate with both hands tied behind her back. All we wanted in exchange was a roof over our heads.
Never got a reply. Once I spoke there with some frequency.
You are either in or out. I have been out since I tried to get the churches to lead a movement for reparations, in an effort to achieve structural ecumenicity. When Union did a big to-do on reparations a few years back, they conveniently ignored this embarrassment from 1968.
Embittered alumnus? I am not the bitter sort. Being marginalized does wonders for the mind.
Triadic Philosophy is the very crown of my intellectual existence. Union Theological Seminary appears firmly locked in the jaws of the binary.
Survival of the seminary now rests on giving its spacious central quadrangle to realtors who will construct a 40-story (more or less) luxury building where green grass remains as we speak.
A binary view frames things as either-or’s. It is very comfortable using Reinhold Niebuhr as an authority for choosing the lesser of two evils. By this logic, go for the condos and keep UTS chugging along. Or don’t. And face doom, gloom and certain decay.
Triadic Philosophy rejects binary logic, along with Aristotle’s virtues and 2000 years of minimizing values we might infer from the teachings of Jesus.
Would the ontological action value Tolerance be served by a decision to condo-ize? I am not sure. One universal action value down.
Helpfulness? Go with the NYC-Manhattan zeitgeist? Garner 100 million or so? Rub shoulders with condo-dwellers? This universal value senses no.
The third active value inferred from the teachings of Jesus is Democracy. Without pausing to give an extended argument, Democracy is not exactly dancing at the condo prospect. Reasons are manifold. Shall we suggest that universal basic income is democratic as opposed to a system that is based on constant gentrification?
The root value is Non-idolatry.
It asks for critical thinking and a withdrawal of idols from consideration.
It serves Abba alone.
Well, the suggestion I garner is that Union should not idolize her past. And if you do not think this is a problem, well dream on.
Nothing can be done to stop the condo zeitgeist.
Union could be a sort of think tank for Triadic Philosophy. But there is the matter of the fissure that occurred too long ago for most to remember.
Besides.
We do not even have a model yet for a future sort of city.
Union could take the money. Shake dust from her feet. Move somewhere. And build a model of tolerance, helpfulness and democracy.
That won’t happen in the shadow of that condo.
Union could let the developers conquer. A bit like the prophet Miciah.
Union could take all it owns, probably double, since it would be selling off its campus along with the grass.
Move somewhere safe from Sandys.
Build a cybercommunity.
What is that? A car-free city based on assent to values. A city as a school. Secure and safe.
I did a little book about that:
Yes, a contribution to Union. And if you are a Kindle Unlimited or Amazon Prime customer, you can even read it for free.
