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

fragmented perspective (was Re: proofs and people)

hallo,

> > 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?

sorry about that--"they" should be "it"--our friendly
antecedant there should be the public.

> 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 ...

did you hear something?  i gotta go...

> > > 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.

well i was thinking about it spacially.  if god is
separate from everything else, his vantage point is
still different and therefore maintains some kind of
perspective.  if he "is" everything--i don't think he
would have perspective in the holistic sense.

i agree with the trinitarian/love/relational idea.

> So maybe God has *more* than one perspective.

this is something that leads back to truth in tension.
 more than one but unified.  different but not in
conflict...from his 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

this makes me think about everything i come into
contact with via the hispanic venerated (or in some
cases deified) entities.  i'm saying that as carefully
as i can :)  the virgin, the other saints.  even the
parts of the trinity seem to be quite different in
character.  so maybe he does have different
perspectives.

i'm reading "milagros de nuestra senora" (miracles of
our lady) from 1246.  god will pronounce death on
someone for their sins but b/c the person appeals to
mary (or acknowledged her in their lives somehow),
they are saved.  and the ways she's address and
referred to in this text are ways members of the
trinity are refered to.  i'm not trying to claim i
know what all catholics believe <ducking>--but it's
interesting to consider even just with regard to at
least the trinity and perspective.

> 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?

maybe...or maybe it's just our understanding of him
that changes--becomming increasingly more "complete."

essentialism, the way i understand it (with a little
dictionary help), is that ultimate reality is ascribed
to essence embodied in a thing perceptible to the
senses.  

j. marie would still be many of the things she is even
if she hadn't experienced all she has.  perhaps she
wouldn't express _all_ things in the way she has
(given her surroundings)--but she is a lot of what she
is without that environment.  it may shape some of
what's there--but it doesn't create it.  god created
first.  i don't think i was born as a blank soul and
personality until my environment waltzed in and made
each and every part of me.

now, i definitely admit that drawing the line
adequately b/w the essential and constructed is where
it gets particularly complicated.

>> but i do enjoy the fragmentation,

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

in essense or only when social? :)

to explain that comment :)--even though i'm not a true
postmodernist, there are certain aspects i appreciate.
 i respond to the humility in a perspective that wants
to consider all the views it can.  the emphasis on
relationship with regard to texts is important to me
too--thinking of the word as "more" than i normally
do...and then this leads me to my belief that people
are creative conduits for the divine (in art etc).  we
participate in creation.

but my main intention with the fragmentation comment
was to acknowledge postmodern asthetics.  accepting
some chaotic messes has made bea-U-tiful things i
think.  "tajos" by cortousie (sp?)..."life after god"
by coupland.  new combinations of influences all over
the place.  i think that's what i enjoy so much about
over the rhine.  maybe not truly fragmented but
drawing from many fragments.

i love brussels sprouts,
jm

__________________________________________________
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: