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

Re: proofs and people

On Sun, 30 Dec 2001, J. Marie Hall wrote:
> 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.

I can sort of see that, but I *did* like the way the film reminded us that
Elrond is, or at least was, a warrior.  And, having seen the film three
times now, I appreciate the way they were trying to make a distinction
between Elrond's kind of elf, and Galadriel's kind of elf.  Rivendell is
more beautiful, more prone to bright lights and haloes, even if Elrond
himself is weary, while Lothlorien is a bit more ominious, etc.

> > 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 :)

Well, no one said it would be easy.  :)

> the "public" truths have sometimes been pretty awful truths. frequently
> they follow a leader, but they make a choice.

Eh?  The *truths* 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 easily trust myself, either.  :)

> 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.

:)

> > If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck, no?
>
> at least "for now."

Well, I guess it's possible that the ducks we see are "virtual ducks" and
have no true existence whatsoever, because we're all plugged into some
Matrix-like environment ... or maybe *I'm* the only one plugged into the
environment and the rest of you are also artificial entities ...

> > Is it possible God has no perspective at all, precisely because he
> > sees everything?
>
> seeing everything and "being" everything are two different things...

Um, yes.  Not sure how that follows from what I said, though.

> > . . . we might ask whether it, too, is not subject to limits, etc.
>
> like that he _is_ love?

Aha!  And *here* we get into one of the reasons why I happily accept the
doctrine of the Trinity even though I think it is conceivable that one
could be a Christian without it.  If "love" is relationship, and if God is
"love", then God must somehow *be* relationship, in his very being, no?  
That implies that God would be not just personal, but super-personal, or
trans-personal, or whatever the proper adjective would be here.

So maybe God has *more* than one perspective.

The big question, then, is whether these perspectives would all be in
perfect agreement, in which case they'd amount to one perspective anyway
(kind of like the Borg, before Hugh and the Queen were introduced), or
whether there is any variation in perspectives among them, albeit
variations that exist in some sort of harmony together.

> 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.

Well, the question of whether God is bound by time and space -- especially
time -- is an interesting one.  If God is *in* time, then he changes.  If
God is *outside* time, then he is static.  Which of these is the more
logical, even desirable, for an eternal God?  Is he both, somehow?

> 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.

Oh I could.  I've always liked that line in _The Screwtape Letters_ where
Screwtape, writing to Wormwood, admits they are only guessing at times how
human's minds work because they've never been human themselves, and then
Screwtape says, "Oh, that abominable advantage of the Enemy's!"

> > 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.

Uh-oh, I feel another on-topic quote coming...  "There's nothing harder
than learning how to receive..."

> "so what is our value?" is always a loaded question.

Well, my immediate response would be to say that nothing has value in and
of itself.  Things only have value insofar as other people assign them
value.  Thus, my value exists only insofar as it is assigned by other
people (or, for that matter, by myself).  I'd like to think that God is
one of those people, and that he likes me, but Lord knows there's very
little reason why he *should* value me all that highly.  :)

> 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 :).

Okay, I don't, then.  :)

> 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.

Hmmm, care to describe "essentialism"?

> but i do enjoy the fragmentation,

You're a mysterious writer, sometimes, you know that?  :)

--- Peter T. Chattaway --------------------------- peter at chattaway_com ---
 "I detected one misprint, but to torture you I will not tell you where."
      Winston Churchill to T.E. Lawrence, re Seven Pillars of Wisdom

---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/OtR/
Follow-Ups: References: