06 Jan 09
Originally posted by epiphinehasOh!
[b]And, of course you have a map(s)! The NT is one of your maps; the text is not the territory!
But the map is the territory, if the territory is not traversable. In the case of life after death, the only way we could talk about the territory is by having faith that the map is an accurate representation; i.e., to trust the mapmaker. A spi ...[text shortened]... g orthodox Christianity (which the Vedantist foolishly glosses over to his or her detriment).[/b]
The map is not the territory; the map is the map, and the finger that points to the moon it points to the moon and not to the finger
"Context" is every time the product of your own mind; the "holy scripture" is not holy at all -nothing holy😵
The "orthodoxy of scripture" cannot be established because the "context" has to do every time with your own mind; BTW this is the reason why the evaluation of the mind stands beyond the so called "holy scriptures"
😵
06 Jan 09
2 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehasEpi: But the map is the territory, if the territory is not traversable. In the case of life after death, the only way we could talk about the territory is by having faith that the map is an accurate representation; i.e., to trust the mapmaker.
[b]And, of course you have a map(s)! The NT is one of your maps; the text is not the territory!
But the map is the territory, if the territory is not traversable. In the case of life after death, the only way we could talk about the territory is by having faith that the map is an accurate representation; i.e., to trust the mapmaker. A spi g orthodox Christianity (which the Vedantist foolishly glosses over to his or her detriment).[/b]
No, the map does not become the territory: that makes no sense. No map can be taken as guarantor of the existence of the territory that it purports to describe. In such a case, your decision is a radical one.
You are choosing a particular map (the Biblical scriptures) as the standard of truth for judging both the territory (including the given existential territory in which we are now holding this discussion, the territory of spiritual experience, and the putative reality of an after-death territory) and any other maps. In such a case, no observation of the territory can confirm or disconfirm the validity of the map; nor can the claims of any other map. Your claim of the scriptural map as a standard of truth is axiomatic.
If you have some other—non-circular!—standard by which to judge your map, then I will stand corrected.
—In theological terms, this may amount to the perennial debate between those who give preference to so-called scriptural revelation, and those who give preference to so-called natural revelation.
Epi: Context
One of my hermeneutical principles is that, certainly, context matters. But one person’s text is another person’s con-text (pun intended with that hyphen). [We both saw how much that is so in our “great debate”.] The activity and interpretive choices of the reader simply cannot be removed from the equation. The notion of a self-interpreting text is an absurdity.
—For example, you likely use the NT as context for deciphering the HS texts; I do not.
Your trusting in your own reading of the map (or your own reading of others’ reading of the map) is not qualitatively different from my trusting of my own (pre-conceptualizing) observations of the existential territory. The maps that I construct from such observation are always testable in terms of continued observation (meditation is really just a kind of observation). My observations may lead to inferences about non-observed territory (e.g., applications of non-separability and coherence), but I can never treat them as anything but inferential.
—Though how one would argue against a coherent, as opposed to incoherent, all-of-it (however one views that all-of-it) is beyond me.
It is only the commitment to testability against observations of the observable territory, and to recognizing the inferential nature of my conclusions, that keeps me from simply “believing in my own belief.” It is also what keeps me from conceptualizing only about other concepts, mapping only other maps. My axiomatic standard is that observation—and the commitment that all maps must be judged vis-à-vis the territory, and not the other way ‘round. [And that decision may well be as radical as your own.]
—And I recognize that I do not have access to any kind of “view from nowhere”, and so do not simply dismiss other folks’ views from where they are. That, too, keeps me from being a strict formalist.
Epi: …the richness and precision of Greek and Hebrew, full of intricate subtlety of meaning, allowing us an opportunity to understand authorial intent.
B.S. 😉 Greek may be a precision language; biblical Hebrew is not—and no translation into another language can magically make it so. The richness of Hebrew (and its linguistic structure) leads inexorably to multiple possible readings with multiple possible meanings. The language itself militates against what rabbi and scholar Marc-Alain Ouaknin calls “the idolatry of the one right meaning”. Rabbinical exegesis embraces this fact.
That is not to deny the validity of historical criticism, form criticism, textual criticism, literary criticism, etc. I pay attention to all of them (though more to literary criticism than the others). None of them lead to the surety of a “one right meaning”. [Hisorical critics seem more sanguine, generally, about determining "authorial intent" than do literary critcs; however, that may not be a hard and fast rule.]
—For example, I might claim that the “authorial intent” behind the statement eheyeh asher eheyeh—I will be whatever I will be, or I am that I am, or I am as I will be, or…; none of these interpretations can be taken as definitive—to be to deconstruct the whole idea of naming/defining/circumscribing (idolizing) the mystery of the godhead. All names/definitions are provisional. This, I think, is Rav Kook’s point. But, I have no other grounds for making such a claim than the text itself as I read it; no one else does either. So I do not make it as a claim; I make it as a valid suggestion.
—Another example: The shema can be taken either as a statement of dualistic monotheism or of nondualism. Both understandings are found in Judaism; neither is more “orthodox” than the other; neither represents a knock-down majority view.
Epi: …which the Vedantist foolishly glosses over to his or her detriment
What the Vedantist does not do (and I don’t think she is foolish about this at all) is to take your text/map as her standard of truth. Therefore, the only way she can read it is through whatever her standards are. You judge her understanding through your own standard of truth, just as she judges yours through hers. Why one would be per se more “irresponsible” than the other remains a mystery to me.
—Note: I have been assuming that no Vedantist worth her salt would simply take, say, the Upanishads, as her fundamental standard. If she did, then I would level the same map-versus-territory critique against her.
___________________________________________
With all that said, I do take your warning about “interpreting from the outside” seriously enough that I no longer argue about the possible meanings of the NT texts themselves.
09 Jan 09
3 edits
Originally posted by vistesdNo map can be taken as guarantor of the existence of the territory that it purports to describe. In such a case, your decision is a radical one. You are choosing a particular map (the Biblical scriptures) as the standard of truth...
Epi: But the map is the territory, if the territory is not traversable. In the case of life after death, the only way we could talk about the territory is by having faith that the map is an accurate representation; i.e., to trust the mapmaker.
No, the map does not become the territory: that makes no sense. No map can be taken as guaran eriously enough that I no longer argue about the possible meanings of the NT texts themselves.
I think perhaps we are talking about two slightly different things. I believe in NT scripture because of its historical validity; i.e., the verifiable genuineness of its testimony. Taking the Bible as my standard of truth was never an arbitrary or radical decision. The real hurdle to belief, for me, was the miracle power of God scripture attested to; i.e., His sovereignty. My personal view of God had always been nebulous and relatively nonthreatening. The notion that God may act and have a plan and purpose was a new one on me (I'm talking about when I used to be a non-religious person). Having found no reason to distrust the testimony of the apostles, a curious thing happened: I found myself beginning to chafe at the possibility that God was more than just the predictable and nebulous blob of my fancy. The scriptures presented a God that I could not control. This hurdle defined my Christianity. Consequently, I also think it defines the non-Christianity of countless others.
That aside, I chose the map of scripture based on its historical validity and the verifiable genuineness of its testimony. But in addressing the Vedantist's use of scripture to verify her own ideas about reality, I don't think my reason for choosing Biblical scripture as my standard of truth is relevant. Whether or not I believe in the scriptural account need not have any effect on my ability to decipher its contents, provided I approach it objectively. For instance, the mansions in question anyone can verify were meant to be taken as something existing in heaven, which the apostles would inherit after death, not before. Interpreting them to be otherwise is to be decidedly non-objective. If Christ's testimony is to be believed, the mansions of which he speaks can be counted on as being a reality; i.e., we can trust the map. Since we cannot verify the existence of these mansions without first kicking the bucket, then we must take the map (Christ's insistence that the mansions exist) as the territory. I'm not talking about confusing my idea of a mansion with the thing itself, I'm talking about trusting that there is a thing in existence, a referent, which Christ refers to by the word 'mansion.' In this sense, the map can indeed be considered the territory.
09 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasBy “radical” I did not mean arbitrary. I meant it in terms of the root (radix) starting-place. I did, not however make clear my intended distinction between a text/map being the “guarantor” of the existence of the territory it purports to describe, and one’s ability to “infer”—from observations either of the text/map or observations of the observable territory—to inferential conclusions. My observations are no more guarantor than your (reading of) the texts. [I did not adequately link those two points, which are in different places in my post.]
[b]No map can be taken as guarantor of the existence of the territory that it purports to describe. In such a case, your decision is a radical one. You are choosing a particular map (the Biblical scriptures) as the standard of truth...
I think perhaps we are talking about two slightly different things. I believe in NT scripture because of its hi by the word 'mansion.' In this sense, the map can indeed be considered the territory.[/b]
I don’t know what you mean by either “historical validity” or “verifiable genuineness”. I don’t know how the “historical validity” of, say, the virgin birth can be established. Various committed and intelligent Christians are far from univocal on how these texts should be read—including historical versus ahistorical elements. You, of course, will disagree with alternative readings, but not all committed and intelligent Christians are going to see your particular reading as obvious…
I suspect that your process here is not fundamentally different from my own, wherein I infer from observations of the observable territory to inferences about the non-observable territory. I trust my ability to observe accurately and to reasonably infer. You trust your ability to read the text rightly and to reasonably infer.
It was the impossibility of escaping that “radix” that my syllogism about relying upon some external authority in the face of a claimed inability to determine what is true for oneself was also intended to show. (Not that we do not draw upon various knowledgeable authorities--e.g., for exegetical insights--but that our decision, about which, say, seem more trustworhty, cannot be escaped.) Substituting readings of a text/map for observations of observable territory (or vice versa), choosing to preference one over the other for "trustworthiness", does not change that. At that "radix", you and I and the Vedantist and other Christians, etc., etc., are standing on the same inescapable ground.