Why Bother?

[Mike]

Hi Bill,

 

But I just wish that, while PC is excellent at deconstruction, it could work at reconstruction, at a humble and even somewhat malleable paradigm of what we might be "relatively confident" of. Unfortunately, such is not the case, at least here. We have to preface everything with "it seems to me" or "in my opinion." I understand that such is supposed to convey humility, but it does come across as an implication that we are not concerned with truth, or that we have given up on truth, or that truth is so subjective as to be of no import. To me, it means that we haven't given things much thought and probably won't.

 

I can only speak for myself here, but I'm not very interested in an all-out "truth nihilism" or solipsism. My "post-modernism" does not go in that direction. I do have strong views on certain subjects (and in my blog writings I have no problem stating them); I've hinted at them in "Where do you Stand?", and this very subject was actually my rationale for creating that thread. I am a realist. And I wouldn't say "God is in my mind" -- I'd be more comfortable with "my mind is in God". And whose mind is it, really?

 

But I do think the virtues of deconstruction are legion. For one, when we have stated a problem like "subjectivity vs objectivity", it is needful to deconstruct the problem. This is what I've been attempting to do in my posts in this thread. I've been attempting to show a 'middle way' through the problem, by questioning what is meant by "objectivity" as opposed to "subjectivity" -- by questioning the very assumptions that go into thinking in those terms. I'm using these words in such a way as to do something very different with them, against certain conclusions that you draw from them (i.e. that it's "all in our head" or that there's no real knowledge, or that "subjective" means "unreal"). I argued that if we think in terms of "objective truth" and "subjective truth", it is subjective truth that is necessary for anything to have import; rather than "subjectivity" implying that it is of "no import".

 

I think it was Einstein who said that we cannot solve our problems with the same type of thinking that got us into them. Therefore, through deconstruction I question the entire metaphysical framework in which these conundrums arise. That is to say, these conundrums are themselves a product of that metaphysical framework. Without that framework -- without those assumptions -- the question of "What is reality and how do we know it?" can take a dramatically different form.

 

However, your point is also very well taken that construction must take place as well. But to me this can only happen simultaneously with the razing of the old system. We can only see new directions and new implications where we can, as it were, stand atop the rubble of previous views. What happens when the "subjective/objective" dichotomy is done away with? "Reality" -- what that word means -- takes on a very different character. Much more alive, interconnected...intrinsically meaningful, not distanced from its source, from its own truth. Sure, removing an "objective background" awakens us to the bottomlessness of existence. But it is also a bottomless grace and a bottomless truth -- yet real truth nonetheless, even if this 'truth' is not an 'object' to lay hold of and bring into our possession. Objectivity is a method of description. But I think there are different ways of knowing, other ways to answer the question 'What is reality and how do we know it?'. This is because ultimately knowledge and reality are not-two.

 

I don't think of God or Reality as an 'object'. I see Reality as intimacy itself. I have allowed these propositions to sink into my psyche and their implications to unfurl and unfold progressively and naturally.

 

Anyway, that's my worldivew, "it seems to mes" and "in my opinions" aside.

 

Incidentally, I was reading something -- it doesn't have anything to do with the immediate context here -- from Orthodox theologian David Bently Hart, that spoke to me and perhaps will to you as well:

 

"...the difference between God and creation is not a simple metaphysical distinction between reality and appearance, but the analogical distance between two ways of apprehending the infinite--God being the infinite, creatures embracing it in an endless sequence of finite distances -- the soul's ascent to God is not a departure from, but an endless venture into, difference." (Beauty of the Infinite p194)

 

Peace,

Mike

[Mike]

To briefly add something more,

I suppose you could succinctly state that our relationship to reality constitutes our knowledge of it. Knowledge and reality do not exist apart from each other. But it also means neither do meaning and truth. It is a very different approach to Reality; it's not as well-defined and controllable -- but it has proven most meaningful to me, especially in light of the problems of other metaphysical systems.

 

Peace.

[JosephM]

But I just wish that, while PC is excellent at deconstruction, it could work at reconstruction, at a humble and even somewhat malleable paradigm of what we might be "relatively confident" of. Unfortunately, such is not the case, at least here. We have to preface everything with "it seems to me" or "in my opinion." I understand that such is supposed to convey humility, but it does come across as an implication that we are not concerned with truth, or that we have given up on truth, or that truth is so subjective as to be of no import. To me, it means that we haven't given things much thought and probably won't. And I just don't think that humanity has progressed whenever we have "stopped thinking." To accept that things just "are the way they are", while perhaps being an underpinning concept in the way a Buddhist finds enlightenment, just doesn't seem to line up with what I believe Jesus taught about seeking for and working for the kingdom of God on earth.

ws

Bill,

 

I am not personally aware of any requirement for the use of "it seems to me" or "in my opinion" in Progressive Christianity. While it certainly is a habit i have personally developed and use regularly in my posts, it is said in my case not to convey humility but rather to express that the statement i am making is the way it seems to me as Joseph at my present state of understanding and it may not be a totally adequate description for others. Using such an approach, i have found at least in my own practice an openess or space within this mind is created for the reception of a clearer understanding. This to me as opposed to dogmatic certainty. Being a sentient creature and having experienced the subjectivity of the mind, i find it refreshing to not have but a handful of things that i am certain of and have documented in the "where do you stand" thread. Still, even those things are my own subjective experiences and reality to me that i would not impose on another.

I can't help but wonder, in a fun way, what would happen if the Jesus of the gospels tried to post here today? What would happen if he dared to speak for God on this forum? What would happen if he dared to claim that his opinions were not his own, but God's? What would happen if he tried to tell us on this forum how we should live? Would he be comfortable with progressive Christianity? Just wondering aloud.

 

As far as someone speaking for God on this forum such as it is recorded Jesus did in his day, i think people here as a general rule would be interested in hearing as long as that person was respectful of others. That includes telling us how we should live. as we find Jesus did in the sermon on the mount. Now if you want to apply everything that Jesus is recorded saying (which in my view, may or may not be true) such as calling people hypocrites or making derogatory or demeaning remarks then i would suggest he would be banned from this forum. Having said that, it seems to me Jesus would rather show love, kindness and compassion for members here and not speak thusly.

 

Just my thoughts on those comments,

Joseph

[GeorgeW]

But I just wish that, while PC is excellent at deconstruction, it could work at reconstruction, at a humble and even somewhat malleable paradigm of what we might be "relatively confident" of. Unfortunately, such is not the case, at least here. We have to preface everything with "it seems to me" or "in my opinion." I understand that such is supposed to convey humility, but it does come across as an implication that we are not concerned with truth, or that we have given up on truth, or that truth is so subjective as to be of no import.

ws

 

'It seems to me' that one is recognizing that their perception is exactly that, a subjective perception of what is 'objectively' unknowable. That does not mean that their perception is not sincerely and firmly held. I find assertions of universal truth regarding the existence or nature of God to be arrogant and close minded. What qualifies the asserter to proclaim the precise truth applicable to all of humankind for all time?

 

However, there are certain 'truths,' that I for one, would not qualify in this way. But, these deal with how we should behave and deal with each other. I would not say, 'in my opinion the Golden Rule is a useful guideline.' I don't think anyone here would say, 'in my opinion, lies, deception, greed and racism should be generally avoided.'

 

Also, FWIW (another qualifier), a little humility is not a bad thing.

 

George

[GeorgeW]

I find a little humility and subjectivity in the traditional Christian creeds.

 

The Nicene Creed begins with 'I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, . . . " The Apostles Creed begins, "I believe in God, the Father Almighty . . . " This is in contrast, as an example, to the Islamic Shahada (creedal statement); "There is no God but God and Muhammad is the messenger of God."

 

The Shahada makes very specific claims about God and the Prophet where the Christian creedal statements are qualified by "I believe." The former is making an unequivocal statement of universal truth where the latter is stating a truth from the perspective of the speaker.

 

George

[BillM]

As far as someone speaking for God on this forum such as it is recorded Jesus did in his day, i think people here as a general rule would be interested in hearing as long as that person was respectful of others. That includes telling us how we should live. as we find Jesus did in the sermon on the mount. Now if you want to apply everything that Jesus is recorded saying (which in my view, may or may not be true) such as calling people hypocrites or making derogatory or demeaning remarks then i would suggest he would be banned from this forum. Having said that, it seems to me Jesus would rather show love, kindness and compassion for members here and not speak thusly.

 

Thanks for your honesty, Joseph. As I said, it was only a playful supposition. I, too, believe that 1) not all of the "red letters" are the direct words of Jesus and that 2) Jesus' ideas were shaped by his own culture, religion, and experiences of God. What I find in the gospels is that Jesus is very passionate (convinced) about his relationship with God and the message that he believed he was called to give in both action and words. While I don't think he was crucified as an atonement for sins, I don't think he was crucified for being a pluralistic, nice guy who never challenged anyone either. He didn't seem to fit the "I'm okay, your okay" message of liberal religion. Passionate people are dangerous.

 

ws

[JosephM]

Bill,

 

I think I understand what you are basically saying in some of your posts. It is an extremely comfortable position to be in when ones religion is mostly filled with fully accepted beliefs. I was once there myself with 4 years TVD Bible College and doing evangelizing as an ordained minister. It was most satisfying thinking i was propagating truth to the rest of the 'ignorant' world The only down side is eventually one discovers they themselves were the ignorant one and the building crumbles and the bliss can no longer be sustained and even turns to anger toward people and God.

 

Return no longer becomes an option. Deconstruction takes place and toward the end we find little to hang our hat on. It is devastating to say the least. Where then do we go or do? Do we build another building ourself? God forbid that we start another religion, build another building of our own. (we return to our vomit). Perhaps better than the first but still just a man made building. The temptation is there and the hope is that it will be a good building. The problem is it is still just another building that we built. Perhaps there is a better way. Perhaps we can resist the temptation to put on our own blocks and instead allow God to build that building over time as our condition ripens and we are receptive.

 

I believe from your writings that you are basically certain of what God is not ( that to me is a great start to realizing what God is) You have deconstructed many of the church doctrines that were overwhelmingly man made. No doubt you have progressed a long way even though at times one may not think so. All that was part of your deconstruction. Now if you will permit me to be a bit bold. Your footing should now be sustained on your own personal subjective experience with the divine which tells you that you are accepted as you are by something inside you that is part of you. All your doubts and anger and resentment and confusion is okay with your source. Lets call that God. That is your foundation (hearing directly from God) and no one has the power to take that away from you unless of course you willingly give it up. Perhaps you have had other experiences also and they are blocks put their by God. Its solid and you can stand on them and trust because thats all you really have. It your own subjective reality given you and you will find others who have had similar experiences for support. I do not say similar beliefs because beliefs are man-made whereas your experiences are not. It is extremely important in my view that one is able to tell the difference because one is footing while the other is dust..

 

In my case if i 'figure' something out (by thought) that makes sense from my established foundation. It is a leaning because of that foundation and i might say . i think, i believe, or it seems to me because it is subject to change by experiences. It is a block (more like dust to me) not that God, but i as a man put there so i don't want any cement. If it falls off that is fine with me cause i know it was i that put it there. More experiences i trust will come when i am open, receptive and ripe. So i only have a half a dozen things (blocks) i really know for certain because they were given, not reasoned. Some of them most difficult if not impossible to explain because they are not concepts but rather a 'knowing' that comes from being one with 'That'. Some say not to trust your feelings and many times that is great advice but in my experience, "feelings" when they arise from beyond our conscious state as when you were having it out with God (so to speak, in your posted experience) "feeling" is closer to reality than the content of your words and thoughts.

 

Anyway, take whatever i have said here and if it points or gives you any consolation, hope or encouragement at all, i am most pleased. If not, no big deal as i have been bold here and my words can be interpreted as condescending by some. If that is the case, one is free to lay that to whatever idea they hold of me or place me in a box. By now, i am most comfortable with such. I am most confident that what you are going through is not uncommon for one sincerely looking. And further, i am confident in your awareness that profound peace in spite of doubt, uncertainty and the multitude of your yet unanswered questions will be realized.

 

Joseph

[BillM]

Joseph,

 

First, I didn't take your response/advice to be condescending at all, nor too bold. I think that, for me, there is some wisdom in what you say. And please believe me when I say that I am glad for you that you have found a place or a space where you are content with who and where you are...for lack of a better word..."spiritually." I envy that in many ways. But, yes, despite my experiences, there is still something More that I long for, that I seek. I find it difficult to put into words. I'm not even sure exactly what it is. I can only hope and trust that I will know it when/if I find it. Or perhaps I will never find it but find the journey or search to be its own reward.

 

For now, the best that I can do is to hint at it (for hints are all that I have) or to, perhaps, describe, not a thing, but a direction. So allow me to respond to a couple of the things you have written as a way for me to process further, okay? I have never been the kind of Christian who has no questions or who lived "comfortably" within the Christian paradigm, except for maybe the honeymoon period where I knew nothing of the Bible or of church or of other Christians. So, unlike your journey, I was never satisfied with where I was in Christianity (and that remains so today). There were always, as I've described them elsewhere, "pebbles in my shoes." My pebbles, as you know, where non-sensical beliefs, unanswered questions that were, at least to me, important, and inconsistent and sometimes horrid behavior amongst those who claimed to have all the right beliefs. Yes, I've done some deconstruction. That has been helpful, though painful also. And, as I've written elsewhere, I now feel like I am sifting through the rubble of my former faith to see if anything there is worth taking with me on the rest of my journey. Some would call me foolish to do so. They would advise that because the whole thing fell, it is all worthless. I should just turn my back on all of it and walk away. But I can't. Please believe me when I say that I am not looking for security or comfortability in my faith. To me, faith is not about security, it is about risk on things that are not provable, but yet seem true. And I don't find anywhere in Jesus' teachings that he calls us to comfort. My experience with God, and I think the Bible substantiates this (especially in the life of Jesus), is that God always calls us out of our comfort zone for the sake of others. So I'm not searching for the security of right answers or comfort of right beliefs. But what am I searching for?

 

I'm going to stumble in what I'm about to say. As I've mentioned, all I have is hints, fleeting glimpses. So I guess what I'll say initially is that I want a faith that is proved right, not mainly through holding to right concepts or doctrines, but through right actions. To me (and speaking in Christianese), whenever God reveals himself to someone, it is for mission; it is to call that person out of their comfort zone in order to do something meaningful and compassionate for others. Yes, our relationship with God has "personal benefits", I don't deny this at all. But it seems to me that as people of God or of faith, God calls us to action in this world. This is why Buddhism doesn't appeal to me. To me, it is focused on one feeling or experiencing Oneness with the One and when/after that happens, the resulting attitude is that the world is as it is, could be no different, and there is, therefore, no mission. All is perceived to be already One or okay. And that, imo, negates Jesus' central message about the kingdom of God. I simply don't believe Jesus was crucified for preaching a message that supported the status quo.

 

Allow me to put it another way, perhaps simpler. God's initial call to Abraham was to be blessed, not so that he could feel bliss, but so that he and his descendants would be a blessing to the whole earth. Blessed in order to be a blessing.

 

I've been greatly blessed, far beyond what I deserve. I don't want more bliss or blessings for myself. I want to be a blessing to others. And last Sunday's episode demonstrated to me that I don't have any idea how to do that. All I have is deconstruction. That is a good and, perhaps, necessary stage to go through. But I want something More on the other side of it, in order to be a blessing. And, imo, I won't find that by constantly reminding myself that all I have left from my deconstruction is a pile of false beliefs. I dare to believe that I am designed for More. I suspect, from past conversations that you and I have had (public ones) that you don't like the word "truth" much. I don't blame you. It has been used to harm people badly, especially in the name of God and religion. But just as I still believe the Bible (albeit in a different way than before), I also still believe in truth (or want to), albeit in a different way. I want to believe and live in truth in such a way that my life is a blessing.

 

In closing, this forum in no way discourages me from good works or being a blessing. It has helped me greatly in my deconstruction and I am thankful for that. But, again speaking honestly, when it comes to reconstruction, all I am getting to "build with" (a good faith) is just reminders that all we have is human opinions and, occasionally, the insinuation that because we have encountered bad "truth", that truth doesn't exist or that, if it does, it is utterly hopeless for us to know or live it. To me, when Jesus said that the truth would set us free, I don't think he meant "free from all beliefs." I think he meant free from the false illusions that keep us self-centered to the exent that 1) all we think about is ourselves and 2) we are immobilized by fear and doubt so that we can't make a difference in this world. So I guess I am seeking a good faith that results in my life is not good just for me, but for others also.

 

Thanks for listening.

 

ws

[soma]

"Allow me to put it another way, perhaps simpler. God's initial call to Abraham was to be blessed, not so that he could feel bliss, but so that he and his descendants would be a blessing to the whole earth. Blessed in order to be a blessing."

 

Wayseeker, I like this quote. I feel this is like a Koan. The call to Abraham I feel is to be blessed, to be bliss. If one wants to feel bliss one will fail, but if one is bliss one radiates bliss and is a blessing to others and the world. When I am around people who are in bliss I feel it from their pure being and I can't think of a greater service for me and others. Their opinions, judgements, facts and identity are not there, only bliss. I feel bliss with the image of Christ, no opinions, beliefs, facts, or identify just pure love, bliss, and a blessing to the whole earth. If I question it or believe in it the bliss disappears as my mind takes over the stage.

[JosephM]

Joseph,

Please believe me when I say that I am not looking for security or comfortability in my faith. To me, faith is not about security, it is about risk on things that are not provable, but yet seem true. And I don't find anywhere in Jesus' teachings that he calls us to comfort.

 

I perceived you were looking for more security and comfortability in your faith from your posts. An obvious error on my part.

 

Also It is recorded Jesus said "Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden and i will give you rest.Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." I believe that call to rest, is in Christ, and i find in it, both security and comfort. Perhaps i am looking from a different perspective?

 

My experience with God, and I think the Bible substantiates this (especially in the life of Jesus), is that God always calls us out of our comfort zone for the sake of others. So I'm not searching for the security of right answers or comfort of right beliefs. But what am I searching for?

 

Good question Bill. I perceived it was profound peace in your faith but perhaps i was mistaken so i yield to your own discovery.

 

 

I'm going to stumble in what I'm about to say. As I've mentioned, all I have is hints, fleeting glimpses. So I guess what I'll say initially is that I want a faith that is proved right, not mainly through holding to right concepts or doctrines, but through right actions. To me (and speaking in Christianese), whenever God reveals himself to someone, it is for mission; it is to call that person out of their comfort zone in order to do something meaningful and compassionate for others. Yes, our relationship with God has "personal benefits", I don't deny this at all. But it seems to me that as people of God or of faith, God calls us to action in this world. This is why Buddhism doesn't appeal to me. To me, it is focused on one feeling or experiencing Oneness with the One and when/after that happens, the resulting attitude is that the world is as it is, could be no different, and there is, therefore, no mission. All is perceived to be already One or okay. And that, imo, negates Jesus' central message about the kingdom of God. I simply don't believe Jesus was crucified for preaching a message that supported the status quo.

 

I certainly am not advocating Buddhism for you especially since you see it as a negative but i think you might benefit by a more thorough understanding of its tenets. Here you say that you want a faith that is proved right through actions, something meaningful and compassionate for others. Mission. The Buddhist path is not only about and focused on compassion but its main tenets include the eightfold path which leads to realization and includes focus on "right action", right speech", "right thought", "right intention", "right effort", "right view" etc. To me, not at all out of line with what you say you are looking for in Christianity.

 

 

 

I also still believe in truth (or want to), albeit in a different way. I want to believe and live in truth in such a way that my life is a blessing.

 

I don't think you are alone in your belief or the way you want to live in truth. Most all here have at one time or another expressed the desire to be a blessing to others.

 

 

But, again speaking honestly, when it comes to reconstruction, all I am getting to "build with" (a good faith) is just reminders that all we have is human opinions and, occasionally, the insinuation that because we have encountered bad "truth", that truth doesn't exist or that, if it does, it is utterly hopeless for us to know or live it.

 

I hear you Bill and i am a bit surprised that your honest impression of what is communicated here (all I am getting to "build with} or at least pointed to here is no more than just human opinions. While we have a diversity of beliefs and views here, there seems to me to be much commonality and i personally do not see any overriding insinuation that truth doesn't exist. Perhaps you interpret the dialog differently than i in the communications by members including myself?

 

To me, when Jesus said that the truth would set us free, I don't think he meant "free from all beliefs." I think he meant free from the false illusions that keep us self-centered to the exent that 1) all we think about is ourselves and 2) we are immobilized by fear and doubt so that we can't make a difference in this world. So I guess I am seeking a good faith that results in my life is not good just for me, but for others also.

 

I think most all here would agree in principle to what you say . And speaking for myself i would agree.

 

Joseph

[Mike]

It's interesting how often Buddhism becomes part of a discussion on these forums...

 

If there's one thing that I've taken from Buddhism, it is its epistemology -- its theory of knowledge (i.e. how it answers the question, What is reality and how do we know it?). Epistemology is absolutely essential to it -- and really, to any worldview. Everything is predicated on just what "knowledge" is. If we do not have a robust sense of what it means to know, we will not have a robust sense of what it means to be. Why? Because "knowledge" and "being" cannot be extricated. They are non-independent. To say one 'knows' is to express a state of being; to express a state of being is knowledge.

 

If you're approaching reality only through the modern lens of scientific positivism, you're going to be very constricted in what you can say about the world, and hence what you can know about it. You're going to have a very limited philosophical vocabulary. There can be no certainty because there is no real knowledge. And if there is no real knowledge then there is no real truth. Yet, if there is real knowledge then there is real truth, and that truth will take on the character of that knowledge just as any real knowledge must have the character of truth. The trick is really embracing 'truth'. Is it an object in your possession? I doubt it. Truth and meaning are constantly in play, mirroring each other, interpenetrating, never pinned down, never finally defined, always pure and open, constantly articulating itself as it will throughout the shifting sands of actuality. Where truth stops and meaning begins, where knowledge stops and reality begins, is intrinsically ambiguous -- reality is much too alive and intimate for it to be so neatly divided into independent categories. Where is the truth in all this? Too close to point a finger at it, too close to grasp. Does that mean it isn't there? Though some may think that such a state of affairs means there is no truth -- I think they've missed the obvious immanence of it all.

 

My advice for anyone is to develop a very robust epistemology. Don't grudgingly accept definitions of knowledge that lead to the view that there isn't any. If that is where "knowledge" leads, I think there has been a wrong turn somewhere; perhaps one's definition has been too narrowly conceived.

 

Peace,

Mike

[BillM]

I'll take a very brief stab at my own definitions of these key words and phrases:

 

Reality - That which exists independant of our subjective concepts and experiences of life.

 

Truth - Relational ties between the objective Reality and our subject concepts and experiences.

 

Knowledge - Concepts that help us explain that which we believe to be true.

 

Wisdom - The ability to apply both truth and knowledge to life in such a way that life reflects reality (as closely as possible).

 

Reality, to me, just is. It cannot be tweaked by humans. Though it is with us, it exists independant of us. Some might call this God. But we are subjective creatures and do not have the "equipment" to sense or comprehend this Reality in its fullness. Nevertheless, there are times, events, and people in which we experience this Reality to reach out or even become part of us. This is, to me, our search for and experience of truth. Knowledge is human-framed concepts that we believe come as close as possible to explaining the way things really are. But knowledge changes as we experience more truth, doesn't it? Wisdom, though again human-framed, is knowing how to apply either truth or knowledge to real-world situations in such a way as to either change things for the better or to encourage others to seek wisdom, knowledge, truth, and Reality.

 

ws

[Mike]

Hi Bill,

 

I used to define those words very similarly to the way you just did. But the problem that arose for me -- and I perceive that the dissonance exists for you as well -- is that by definition reality then becomes fundamentally inaccessible to you. And if reality is inaccessible, it might as well not be there and there is no reason to suppose it exists. My search for a different epistemology was driven by a desire to preserve a sense of realism or reality -- but I found that under my then-present presuppositions, such was impossible for me.

 

In the interest of dialogue I'd like to respond to the way you've defined these terms.

 

Reality - That which exists independant of our subjective concepts and experiences of life.

 

I would ask, then, If reality is not involved in your subjectivity, how do you know it, and by which means do you hope to have access to it? Under your present definition, one is essentially cut off from 'reality' by definition. How can "reality" be independent of everything you know and are? Either you then don't exist, or reality doesn't. How can both be maintained?

 

Truth - Relational ties between the objective Reality and our subject concepts and experiences.

 

In my view truth is reality and reality is truth. Under the definition you provide, what are these ties and how do they mediate the supposed 'objective' reality? In other words, similar to my above statement, how does the 'objective reality' manage to get into your 'subjective experience' while remaining independent of you and having nothing to do with you?

 

Knowledge - Concepts that help us explain that which we believe to be true.

 

I can agree with that in a qualified way. Concepts do help us explain what we believe to be true, no doubt. But I think knowledge is much more robust than that. It involves our whole being.

 

Wisdom - The ability to apply both truth and knowledge to life in such a way that life reflects reality (as closely as possible).

 

I would identify wisdom as 'knowledge' -- 'knowing', 'insight' -- and it is not divorced from reality itself. I do not know what 'reflecting' reality might mean. It implies that experience and knowledge isn't real, and that 'reality' is forever some place beyond knowledge and experience. But isn't such a reality just what is not real (i.e. it does not actually involve us in any way?).

 

Note that this does not mean that there is no reality beyond myself and my experience. That is not the question. I believe that there is a lot that exists beyond me, but what is the nature of that reality? Is the inward so unlike the outward? Why do you suppose? That there is a reality beyond me does not mean that that reality is 'objective' any more than my reality is. Perhaps all things are inwardly existing -- radiating from inwardness outward. What do we pit ourselves against a supposedly 'objective' reality? Perhaps the universe is many-centered and inter-subjective. Would that make it any less real? No. More real, I'd say.

 

Peace,

Mike

[BillM]

Mike, it's my bedtime and I gotta hit it.

 

But let me respond, briefly, to your first assumption. For me, we know Reality through truth. It is relational, much of it metaphorical. Truth is the "channel" by which Reality makes itself known and accessible to us. Therefore, falsehood does not lead us to Reality. It leads us to illusion or distortion. Falsehood is or cuts off the flow of Reality to us, therefore leaving us wandering in the dark, not knowing which way to turn in order to deal with life.

 

Having said that, yes, we still experience truth subjectively. How can we not? But I think it is foolish of us to suppose that our 3-pound brains can know and experience all of Reality. On the other hand, I also think it is foolish say that either Reality doesn't exist or that we can't know any truth. This is *in my opinion* where I see PC going in its desire to be all-inclusive. We make no claims about reality, we make no claims about truth. All is relative.

 

Reality, to me, can only be very partially understood (such as the senses reveal). The limitation is on our part. But it can be experienced through the vehicle of truth. It is still limited, like trying to pour the ocean through a straw, but it is nonetheless "real."

 

That's all I have time for now.

 

ws

[Mike]

Hi Bill,

 

But let me respond, briefly, to your first assumption. For me, we know Reality through truth. It is relational, much of it metaphorical. Truth is the "channel" by which Reality makes itself known and accessible to us.

 

I guess I have approached this differently, because I don't look at reality as something which is 'channeled' or 'mediated'. Nor do I suppose that there is any sharp distinction between truth and reality. To me, our contact with reality constitutes both reality and knowledge.

 

Having said that, yes, we still experience truth subjectively. How can we not?

 

This is exactly what I have been asking The real question is, How can we? --- if reality is something intrinsically independent and "objective", out-there? I think you're wielding these terms in a way that makes truth/reality, philosophically speaking, inaccessible to you, and therefore it becomes very difficult to explain how you or I can talk about truth or reality at all. If there is an ultimate truth about the nature of reality, why do you suppose that it is beyond yourself (in a quantitative sense), when by definition it should involve and implicate you intimately, wholly, and you should also implicate it wholly and intimately? Truth/reality, to me, is something total. But not merely in a measurable and quantitative way, but a qualitative way, it is the truth of my existence. Anything beyond that is just counting and measuring. This truth of existence is not a material concept or object.

 

Ok, I'll shut up now and allow you to get some rest.

 

Peace,

Mike

[BillM]

Mike,

 

Not much time this morning, either.

 

In my view, Reality is part of me also. Or I am part of it. But it doesn't disappear when I do. This is why Christianity refers to it as the More. These are, of course, all metaphors, but Christians have always said (and experienced) God as something More than just themselves, Someone (or something) bigger, something Transcendant, an ocean in which we are just a drop. The drop is still part of the ocean, but the two are not co-equal. What you've said (that all you have is the truth of "your" existence) goes directly back to my OP, why bother? If all we have on this planet is 7 billion little subjective realities running around with no bigger Reality to which they point or are related, then why bother seeking anything Higher, anything More? If such is the case, that all we have is us, then why not simply eat, drink, and be merry? It is an appealing philosophy, I'll grant that.

 

ws

[JosephM]

Having said that, yes, we still experience truth subjectively. How can we not? But I think it is foolish of us to suppose that our 3-pound brains can know and experience all of Reality. On the other hand, I also think it is foolish say that either Reality doesn't exist or that we can't know any truth. This is *in my opinion* where I see PC going in its desire to be all-inclusive. We make no claims about reality, we make no claims about truth. All is relative.

ws

Bill,

Good Morning.

Yes, it seems also foolish to me for one to say that Reality doesn't exist. Of course, i have never heard someone say that here in this community. Perhaps it is as Mike indicates just a difference in definitions that would give you that impression and then hold that opinion of PC. To me, you may be correct that PC does not make any claims about reality and truth but what is does do is encourage members on their journey to settle it for themselves in dialog and exploration. In my opinion, i find that most refreshing and less constrictive but it certainly can be a difficult phase of ones journey if one requires more structure.

Joseph

[GeorgeW]

To me, you may be correct that PC does not make any claims about reality and truth but what is does do is encourage members on their journey to settle it for themselves in dialog and exploration. In my opinion, i find that most refreshing and less constrictive but it certainly can be a difficult phase of ones journey if one requires more structure.

Joseph

 

Joseph,

 

I think PC does make some, at least implicit, claims. First, it makes claims about moral truth, behavior and respect for diverse perspectives. Second, it makes a broad claim about ultimate reality (God), and this is what I would suggest distinguishes it from secular humanism.

 

Also, I think it implicitly accepts Jesus as authoritative, whether also divine or not.

 

What it doesn't do, IMO (that troubling qualifier), is make very specific claims about that Reality (like "His head and his hair were white as white wool, white as snow; his eyes were like a flame of fire, his feet were like burnished bronze, refined as in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of many waters . . .")

 

George

[JosephM]

George,

 

In that respect, the eight points do indeed make some implicit claims concerning those points you mention but i didn't think that is what Bill had in mind when he made his statement. I felt he was thinking PC should in his opinion possibly make some more concrete specific claims or take positions concerning reality. I didn't really think his "no claims" statement meant no implied claims but rather specific claims so i was looking at it from that vantage point. Perhaps he can clarify.

 

I am in agreement with your post. Thanks for making that distinction.

 

Joseph

[BillM]

Joseph,

 

Again, it is hard for me, at this point, to describe just what is going through my heart and head. You know that my own affirmations of God are not based in scientific concepts or church-held doctrines, but in my experiences of and with the Divine. Put simply, God has proved himself to me to my satisfaction. This by no means implies that I know all about God (what a foolish claim that would be, right?), just that I have enough to go on that I trust what I have learned and experienced to continue my faith-journey, although along a different path than before.

 

So I feel as though I am standing at a crossroads with, perhaps, many paths open before me. And it is probably no longer a matter of right and wrong paths, but of profitable paths, of which path(s) seem wise for me to invest in, maybe of better or best, albeit with no guarantees beforehand.

 

One path might be called the mystical or the contemplative. No doubt many have traveled this path and find great joy and enlightenment there. They are, perhaps, at peace with themselves and maybe focus on simply being present to reality as it presents itself, not taking much thought for yesterday or for tomorrow. There is self-knowledge and inner peace in this path…but it doesn’t feel right for me.

 

Another path might be called the knowledge path. This path consist of knowing all that is knowable, of deep study and serious theology reflection. Many choose this path. They seek understanding. I’ve somewhat walked this path myself (though often stumbling along it also). There is intellectual growth and, perhaps, the resolution of cognitive dissonance on this path…but, again, I’m not sure that this path is ultimately what I want or need.

 

Another path might be called the traditional path. It is well-worn because so many people have traveled this way. While there are some things along this path that are valuable, I find it to be too constrictive, with marks telling us exactly where our feet should be placed. This is definitely not the path for me.

 

Another path might be called the aesthetic path. People take it simply because it looks beautiful. There is probably much freedom there for wandering and exploration. No doubt it is inspiring and causes its travelers to be thankful for what is. I have to admit that I am drawn to this path.

 

And then there seems to be a path that, to be honest, does not seem too inviting. I’ll call it the selfless path, not because there is no self, but because it seems to involve leaving the path of what one considers best for one’s self for the sake of helping others. We might also call this the pragmatic path. This path is not taken primarily for the blessings that it brings for the ones on the journey, but so that those on the journey might be blessings to others. And that involves personal cost. Again, not very inviting, especially if one thinks that religion is about one’s own happiness or peace or knowledge or acceptability to others. I don’t really want to go down this path…but I seem to be drawn to it. Why? I don’t know. Do I think it will earn me brownie-points with God? I don’t think so. Do I think it will make me a better person (not better than others, just intrinsically better)? I don’t know. Do I think it might make some kind of difference to those I love and, perhaps, in some small way to the world? I foolishly hope so. But I know that there are no guarantees. Nevertheless, I feel as though I do need to or should choose a path. And this one seems to be calling me, not to be blessed, but to be a blessing.

 

Granted, all of these paths have some commonalities. None of them are completely isolated from one another and, perhaps, crisscross each other from time to time. That, in itself, brings me some comfort.

 

Nevertheless, I feel that I need to take this path of pragmatism. This forum has been a great blessing to me in many ways, but, just speaking for myself, I don’t want to spend the rest of my discussing “progressive answers” when we’ve already decided that there are none. Every day that passes for me is one less day that I have to live, and, frankly, with all the problems in the world and with all the opportunities that we have to be blessings, I don’t want to spend my time trying to determine if Jesus was gay or not. Unlike some here, I believe that our world needs to be changed if our children are to have a future. It is against this backdrop that, given *some* of the conversation here, I ask myself, “Why bother?” No doubt some of these things are important to people. We are all at different points in our journeys. But I do wonder why this forum, in general, is more about what we are progressively thinking than what we are progressively doing? This is why I said I am not searching for a Progressive “Creed.” Creeds reflect where we stand, not what we are doing or where we are going.

 

I think this will be my last post on this subject (and there was much rejoicing). It has helped me to “talk this out” and I thank you, Joseph, and all the rest for listening. I really appreciate all the constructive feedback and good-natured criticism that has been shared here. Please don’t take my criticism as ill-intended, for there is, no doubt, a good-sized log in my own eye. It is just that I feel the need to move beyond theology to practice. Maybe it might be helpful to have some kind of orthopraxy forum here where members can share specifics of how they are involved in being blessings to others. Then again, maybe I am, as usual, just off my nut.

 

ws

[rivanna]

Bill,

 

I admired your post…and a good reminder about volunteer service to the community.

Haven't read everything here, just a few musings that come to mind –

 

To me it is interesting to speculate on God’s nature, purpose, degree of involvement in human history, etc—

but at the end of the day, what takes precedence-- the emotional / spiritual need to pray; or the intellectual need to define God’s attributes in comprehensible terms? for me it’s the former, but not making a value judgment –just a personal preference.

 

I can only imagine how difficult it is to renounce a fundamentalist insistence on certainty, without going to the opposite extreme of total scepticism— but there is a middle ground.

 

And different kinds of knowledge: the rational, cerebral type, and the biblical kind of knowing-- intimate relationship--trusting that in private soul-searching prayer, our innermost self is in contact with the heart of the Creator. To me that seems the most likely way we are to commune with the source of our being.

 

thanks for the thread.

[Mike]

Hi Bill,

 

First I’d just like to comment on something from a few posts ago.

 

But we are subjective creatures and do not have the "equipment" to sense or comprehend this Reality in its fullness.

 

I do not follow a Humean skepticism in which knowledge is constituted only by our interpretation of sensory experiences that are then projected onto the external world. In my view that’s theory, not knowledge. Knowledge is of a different order. For instance: to know that one is sensing. Not the ‘what’ that supposedly hides away behind those sensations, but that knowing itself.

 

Also, I also just want to encourage you not to mistake deconstruction for nihilism. Just because familiar ideas are negated does not mean that nothing remains. What remains is reality, and reality is intrinsically positive -- an affirmation.

 

These are, of course, all metaphors, but Christians have always said (and experienced) God as something More than just themselves, Someone (or something) bigger, something Transcendant, an ocean in which we are just a drop. The drop is still part of the ocean, but the two are not co-equal.

 

Bill I’m very glad you introduced this ocean metaphor into the discussion. I’ve been thinking about it. First off, it reminds me that Whitehead saw reality as an “ocean of feeling,” we being drops within that ocean. I’m also reminded of several eastern discourses that see reality as an ocean of wisdom. Reality is wisdom itself, not some dead object -- if we learn to open ourselves to it.

 

So, since this is a fantastic metaphor, I ask that we think about where it goes…

 

Is an ocean some “thing” that stands over-against each individual drop of water, apart from them? Is an ocean an object that is “mediated” or “channeled” through each drop? Obviously not. We know that each drop constitutes the ocean; each drop is co-creative of the ocean. The ocean has no pre-given essence that stands opposed to each drop. Each drop is the reality of the ocean; the ocean is the reality of each drop.

 

Would the ocean disappear if one drop were missing? In a sense, Yes, because each drop is integral to the state of the ocean at any moment. But of course in the ordinary sense, No. But what if every drop disappeared? Would the ocean still be there? Would Christ’s body still be here if not just one or a few members disappeared, but all of them?

 

Realizing intimacy in this regard does not mean there is no ocean. Rather, it radically changes what ‘ocean’ means and how one relates to the concept. You disappear and see the ocean; the ocean disappears and you see yourself. Which is true? Truth and meaning, knowledge and reality, identity and non-identity, one and many, interpenetrate in an essenceless dance.

 

This is important. The 'ocean' is not pre-given, but neither are 'you'. Truth implicates you wholly; you wholly implicate truth. Identity/self/being is bottomless, without identity, transparent, open.

 

What you've said (that all you have is the truth of "your" existence) goes directly back to my OP, why bother?

 

Why bother? I’d say, because it’s ‘the truth of your existence‘. Such would seem to be of intrinsic value; how could it be of disinterest?

 

If all we have on this planet is 7 billion little subjective realities running around with no bigger Reality to which they point or are related, then why bother seeking anything Higher, anything More?

 

Not just on this planet, and not just 7 billion people -- subjectivity I suggest pervades the entire fabric of the cosmos. Within this view, one might suggest if there is a universal truth, it is a universal subjectivity, realizing itself in completeness in each particular phenomenal expression. As Hart suggests, 'God' is infinite, and yet God's distance from finitude lies not in that he is far away, but that we, being finite, must embrace infinity through an endless sequence (think: play) of difference and identity.

 

Peace,

Mike

[JosephM]

Joseph,

 

 

Granted, all of these paths have some commonalities. None of them are completely isolated from one another and, perhaps, crisscross each other from time to time. That, in itself, brings me some comfort.

 

Yes, i also believe they do have commonalities and at different points in time we may find one more advantages than the other so that there may be no single defined fixed path that we follow for all time.

 

Nevertheless, I feel that I need to take this path of pragmatism.

 

Each must follow their own heart. That is a freedom accepted by most all PC's i have met. I wish you well on your choice and would not want it otherwise.

 

This forum has been a great blessing to me in many ways, but, just speaking for myself, I don’t want to spend the rest of my discussing “progressive answers” when we’ve already decided that there are none.

 

This is the part that perplexes me. When did we decide that there are none?

 

 

Every day that passes for me is one less day that I have to live, and, frankly, with all the problems in the world and with all the opportunities that we have to be blessings, I don’t want to spend my time trying to determine if Jesus was gay or not. Unlike some here, I believe that our world needs to be changed if our children are to have a future. It is against this backdrop that, given *some* of the conversation here, I ask myself, “Why bother?” No doubt some of these things are important to people. We are all at different points in our journeys. But I do wonder why this forum, in general, is more about what we are progressively thinking than what we are progressively doing? This is why I said I am not searching for a Progressive “Creed.” Creeds reflect where we stand, not what we are doing or where we are going.

 

Bill, to be frank, i think you short change the members here by such a statement or critcism. Many of the members here are indeed already involved in the things you mention. Perhaps it would be good for you to start such a thread here to see what members are actually doing. I think you would be surprised. I doubt that they spend all their time thinking and posting rather than doing. Not everyone has posted in the thread you referenced and obviously it is important to those who did.

 

Please don’t take my criticism as ill-intended, for there is, no doubt, a good-sized log in my own eye. It is just that I feel the need to move beyond theology to practice. Maybe it might be helpful to have some kind of orthopraxy forum here where members can share specifics of how they are involved in being blessings to others. Then again, maybe I am, as usual, just off my nut.

 

Excellent idea Bill. As far as your criticism in the quote above this last one, it may not be ill-intended but it appears to me to be without sufficient knowledge of other members to make such statements as you have. I take no offence as i realize that is the way you honestly feel about this forum.

[Mike]

I just wanted to append some thoughts about the metaphor discussed above in hopes of articulating further where one can go with this. Another Whiteheadian point came to mind. An individual ‘drop’ in this ‘ocean of feeling’ is defined by “what its world is for it,” and “what it is for its world.” Therefore, for each drop there is the entire ocean, and for the entire ocean there is each drop; and of course, each drop is not ‘pre-given’ -- locked into an intrinsic self-identity independent of the ocean, and vice-versa. There is no "simple identity" or "simple location" just-so.

[BillM]

Yes, i also believe they do have commonalities and at different points in time we may find one more advantages than the other so that there may be no single defined fixed path that we follow for all time.

 

I agree. We do seem to go through "seasons."

 

Each must follow their own heart. That is a freedom accepted by most all PC's i have met. I wish you well on your choice and would not want it otherwise.

 

Thank you.

 

This is the part that perplexes me. When did we decide that there are none?

 

I can't point to a specific post. It is just what *I perceive* to be the general attitude, mainly stemming from the supposition that all we have is personal opinions, that the only thing we are sure of is that we are not sure of anything.

 

Bill, to be frank, i think you short change the members here by such a statement or critcism. Many of the members here are indeed already involved in the things you mention. Perhaps it would be good for you to start such a thread here to see what members are actually doing. I think you would be surprised. I doubt that they spend all their time thinking and posting rather than doing. Not everyone has posted in the thread you referenced and obviously it is important to those who did.

 

That thread, Joseph, was only an example. I wasn't trying to short change anyone. Many people have shared something of the more pragmatic side of their faith in the "Personal Stories and Journeys" thread. If I am in error in my perceptions, all I can do is to apologize, ask forgiveness, and realize that, due to my misperceptions, I am not a good fit here. I admit that the problem is probably me. There is most likely still too much conservativism in me.

 

As far as your criticism in the quote above this last one, it may not be ill-intended but it appears to me to be without sufficient knowledge of other members to make such statements as you have. I take no offence as i realize that is the way you honestly feel about this forum.

 

Again, as you frequently say, if my words are without merit, then let them fall away. I cannot, at this time, escape my own subjectivity. Perhaps later. But, for now, all I can do is to ask that if I am, as I have said, "off my nut" about this whole thing, please forgive me, pray for me if you are the praying kind, and perhaps time will graciously allow some of my better contributions here to be a blessing to others. That's the best I can do for now, Joseph.

 

Wishing you the best,

Bill