I would take that as a sign. When I was studying history in college, I heard-about Voegelin in a class on the history of historians. A few years later I found myself at a library shelf holding Gene Webb's Philosophers of Consciousness; one of whom was Voegelin and another Lonergan. This fortuitous encounter was significant because Gene was teaching at the UW and I benefited from his generosity. I found, like Dante with Statius, that Voegeln was salvific, but Lonergan was saved.

Thanks, maybe I'll post something about the nature of science, cheers.

you bet! If you like Husserl then you are in a good position to evaluate if Lonergan improves on the general landscape of phenomenology, and the particular features of realism, naive realism and critical realism. thanks for writing!

hmm, not-sure there's anything pithy that he wrote, unless it's an introduction to his major works like Insight and Method. For me, his 1972 Method in Theology was useful for describing "scientific" method (i.e., methods that result in knowledge, from the Latin root *scientia*). Using the categories of subjective operations and objective outcomes he explains, in three levels, the combinations of collecting data or evidence, interpreting ideas or meaning, and verifying (or falsifying!) fact or knowledge. At this time, in the field of physics education at least, the dominating ideology was that facts simply are objects. Lonergan demonstrates how you can't have science without the scientist.