Meta-narrative

@fmf said
"Meaningless"?

If a "meta-narrative" provides someone with a finished "jigsaw puzzle" or a "complete picture" or a "real picture" or a subjective opinion about the "absoluteness to it all" ~ your expressions, one and all ~ how can it be "meaningless"?

Are you not kind of contradicting yourself?

Or does the "meta-narrative" have to be the same as the one YOU believe in if it is to avoid being "meaningless"?

@kellyjay said
Yeah, my version if it doesn't line up with scripture is meaningless as is yours.

@kellyjay said
A relative view of the universe doesn't have a meta-narrative; it has opinions.

@kellyjay said
God in the meta-narrative is unlike that; He pursues us, He calls us, He reaches
down to us, and unlike our thoughts about ducks, He comes into us. Anyone
who has religion and doesn't have Christ in them has a godless religion; I would
have to say Christianity is no different; it is possible to call one's self a Christian
and not have Christ.

@kellyjay said
The meta-narrative has God creating the universe and everything in it; there was
a fall when we wanted our way. There is a beginning now and a predicted
end of this universe. There is meaning throughout the whole, while you can, if
possible, speak to these if you can, how it began and why, what is the natural
state of it all now, and what will happen next.

@fmf said
All this stuff you are asserting ~ about how your particular God figure "pursues us, calls us, reaches down to us, and comes into us" etc. ~ is just a set of subjective opinions rooted in your speculations and aspirations, and this is not altered by you slapping the label "meta-narrative" on it.

@kellyjay said
Unlike our talking about Him, which only carries on with our opinions being the
author of the universe from the smallest molecule to the grandest galactic object
He can be known.

@kellyjay said
Opinions are all you will ever have about anything; they will be all you ever
hear too, but to experience Him is something that an opinion cannot give you;
only He can.

@fmf said
This is an article of faith for you and therefore just a subjective opinion.

@kellyjay said
Unless true.

@fmf said
You can only speculate about whether it's "true", KellyJay.

@kellyjay said
Correct, only the truth matters not our opinions about it.

@fmf said
And all you and I have are our opinions about it.

I’ve been asking myself what my “meta-narrative” might be – in a metaphysical or epistemological sense. This is the best I could come up with:

“I do not expect that the grammar of human consciousness exhausts, or will exhaust, the syntax of the universe which we inhabit.”

If there is some being whose consciousness is so exhaustive, I doubt that whatever such being might try to communicate to us would end up being more than gobbledygook* when translated into our limited “grammar.” But some might be so bewitched by the translations, that they assign that gobbledygook, not only meaning, but – infallible truth.**

__________________________

* Or so dumbed down as to be fundamentally inaccurate – which would inflict its own type of illusion on “believers”.

** Such gobbledygook can take the form of perfectly grammatical sentences with ordinarily well-defined terms, viz:

The red cow is justice.
All planets rattle spiritually.
Fleeing orchids scream for mercy.
Glockenspiel transcends logic.
“Etcetera” is the one true God.

@vistesd2 said
I’ve been asking myself what my “meta-narrative” might be – in a metaphysical or epistemological sense. This is the best I could come up with:

“I do not expect that the grammar of human consciousness exhausts, or will exhaust, the syntax of the universe which we inhabit.”

If there is some being whose consciousness is so exhaustive, I doubt that whatever such being migh ...[text shortened]... orchids scream for mercy.
Glockenspiel transcends logic.
“Etcetera” is the one true God.