[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

A few final thoughts on names

Hi,

While I certainly respect Tina for her concern about the plight of minorities'
struggle for recognition and success; a concern which I aspire to share, when I
can shake off the cultural blinders of white priveledge and see clearly, I just
think it doesn't apply in this case.  Still, it seems to me that we have all
stated our positions clearly, and nobody seems inclined to change their minds,
so I'm content to let it go, lest we become mired in reciprical contradiction
(ObMontyPython: "That's just a meaningless exchange of contradictions!  That's
not an *argument*!"  "Yes it is."  "No, it isn't!"  :-)).

One thing I have to point out to Gil, though, is that this: 
> Words do have a unique mapping from object to subject but it's subjective.
is an oxymoron.  If there is a unique (i.e. only one) mapping, then by
definition it can't be subjective.  One could argue that for an object or an
event, there would be a unique *existence*, but a multitude of subjective
*perceptions*, but the mapping of a word onto its object is exists *only* in
perception, so if it's different from person to person at all, then it is not
unique.  I think we are also using different meanings for "object" and
"subject".  I meant that the word is the subject, the thing or idea that the
word is intended to evoke is the object, and the mapping is the connection
between the two: i.e., the "meaning", which is constructed by each listener
subjectively, according to the conventions they have learned in their life
experience so far.  Since that construction is dependent on the person doing
the mapping, it can't be unique, because each person will do it a little
differently.
 
Tina wrote:
> what makes something spiritual vs religious? does the desire and ability to
> argue impede true spiritual growth?

I see "religious" as a discipline; a set of actions intended (whether
successful or not is a different question) to nuture the development of the
"spiritual", which is ... hard to define.  :-) The dictionary says "spiritual"
is "Of, relating to, consisting of, or having the nature of the vital principle
or animating force within living beings".  Religious, it says, is having belief
in a god or diety.  I'm not sure I agree with the latter, but the former seems
workable.  I liked the metaphor of the engine and the vehicle, although I think
I would lean more toward an organic metaphor: spirituality as the garden, and
religion as the acts of planting, weeding, and tending.  Something like that.
Good religion provides an enviornment where crops can grow: bad religion kills.

I think arguing impedes spiritual growth if it leads to bitterness,
closed-mindedness, and barriers between people.  I think it helps spiritual
growth if it leads to humility, insight, connection, and a better understanding
of truth.  I was working at a kind of Youth retreat a few years back, and one
of the kids in my group was in his high school debate team, and he said one
thing he learned there was that if two people agree that "this is a green
chair", they pat themselves on the back and leave happy, but no wiser.  If one
says, "No, wait, this is a blue chair", then you have to start looking at
"what's blue?", "what's green?", or even "what's a chair?", and things you took
for granted suddenly have to be expressed and perhaps defended.  If everyone
agreed, no one would ever be challenged to grow.  I thought that was a very
interesting insight, and it really helped our small group be able to talk about
their theological differences without hurting each others' feelings.

Okay, that's my off-topic stuff for the week.  Going back into lurk-mode...
-- 
Don Smith                    Robotic Optical Transient Search Experiment
dasmith at rotse2_physics.lsa.umich.edu        http://xte.mit.edu/~dasmith/

"The art of filmmaking is the art of regret."                 -- Ang Lee
---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/MediaNation/OtR/