[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: proofs and people
i _really_ enjoyed lotr. and it's confirmed yet again
why i've always liked the idea of being an elf or a
fairy. i do agree with the comment that they were
portrayed with less joy than one might have expected.
so back to the wonderful conversation...
> Not so. The phenomenon is what it is, no matter who
> observes it or how.
>
> As I said before, I'm not an objectivist, but an
> inter-subjectivist
i am an inter-subjectivist too; but when it comes to
negotiating meaning i'm a little wary :) the "public"
truths have sometimes been pretty awful truths.
frequently they follow a leader, but they make a
choice. i'm not hungry or threatened so perhaps my
choices are more tempered as a member of that
conversation of inter-subjectivity, but i don't easily
trust "us"--even though i have to do it.
i don't know that we have any other option, but maybe
it lies in the attitude. i guess it's an attitude of
openess to correction and additions to the
conversation--to participating with loads of
interlocutors everyday. bounce. sharpen. ah family.
> we could publicly agree upon a definition of
> "bloodthirsty", or "stupid",
> or "neurotic", or "masochistic", and then, once
> we've arrived at those
> definitions, we can see how the observed theology
> fits those terms.
i agree. everything we do, every interaction etc.
filters through us and our limitations. we have to do
this in order to orient any discussion or
communication.
> If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's
> a duck, no?
at least "for now."
> Yes, and we have covered God's perspective too,
> which, after all, *is* a
> perspective. Or is it? Is it possible God has no
> perspective at all,
> precisely because he sees everything?
seeing everything and "being" everything are two
different things...
> have a perspective,
> then we might ask whether it, too, is not subject to
> limits, etc.
like that he _is_ love?
> The question of God's subjectivity is one I ponder
> fairly often, and, at
> the risk of being on-topic, :) I find I often ponder
> it now with Karin
> Bergquist's voice softly intoning "Will it make a
> difference when I go?"
> passing through my mind. I'm not quite sure *how*
> that relates to the
> present discussion, if at all, but it came to mind
> just now.
no, i think it definitely relates. i ended up
pondering justice and being driven to poetry that
wouldn't let me sleep after reading "el senor
presidente" by asturias. it's about the tyrany in
dictatorial argentina. and after i pondered and wrote
for hours, i found myself surrounded by the lyrics of
that song. i'm not _really_ sure why, but i think it
has to do with what you're talking about. god caring
about what we think in the tension of his own
character in our own reality.
what is love if love's not my own...
> Do
> they sway him at all?
> Does he ever take them into account? Is God busy
> pronouncing objective
> decrees and examining us to see how we measure up,
> or is he engaged in
> inter-subjective relationships with some or all of
> the rest of us?
i think back to david and even moses. miriam deserved
that leprosy for being so racist etc. but god knew
his servant and loved him. miriam was healed b/c of
the prayer of her brother and god's love for him.
do you think god was saying, "i'm going to pronounce
severe judgment all these different to get these
people to beg me to change"? i don't think he was.
and would jesus have prayed and anguished in
gethsemane if he didn't think god might tell him
something different. i think we was expressing his
feelings, but i think he was genuinely asking, "is
there _any_ way you can take this cup from me?" god
stayed with the plan, but jesus asked.
look at the overall plan from judgment in the garden
to jesus dying for man. even if this isn't some
movement the way we understand it chronologically
(since he's not bound by time and space) it's
something to consider. this notion of "the way things
are" and "what's to be done."
this is _really_ hard for me to understand. but it
goes along with my questions about god learning
something. about his experience in relationship. now
i'm not so sure i think of jesus becomming human to
understand what it's like to be human. i don't know
that i could buy that one.
> If God *is* in some sort of relationship with us,
> then obviously, his is
> not the only perspective that matters, even if we
> consider it the most
> trustworthy (by virtue of the fact that he sees so
> much more than us).
and i go back to what kelvin was saying about creator
and creature. my pastor writes some terrific poetry,
and in one of his poems he says something to the
effect of, "i'm learning to enjoy being your
creature."
that's a hard thing to do.
> But if we're just playthings that God can condemn
> and redeem however he
> likes, then I guess our perspectives don't matter at
> all -- which might
> make us wonder why he bothered to give us
> perspectives to begin with.
and this is what drives me to keep asking about him
altering, considering me. love and worship doesn't
insist upon mindlessness or militaristic precision in
our interaction with him. i think that's the
difference b/w the new and old covenant. i think
that's the great mystery of this faith--his sacrifice
at the heart of it. that while we were yet sinners.
knowing exactly what was being traded for what.
"so what is our value?" is always a loaded question.
especially in light of, "so what is our essence?"
peter, i know you're a postmodernist; but i hope you
don't say that it's all just socially constructed with
regard to essence :). i believe that how we
understand it doesn't escape social construction to at
least an extent, but yeah, i'm an essentialist. _not_
a modernist, but an essentialist.
but i do enjoy the fragmentation,
j. marie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com
---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/OtR/
Follow-Ups:
References: