Adrial
What you write is, in a way, ‘logical’, and with your various ‘ifs’, makes a kind of connected “story”. But it is a "story", for it just doesn’t match what is going on in all major disciplines. I am kind of puzzled that you expect to be able to have a complete view of all that is going on in all of the major disciplines, all sorted out so easily, so ‘ideally’. A secondary issue, but I pause, too, that you so easily dismiss what a genius (‘sport’ in history actually) Lonergan bothered to write about at some length, at a high point of his career-length climb. Was Lonergan deluded? .... into thinking that functional specialties are worth thinking about? If you disagree with Lonergan, then surely you would need to meet him, in detail. (He won’t mind! I figure he's in ThreeWay fine way.) But, would you so quickly have a finished, and finishing-off of, e.g., Einstein’s work, without taking 15 years to learn the math and physics of relativity? Yet you disagree so easily with Lonergan, who was working from a base that included the math and physics of relativity, and much more -- sciences, arts, philosophy, theology. You (we) need to get at least some way into some of the disciplines to start getting initial clues about what is going on in disciplines – which is a basic premise of “generalized empirical method”.
Why not begin afresh? It might be difficult personally, but I hope you try, try the more relaxing modest empirical work of teasing out for yourself in a few basic examples, self-attentively, and perhaps share in this forum or with some teacher, some elementary reflections on your reading of “question”, …, in some actual question? That would be a beginning, and is our common challenge really. (See the last paragraph of my post.) And, perhaps surprisingly, the easiest examples to begin with, that can help begin to reveal the elements, are from basic mathematics. If you don’t have some basic math now, not a problem. You could either take the time to learn some, (I’d be glad to correspond), or enjoy not needing to have a summary solution at this time, and do the math later. After all, it is a beautiful autumn day - benevolent mystery!
We could go round this some more, could slide off into various side issues, etc. But, what Phil mentioned in his last posting will get us all there sooner. Try beginnings at dialectics, personal disclosure, as described in Method 250, bottom paragraph. Family therapists get family members to open, to talk about their ‘positions’. Method 250 points to a way for us to start helping each other open up, shape up, our mutual positioning, in progress oriented ways. It could be difficult, but with a sense of humor, and kindliness, …, a way to unlock… on a wing of humor and a prayer.
Best, Terry.