From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat Apr 05 2003 - 06:08:49 BST
Sam, Rick and all:
> DMB quoted the Oxford Companion to Philosophy
"Theologians sometimes claim that philosophical appraisal has no legitimacy
in relation to what they see as a 'revealed' system of belief.
Sam said:
Your Oxford companion is (conventionally) misconstruing what theologians
claim.
DMB says:
Misconstruing? It seems that you said something very much like this claim
yourself....
Sam said to Rick:
It is true (axiomatic) that a Christian will Jesus as representing the
highest value. This is not something which can be *proven* by reason - but
that, as far as I'm aware, isn't claimed by Christians. What is claimed by
Christians is that it is compatible with reason, that there are no ultimate
contradictions in the Christian faith. The perception that Jesus incarnates
God is revelation, ie it is not something that can be achieved by the
unaided human reason. Philosophically, it has no different status to a
fifteenth century dispute between Ptolemists and Copernicans - you either
'see' it or you don't.
DMB continues:
Not something that can be proven by reason? Can't be "achieved" by the
unaided human reason? you either see it or you don't? C'mon, Sam. This is
not very different from the Oxford Companion's "philosophical appraisal has
no legitimacy in relation to". I think you're trying way too hard. It seems
you're engaged in a disagreement with an encyclopedia and with yourself. :-)
Backing way up, this discussion about the difference between theology and
philosophy has spawned more than a few unintended insults. And usually this
kind of misunderstanding is in close proximity to one of my assertions that
such-and-such is not intellectual, but social instead. But here I think its
easy to point to something specific that you yourself just said. This idea
that some things can't be apprehended properly by reason, that reason is
inappropriate for some things. I don't disagree with that. That's what the
recent Campbell quote was about. The power of an "affect image", of a living
mythological symbol is that it talks directly to the feeling system and
immediately elicits a response, like a musical resonance. And the Watt's
quote too. Its the poets and myth-makers who report of the living world.
They alone have something really important to say. This is NOT intellectual,
yet there is not what it seems you've been fighting. All this talk about
"objectivity" and "assumptions" the myths of science and the science within
relgion and so much more... It all seems aimed at denying the idea that
social level things are any less true than the cold steel stare of reason.
Myths are not facts. Doesn't that mean so much more now? I mean, don't the
quotes help? Symbols function and operate upon us properly when the
intellect is NOT engaged, it hits us at a different level, the social level.
This is not a put-down. Its a designation. Claiming that such things are
intellectual does not flatter or elevate, it only causes confusion and
misunderstanding about the things. This is about different states of
consciousness, among other things. Its about the different levels within
each of us. I think they each have their own way, their own kind of truth. I
think they are at odds, but that this is a temporary situation, historically
speaking. Many thinkers besides Pirsig are working on the problem. Making
the distinction between the social and intellectual levels is supposed to
add clarity. He too, is trying to rescue myth from the realm of the "mere".
Thanks fore your time,
DMB
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Apr 05 2003 - 06:10:49 BST