minsocal Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 So, I'm still interested in opinions: If my wife and I begin to create neighborhood gatherings for the purpose of developing healthy relationships, are we planting churches? And a related question, How inclusive is the "Body of Christ"? I would appeal to points 4 and 7 of the Eight Points as possible answers to your questions. Point 4 essentially answers your first question with a "yes". Point 7 would say all are welcome. I am in agreement with these points. I offer them as my response to you. I am a member of a church that models the Eight Points in action, albeit they are considered an anomaly in the neighborhood. Being "different" takes a bit of courage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllInTheNameOfProgress Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 David, Can you take a moment to let me know what is objectionable to you about God being an entity? You may think that I believe in the "Zap! It's all Good!" God or something, but I don't. If it is an issue where you think that God is within each of us and all of us, I, too, believe in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. I don't believe God is an old man with a beard sitting in heaven. How has not believing God to be an entity freed you? Why is that central to your faith system? Is the problem you would have "churching" with me that the messages you would want to hear and those that I would want to hear would be significantly different? For example, if someone preaching said that God does not cause suffering but will be your constant spiritual companion and not abandon you, and will give you strength, wisdom, power, love, and energy to meet your suffering with love, it would not fit with your concept of God? PantaRhea, I think "church" is a label that conjures up many images for people, and may scare some off. I think building community would be welcomed. I think the Body of Christ are all that do good works in Christ's name (with Jesus as their motivation). Janet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted May 30, 2009 Author Share Posted May 30, 2009 Janet, As I noted to you in another thread this issue has been written about by many and if you are really interested in the importance of the differences then you can read any of those books. I am not going to get into a theological “debate” with you within this thread. My concern here is given the disagreement what difference does it make in how we “do church”. There are many examples for that. The form and language of prayer for instance. The songs that are chosen for worship. The readings that are done within worship. Here are some examples from the service that I “attend” from a distance. Invitation to prayer and meditation Come out of the dark earth, here where the minerals glow in their stone cells; deeper than seed or birth. Come into the pure air above all heaviness of storm and cloud to this light-possessed atmosphere. Come into, out of, under the Earth, the wave, the air. Love, touch us everywhere with primeval candor. One: Let us reverence Life with our eyes, ears and fingertips. All: Let us love the world through heart and mind and body. One: We feed our eyes upon the mystery and revelation in the faces of our brothers and sisters, of mothers and fathers and children everywhere. All: Let us love those who birthed us into the world and gave us so much of who we are. Congregational song Om Namah Shivay Om Namah Shivay Om Namah Shivaya Shivaya Namah Om The Blessing at the end of the service: Love is the spirit and reality of this church, and service its great commitment. This is our covenant: To dwell in peace. To seek truth in love, To help one another. To honor our parents, families and children. Go from this place with greater confidence, candor and commitment with those near and far. May the realities of comfort, challenge, inclusion, learning, love and justice fill your lives. Amen. The Church faith statement We live together in awe of Life Connected by a sense of mystery that many call God. It is a four page program with dancing, baptism, childrens concert, prayer, songs, readings, scripture, sermon, offertory, and blessing. The program is different each week with different readings, blessings ect but in the four page program for this week the word God shows up twice. Would you provide me with similar quotes from your Church. Lets compare whether we can “do church together”. If not, what is the point of having a theological debate about it? David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllInTheNameOfProgress Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 Okay, thanks. I understand that the theologians' works cannot be easily summarized. I appreciate the references for possible reference later. The "service" I attend varies from week to week. Sometimes we are in conversation about pluralism, forgiveness, the search for meaning, or testimony about how God is working in our lives. Sometimes we go out and do a community service project together. Sometimes there is singing, teaching, and prayer. This Sunday we are singing "Give Me Your Eyes," which calls us to look at people the way that Jesus did (with love and connection), "Sanctuary"(make me a sancturary - pure and holy, tried and true), "Gospel Changes" by John Denver (talkin' about reaping what you're sowing and tryin' to be free), and "Lifesong" - Let my lifesong sing to You. I want to sign Your name to the end of this day, knowing that my heart was true. So yes - I can see why you wouldn't want to church with me, since even the singing relects the idea of God as an entity. There will be a short teaching about the Holy Spirit, since it is Pentecost Sunday, and we will have a meditative and corporate prayer time. I wasn't trying to debate theology. I really was trying to understand why your understanding was more meaningful to you. I am just learning here - I looked up to see that your song is the repetition of a mantra meant to create a transformation in consciousness. I spend a lot of personal time meditating and praying for transformation that takes away my ignorance and roadblocks to closeness with God as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PantaRhea Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 PantaRhea, I think "church" is a label that conjures up many images for people, and may scare some off. I think building community would be welcomed. I think the Body of Christ are all that do good works in Christ's name (with Jesus as their motivation). Janet Janet, So... how do you differentiate between what are good works and what are not good works? Can you draw up a list? It's important, because if I want to know if I'm included in the Body of Christ, it would be good to know what good works I need to do so that I can do the correct ones and not be excluded from the Body of Christ. If I do these good works, how do I do them in Christ's name? What is Christ's name? What does it mean to do good works in Christ's name? If I do good works in another name, am I excluded from the Body of Christ? Is there some way that I can distinguish between those who are doing good works in Christ's name, and those who are doing good works in another name? What does it mean to have Jesus as a motivation? If I do good works in Christ's name but Jesus is not my motivation, am I excluded from the Body of Christ? Apparently you believe that there are conditions which will exclude me from the Body of Christ. Do you also believe that there are any conditions which will exclude me from the love of "God" (or what you believe that symbol means)? What if, even though you provide an answer to these questions, the symbols of "Body of Christ", and "Jesus", and "good works" mean something other for me than they do for you? Do we have to share the exact meanings, the identical worldviews, the identical cultural background and life history (because that would be required for us to share the exact meaning and worldview) in order for me to be included in the Body of Christ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 PantaRhea, I think that those are excellent questions that provoke thought and consideration for all including me. Thanks. Joseph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 I have to question whether 'deconstruction' is what it is claimed to be. My sister belongs to a vibrant and growing church community that has never heard the term. They remain fairly traditional, but their tradition never really focused on dogma in the first place. Good works are good works. Joining any other group of any persuation simply makes it more efficient in getting the job done. The hierarchy of values places the goal at the top and the means are restricted only by ethics. I suspect that 'deconstruction' missed the point that some never had anything to deconstruct. I have heard this said in my own church more than once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted May 30, 2009 Author Share Posted May 30, 2009 Okay, thanks. I understand that the theologians' works cannot be easily summarized. I appreciate the references for possible reference later. The "service" I attend varies from week to week. Sometimes we are in conversation about pluralism, forgiveness, the search for meaning, or testimony about how God is working in our lives. Sometimes we go out and do a community service project together. Sometimes there is singing, teaching, and prayer. This Sunday we are singing "Give Me Your Eyes," which calls us to look at people the way that Jesus did (with love and connection), "Sanctuary"(make me a sancturary - pure and holy, tried and true), "Gospel Changes" by John Denver (talkin' about reaping what you're sowing and tryin' to be free), and "Lifesong" - Let my lifesong sing to You. I want to sign Your name to the end of this day, knowing that my heart was true. So yes - I can see why you wouldn't want to church with me, since even the singing relects the idea of God as an entity. There will be a short teaching about the Holy Spirit, since it is Pentecost Sunday, and we will have a meditative and corporate prayer time. I wasn't trying to debate theology. I really was trying to understand why your understanding was more meaningful to you. I am just learning here - I looked up to see that your song is the repetition of a mantra meant to create a transformation in consciousness. I spend a lot of personal time meditating and praying for transformation that takes away my ignorance and roadblocks to closeness with God as well. Sounds like I would rather be in your Church than 95 per cent of the others. Keep up the good work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PantaRhea Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 Good works are good works. Joining any other group of any persuation simply makes it more efficient in getting the job done. The hierarchy of values places the goal at the top and the means are restricted only by ethics. I suspect that 'deconstruction' missed the point that some never had anything to deconstruct. I have heard this said in my own church more than once. I don't grasp your meaning. How does joining any other group make it more efficient to get the job done? Get what job done? Hierarchy of what values? What goal? What means? Perhaps you could expand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllInTheNameOfProgress Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 Janet,So... how do you differentiate between what are good works and what are not good works? Can you draw up a list? It's important, because if I want to know if I'm included in the Body of Christ, it would be good to know what good works I need to do so that I can do the correct ones and not be excluded from the Body of Christ. If I do these good works, how do I do them in Christ's name? What is Christ's name? What does it mean to do good works in Christ's name? If I do good works in another name, am I excluded from the Body of Christ? Is there some way that I can distinguish between those who are doing good works in Christ's name, and those who are doing good works in another name? What does it mean to have Jesus as a motivation? If I do good works in Christ's name but Jesus is not my motivation, am I excluded from the Body of Christ? Apparently you believe that there are conditions which will exclude me from the Body of Christ. Do you also believe that there are any conditions which will exclude me from the love of "God" (or what you believe that symbol means)? What if, even though you provide an answer to these questions, the symbols of "Body of Christ", and "Jesus", and "good works" mean something other for me than they do for you? Do we have to share the exact meanings, the identical worldviews, the identical cultural background and life history (because that would be required for us to share the exact meaning and worldview) in order for me to be included in the Body of Christ? Thank you for the challenge. It is indeed more complicated than how I answered before. I looked up the phrase in my concordance, and Paul mentions the body of Christ in 1 Cor 12. It sounds like to be part you must be baptized, and in that book it sounds like Paul is trying to bridge some unity issues within the early church. The activities Paul mentions in regard to the body of christ are apostles, prophets, teachers, then workers of miracles, healers, those able to help others, those with gifts of administrations, and those speaking in tongues. The very next chapter in the book talks about LOVE, so I guess again, that is what is the test. I am surprised that you feel excluded from the Body of Christ by my words. That was not my intent. The Body of Christ is not a term I would use for my church group. The variety of people in it might even disagree whether Jesus was the Christ. However, I believe Paul used it to talk about a group of people who felt they were saved by their correct belief. Only an individual can truly know if they believe they are part of the Body of Christ, I guess. I probably jumped to the "good deeds" path too quickly, only because we sing several songs at my church about how we need to be the hands and feet and arms of Jesus in the world. No, I don't think there is anything that can separate you (or anyone else) from the love of God. What does Body of Christ mean to you? Is someone who doesn't believe Jesus is the "Christ" a member? Or do you consider the term to be equivalent to "all God's children?" Thanks for making me think! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllInTheNameOfProgress Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 I agree that not everyone has to go through a deconstruction. My heart goes out for those who feel they are going through that now and don't know if there's anything left in Christianity to draw them nearer to God. One of my friends (whose dad was a minister) recently confided in me that her faith was "hanging by a thread." That's not a comfortable place for her. And remember, the impetus for this thread was Bill's dissatisfaction with where deconstruction had led him. That was why I earlier suggested that we share our experiences about how we personally have reconstructed our faith after throwing out some of the traditional thinking. Complete deconstruction of one's faith is not a necessary pre-requisite for sharing... David, it sounds like you have found something in the Vedic sages that has inspired you. Is that something you started out with or something you sought out when a growing understanding of traditional Christianity seemed too limiting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 I don't grasp your meaning. How does joining any other group make it more efficient to get the job done? Get what job done? Hierarchy of what values? What goal? What means? Perhaps you could expand? The single most repeated message in the Bible is? Come on now, you've read it. It is ... feed the poor!!! Yep, the most mentioned proscription in the Bible. So ... we pool our resources . The teens take a strong role and volunteer at various local food banks. The church has drives to collect food and move food to organizations that have a high ratio of getting that food to the needy at low cost. The first value is "feed the poor", and then you do it the most efficient way possible to ... do I really need to go on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PantaRhea Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 Thank you for the challenge. It is indeed more complicated than how I answered before. I looked up the phrase in my concordance, and Paul mentions the body of Christ in 1 Cor 12. It sounds like to be part you must be baptized, and in that book it sounds like Paul is trying to bridge some unity issues within the early church. The activities Paul mentions in regard to the body of christ are apostles, prophets, teachers, then workers of miracles, healers, those able to help others, those with gifts of administrations, and those speaking in tongues. The very next chapter in the book talks about LOVE, so I guess again, that is what is the test. I am surprised that you feel excluded from the Body of Christ by my words. That was not my intent. The Body of Christ is not a term I would use for my church group. The variety of people in it might even disagree whether Jesus was the Christ. However, I believe Paul used it to talk about a group of people who felt they were saved by their correct belief. Only an individual can truly know if they believe they are part of the Body of Christ, I guess. I probably jumped to the "good deeds" path too quickly, only because we sing several songs at my church about how we need to be the hands and feet and arms of Jesus in the world. No, I don't think there is anything that can separate you (or anyone else) from the love of God. What does Body of Christ mean to you? Is someone who doesn't believe Jesus is the "Christ" a member? Or do you consider the term to be equivalent to "all God's children?" Thanks for making me think! I don't feel excluded from the Body of Christ by your words. Your words indicated that there are conditions which might exclude me, or someone else, from the Body of Christ. In the early church, baptism was a useful sacrament which caused division almost from the start. It was used as a means to receive the Spirit, but in the case of Cornelius, the Spirit was received prior to baptism. Have we progressed at all from what the early church community discovered? Or, are we bound to the biblical revelation? Is it possible that a new church is emerging today? "Body of Christ" is a metaphor. "Christ", "Spirit", "Father", and "God" are also metaphors. Are they symbols which point to separate realities, or do they represent different perspectives of the same reality? If "Body of Christ" is the equivalent of the "Body of God", is it possible to be outside of, or external to God? As a panentheist, "God" is not a symbol for a reality which exists outside of, or separate from the universe (there is no "supernatural" reality). God includes the universe, so there is absolutely no existence outside of God. Every individual also includes God as well as all other individuals. The word "believe" has been tremendously misused, in my opinion. Correct belief, in the sense of being in agreement with certain propositions, can only divide us, or separate us into two groups: those who believe the right stuff, and those who don't. Baptism, which was intended to be used as a means to create community, did the same thing by dividing humans into two groups: the washed and the unwashed. "Believing in Christ", for me, means trusting in the reality of something which cannot be deconstructed, a reality which can be experienced, but as soon as it takes a form in thought it becomes a symbol rather than the reality which the symbol points to. There are no conditions required to become a member of the "Body of Christ". The Good News does not consist of "Four Spiritual Laws" which explain how membership can be obtained, it is the news that we are already members; the connection between us is real. If we don't experience it, it is because we lack faith. It is claimed that the Buddha said, "If you see the Buddha walking toward you, kill him." In other words, "Buddha" was a symbol. If you can see it walking, it cannot be the reality and must be deconstructed in order for us to experience the reality. The "Body of Christ" is a symbol pointing to a reality which cannot be deconstructed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PantaRhea Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 The single most repeated message in the Bible is? Come on now, you've read it. It is ... feed the poor!!! Yep, the most mentioned proscription in the Bible. So ... we pool our resources . The teens take a strong role and volunteer at various local food banks. The church has drives to collect food and move food to organizations that have a high ratio of getting that food to the needy at low cost. The first value is "feed the poor", and then you do it the most efficient way possible to ... do I really need to go on? I haven't seen any biblical surveys which confirm your opinion about what is the most mentioned proscription in the Bible, but I'll tentatively take your word for it. Who are the poor, and what does it mean to "feed" them? Jesus said, "Blessed are the poor in Spirit". Can the poor in Spirit be fed with bread? Jesus also said that the poor will always be with us. If we managed to feed every person on this planet, would hunger still exist? The way I construct reality, is that there is nothing other than relationships. In other words, we don't have relationships, we are relationships. If someone is hungry and poor, it indicates that the relationship of the person with the universe is hungry and poor. Because we are internally related to the hungry and poor, we are also hungry and poor. The relationship needs to be transformed. Giving the person a loaf of bread is not necessarily a sufficient means to bring about the needed transformation. Doesn't the concept of "feed the poor" need to be deconstructed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 I haven't seen any biblical surveys which confirm your opinion about what is the most mentioned proscription in the Bible, but I'll tentatively take your word for it. Who are the poor, and what does it mean to "feed" them? Jesus said, "Blessed are the poor in Spirit". Can the poor in Spirit be fed with bread? Jesus also said that the poor will always be with us. If we managed to feed every person on this planet, would hunger still exist? The way I construct reality, is that there is nothing other than relationships. In other words, we don't have relationships, we are relationships. If someone is hungry and poor, it indicates that the relationship of the person with the universe is hungry and poor. Because we are internally related to the hungry and poor, we are also hungry and poor. The relationship needs to be transformed. Giving the person a loaf of bread is not necessarily a sufficient means to bring about the needed transformation. Doesn't the concept of "feed the poor" need to be deconstructed? As you can tell from my posts, I am no fan of "deconstruction". It is a fad that is rapidly going away now that it's founder has passed on. The Bible survey concerning "feed the poor" has been done many times. The current Pastor of my church did it for a sermon several years ago. It's fairly easy these days with on-line Bible search tools. Why anyone would want to 'deconstruct' the concept of "feed the poor" makes no sense to me. I walk down the street and see the homeless, including women and children. They need food to survive before they can be 'deonstructed'. Then, they need support untill they can become self-sufficient. There are programs that do just that and they exist because they are largely staffed by volunteers. In short, you cannot 'deconstruct' a human being. I suppose you could ask them before you give them lunch whether they are 'deconstructed again humans', but that seems like nonsense to me. I will leave you with this. There are some who have no use whatsover for 'deconstruction' as they have nothing to 'deconstruct'. They came to Christianity from roots that were already 'deconstructed' 150 years ago. The current use of the term is a bit of a ripoff. Academia does that all the time. Remember, the founder of deconstruction recanted many of his positions late in life saying in effect, "return to the Bible". This happens a lot with great thinkers. Now to the larger question. The many ramifications of "feed the poor" have been discussed for more than 150 years. In my view, Jesus and the authentic Paul were radical egalitarians. The marginalized of society are "poor" and they "hunger" for justice. I think I remember an Old Testament prophet who said exactly that. The point I wish to enter into discusssion is that 'deconstruction' began a very long time ago. It is a function of human existence and is partly innate. It is what Jung called the "Transcendent Function". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PantaRhea Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 As you can tell from my posts, I am no fan of "deconstruction". As a "Constructive Postmodernist", I'm no fan of "deconstruction" either. Especially if it simply results in the loss of meaning and purpose in everything. Why anyone would want to 'deconstruct' the concept of "feed the poor" makes no sense to me. Perhaps because we need to dig deeper into what feeding the poor really means. For some, it simply means throwing some money at a charity. Besides food, what else do the marginalized lack? Hope? The word "justice" is interesting. It is related to righteousness. Righeousness, in its historical usage, means to be related rightly - to be in a covenant relationship. The "marginalized" are those whom we've excluded from our covenantal relationships. It's nice that church members are motivated to feed the poor. It's evidence of a love in action that shouldn't be and doesn't need to be criticized. What does need to be criticized, in my opinion, are those doctrines and concepts that continue to divide us into "us" vs "them". The deconstruction of those concepts is what Jesus did when he preached the Good News of the Kingdom of God. I think we are very much in agreement. The poor and marginalized, in one sense, have nothing to deconstruct since, as I understand it, deconstruction really concerns the way power operates in our lives (Foucault), and the poor are without power. Jesus was deconstructing long before Derrida came on the scene. In the end, "deconstruction" needs to be deconstructed. When you use the term and when I use the term we may or may not have a "communion of intuition". I don't know Jung stuff, so when you refer to his stuff, I remain ignorant. I don't really know if we intuit the same meaning when we use the term "deconstruction". Because I am not a fan of "correct belief" any longer, why am I trying to correct your beliefs? Mea Culpa, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllInTheNameOfProgress Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 If "Body of Christ" is the equivalent of the "Body of God", I would agree that we are not limited by Biblical revelation and that progress is still occurring in terms of our knowledge of God. I would suggest that you just use the term Body of God or Children of God, so that it isn't tied to the historical meaning that may prove problematic for some. The only reason I thought someone might be excluded from the term Body of Christ is because of the narrow meaning it had in the beginning. Is is still useful to refer to the Body of Christ, or is another term just as good and not as loaded? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 As a "Constructive Postmodernist", I'm no fan of "deconstruction" either. Especially if it simply results in the loss of meaning and purpose in everything. Perhaps because we need to dig deeper into what feeding the poor really means. For some, it simply means throwing some money at a charity. Besides food, what else do the marginalized lack? Hope? The word "justice" is interesting. It is related to righteousness. Righeousness, in its historical usage, means to be related rightly - to be in a covenant relationship. The "marginalized" are those whom we've excluded from our covenantal relationships. It's nice that church members are motivated to feed the poor. It's evidence of a love in action that shouldn't be and doesn't need to be criticized. What does need to be criticized, in my opinion, are those doctrines and concepts that continue to divide us into "us" vs "them". The deconstruction of those concepts is what Jesus did when he preached the Good News of the Kingdom of God. I think we are very much in agreement. The poor and marginalized, in one sense, have nothing to deconstruct since, as I understand it, deconstruction really concerns the way power operates in our lives (Foucault), and the poor are without power. Jesus was deconstructing long before Derrida came on the scene. In the end, "deconstruction" needs to be deconstructed. When you use the term and when I use the term we may or may not have a "communion of intuition". I don't know Jung stuff, so when you refer to his stuff, I remain ignorant. I don't really know if we intuit the same meaning when we use the term "deconstruction". Because I am not a fan of "correct belief" any longer, why am I trying to correct your beliefs? Mea Culpa, eh? We are very much in agreement and I'm glad that I took the time to have this discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 (snip)The word "justice" is interesting. It is related to righteousness. Righeousness, in its historical usage, means to be related rightly - to be in a covenant relationship. The "marginalized" are those whom we've excluded from our covenantal relationships. It's nice that church members are motivated to feed the poor. It's evidence of a love in action that shouldn't be and doesn't need to be criticized. What does need to be criticized, in my opinion, are those doctrines and concepts that continue to divide us into "us" vs "them". The deconstruction of those concepts is what Jesus did when he preached the Good News of the Kingdom of God. (snip) It seems to me that what really needs to be deconstructed is as you say, "those doctrines and concepts that continue to divide us into 'us' vs 'them' ". Perhaps that is an oversimplification but it seems to me to be the heart of the matter. Joseph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 It seems to me that what really needs to be deconstructed is as you say, "those doctrines and concepts that continue to divide us into 'us' vs 'them' ". Perhaps that is an oversimplification but it seems to me to be the heart of the matter. Joseph There are times when I think it is human behavior that is in want of 'deconstruction', but that is psycholgy. I have doubts as to whether doctrines and concepts have the causal influence many attribute to them. Doctrines and concepts are human creations and thus human behavior. The 'deconstruction' of these behaviors has been pursued. Many concepts, such as the so-called 'devil' are social constructions created for a purpose. A workable stategy to maintain a group distinction is to turn all other competing groups into demons and enemies. This was true 2,000 years ago and was recently used to 'justify' an immoral war in Iraq. Today, that strategy is no longer functional in some peoples worldview, but it remains a quest for others. From a social justice standpoint, we are faced with a very difficult problem. The best minds delving into the subject reject both sides of the issue. It is not that doctrines and concepts divide us, rather it is that we select them to accomplish certain tasks. Isreal would not exist today but for a stubborn refusal to allow the extinction of a unique set of cultural values. Ethicists today regard these values as one of the most sophisticated ethical systems ever devised. The Lacota Sioux fall into the same category. As Christians, we often fail to see the world from any other perspective. We sometimes attack principles outside the context of their appropriate use. Would I do violence to save the life of my child? Yes, I would. Along the way, it IS a matter of asking the right questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PantaRhea Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 There are times when I think it is human behavior that is in want of 'deconstruction', but that is psycholgy. I have doubts as to whether doctrines and concepts have the causal influence many attribute to them. Doctrines and concepts are human creations and thus human behavior. The 'deconstruction' of these behaviors has been pursued. Many concepts, such as the so-called 'devil' are social constructions created for a purpose. A workable stategy to maintain a group distinction is to turn all other competing groups into demons and enemies. This was true 2,000 years ago and was recently used to 'justify' an immoral war in Iraq. Today, that strategy is no longer functional in some peoples worldview, but it remains a quest for others. From a social justice standpoint, we are faced with a very difficult problem. The best minds delving into the subject reject both sides of the issue. It is not that doctrines and concepts divide us, rather it is that we select them to accomplish certain tasks. Isreal would not exist today but for a stubborn refusal to allow the extinction of a unique set of cultural values. Ethicists today regard these values as one of the most sophisticated ethical systems ever devised. The Lacota Sioux fall into the same category. As Christians, we often fail to see the world from any other perspective. We sometimes attack principles outside the context of their appropriate use. Would I do violence to save the life of my child? Yes, I would. Along the way, it IS a matter of asking the right questions. Seems to me, that when you claim that "doctrines and concepts" are symptoms and not the cause of division, you are simply trying to deconstruct "doctrines and concepts". What does 'deconstruction' mean to you (and can you provide a meaning without using a concept?)? Of course "doctrines and concepts" are human creations. Isn't that what 'deconstruction' is all about - revealing how we've constructed reality? Some would say that these constructions determine reality. All experiences are interpreted by our rational mind and before becoming words, they become part of our conceptual framework. The way we interpret reality, in other words, is determined by concepts which exist prior to the interpretation. There simply is no way to reach the ding an sich by the rational mind. That's a serious blow to the scientific method and the attempt to discover causality. Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 Seems to me, that when you claim that "doctrines and concepts" are symptoms and not the cause of division, you are simply trying to deconstruct "doctrines and concepts". What does 'deconstruction' mean to you (and can you provide a meaning without using a concept?)? Of course "doctrines and concepts" are human creations. Isn't that what 'deconstruction' is all about - revealing how we've constructed reality? Some would say that these constructions determine reality. All experiences are interpreted by our rational mind and before becoming words, they become part of our conceptual framework. The way we interpret reality, in other words, is determined by concepts which exist prior to the interpretation. There simply is no way to reach the ding an sich by the rational mind. That's a serious blow to the scientific method and the attempt to discover causality. Don Don, Interesting comments. Deconstruction, by definition, cannot take place without concepts. In recent years, a debate has emerged concerning how concepts are grounded (actually, it's an old debate that has resurfaced). A sample question would be "Can my cat form concepts?" The answer appears to be "yes, my cat can form concepts". "All experiences are interpreted by our rational mind and before becoming words, they become part of our conceptual framework. The way we interpret reality, in other words, is determined by concepts which exist prior to the interpretation." Taken literally, there would have to be an innate substrate (or non-rational precursor) of the rational mind to launch the very first rational interpretation. It turns out that "all experiences are interpreted by our rational mind" is a false assumption. It is more correct to say "can be interpreted by our rational mind". The former statement would put an incredible load on the rational processing centers of the brain, a load it could not possibly sustain. Again, deconstruction is about the nature of language and thought. Despite deconstruction, science simply continues to discover more and more about how our brain works. The only way those who favor deconstruction could maintain their position was to attack the discoveries of cognitive science that were taking place at the same time the philosophical theory of deconstruction was being developed. Deconstruction appears to be on the wane as well as postmodernism. Back to your claim that experiences are interpreted by our rational mind. The academic community went "ga ga" over the concept of deconstruction. I have many friends who went through the indoctrination and came out unimpressed. They have IQ's in the range of 140-160 and they can think for themselves. I just happen to be one who finds that the 'deconstruction' of 'deconstruction' is empty of psychological value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PantaRhea Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 Don, Interesting comments. Deconstruction, by definition, cannot take place without concepts. In recent years, a debate has emerged concerning how concepts are grounded (actually, it's an old debate that has resurfaced). A sample question would be "Can my cat form concepts?" The answer appears to be "yes, my cat can form concepts". "All experiences are interpreted by our rational mind and before becoming words, they become part of our conceptual framework. The way we interpret reality, in other words, is determined by concepts which exist prior to the interpretation." Taken literally, there would have to be an innate substrate (or non-rational precursor) of the rational mind to launch the very first rational interpretation. It turns out that "all experiences are interpreted by our rational mind" is a false assumption. It is more correct to say "can be interpreted by our rational mind". The former statement would put an incredible load on the rational processing centers of the brain, a load it could not possibly sustain. Again, deconstruction is about the nature of language and thought. Despite deconstruction, science simply continues to discover more and more about how our brain works. The only way those who favor deconstruction could maintain their position was to attack the discoveries of cognitive science that were taking place at the same time the philosophical theory of deconstruction was being developed. Deconstruction appears to be on the wane as well as postmodernism. Back to your claim that experiences are interpreted by our rational mind. The academic community went "ga ga" over the concept of deconstruction. I have many friends who went through the indoctrination and came out unimpressed. They have IQ's in the range of 140-160 and they can think for themselves. I just happen to be one who finds that the 'deconstruction' of 'deconstruction' is empty of psychological value. Rationally, I can't figure out the differences between your concepts and my concepts - at least I can't quite brige the gap. I get discouraged with these messages because they seldom get anywhere. Would having an IQ in the range of 140-160 help me to bridge the gap? "If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.” Accepting the premises of Process Philosophy as I do, I accept that the "innate substrate" (which you seem to imply doesn't exist), is what Whitehead referred to as "feeling". The ground of our apprehensions are our prehensions of feelings. Science, which always examines reality from the third person perspective, cannot discover what can only be known from a first and (or perhaps only a second person) perspective. It can never discover the "ding an sich". But then again, as Whitehead said, "In philosophical discussion, the merest hint of dogmatic certainty as to finality of statement is an exhibition of folly." Deconstruction exposes our folly. Little wonder that it wanes. Is there any value in these discussions? Are we doing anything other than making noise by clanging cymbals (symbols) together? Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 (snip) Is there any value in these discussions? Are we doing anything other than making noise by clanging cymbals (symbols) together? Don Perhaps not, but then again perhaps there is a seed to be picked up by others that will expose folly and thereby open up something new AND expose that which seems to be hidden but of course is not? Joseph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 Rationally, I can't figure out the differences between your concepts and my concepts - at least I can't quite brige the gap. I get discouraged with these messages because they seldom get anywhere. Would having an IQ in the range of 140-160 help me to bridge the gap? "If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.” Accepting the premises of Process Philosophy as I do, I accept that the "innate substrate" (which you seem to imply doesn't exist), is what Whitehead referred to as "feeling". The ground of our apprehensions are our prehensions of feelings. Science, which always examines reality from the third person perspective, cannot discover what can only be known from a first and (or perhaps only a second person) perspective. It can never discover the "ding and sich". But then again, as Whitehead said, "In philosophical discussion, the merest hint of dogmatic certainty as to finality of statement is an exhibition of folly." Deconstruction exposes our folly. Little wonder that it wanes. Is there any value in these discussions? Are we doing anything other than making noise by clanging cymbals (symbols) together? Don No, no. We are actually in agreement on most points. That is how things seem to go on message boards sometimes. Deconstruction, as envisioned by it's founder, denies any innate substrate. Thus my battle with deconstruction. I have battled long and hard on this board for the case of an innate substrate of positive moral intuitions and moral emotions. I have backed Process Philosophy to "the hilt" and weathered the storm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.