BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

Religious Syncretism

  
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
babazuf
01:27 / 09.10.05
I am starting this thread in response to a debate that sprung up in the The Role of the Church in Modern Society thread.

So, what are your thoughts? Is syncretism or orthodoxy the way unto the ineffable light of the Lawd Almighty? I prefer a nice glass of wine, myself.

Directly in response to Jack Weird:

Different. Kinds. Of. Truth.

If you can't wrap your head around that concept, it's probably just as well that you're an atheist.

Truth. Is. Exclusive. That is what makes it "true." In an epistemological sense, what is "true" is actual and objective, separate from what can be perceived by the human body. Simply because you believe that rain is caused by angels' tears does not render the fact that rain is precipitated water vapour any less true.

However, for the purposes of this debate, if you would prefer to differentiate between lowercase-t truth and capital-T Truth, that can be done.

By the way, as I mentioned in the last thread, I reject the concept of objective truth, because I believe it to be logically at odds with itself. I only mention it to establish that your atheist jibe illustrated nothing except your personal propensity to commit ad hominem.

Why not? Why can't they all be true?

In fact, when you're dealing with an infinite God, isn't it more likely that they are all true?

Not without compromising the words and intent of the holy text in question.

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.
Revelation 22:18
 
 
Jack Fear
02:35 / 09.10.05
Okay, firstly and probably most importantly: If you don't believe in objective truth, then why are you arguing from that position? Do you agree with me about varieties of truth, or not? Or are you (of all people) trying to have it both ways?

Simply because you believe that rain is caused by angels' tears does not render the fact that rain is precipitated water vapour any less true.

You're misrepresenting my position. Of course it's not "less true." That's my whole point.

It's not either/or; it's both/and.

That's the leap of imagination, of understanding that's necessary for faith—or even for a fully informed discussion of faith, even if one does not have faith oneself. To attempt a discussion of faith in terms of objective empirical truth is fool's errand, worse than dancing about architecture.

If you cannot or will not make that leap, then this whole conversation is slightly pointless; it just becomes you and me yelling, "Is!" "Isn't!" "Is!" "ISN'T!" at each other, across a rapidly emptying dance floor.

Is that what you came here for? Not me. I came here to dance. You gonna take my hand, or what?


Now then. I find your invocation of Revelation a bit confusing. Because, you know, when St John referred to "this book"—I mean, you do know that he was referring to the Revelation itself, and only the Revelation? That he did not know, in his exile, that he was writing the final book of something called "the Bible"? Because the Bible as such did not exist yet.

You're forgetting (or purposely ignoring) the simple thing: all Scriptures (with the possible exception of the Qu'ran) are anthologies, and the work of divers hands working over a period of centuries, each of whom was—well, by golly, here's that metaphor again—working from a single piece of revealed wisdom that s/he had been given to record, and which s/he must have understood as one piece in an ongoing unfolding of God's relationship to Man—working to craft one piece of a puzzle the overall shape of which s/he could not hope to guess.

(That collection of puzzle pieces, by the way, contains plenty of statements that contradict each other, in word and intent. Funny how orthodox types seem to overlook that.)

The Christian Bible was only codified in any place quite late in the game, at the Council of trent in 1545. Hell, even the Torah wasn't fully codified until the Rabbinical Council of Jamnia in 70 AD, after the destruction of Jerusalem. And even today, there is still disagreement across sects (the Catholic church endorses certain books of Apocrypha later written off by mainline Protestant sects; Orthodox Jewish sects argue about how much importance to attach to ancillary works outside the Pentateuch itself).

Given the wealth of prophetic material available—including some gnostic texts that had not yet been discovered in the 16th Century—the selection and codification processes are inescapably somewhat arbitrary. In any case, they rely upon the notion that direct revelation simply ends at some point—that God used to speak to Man, at some time in the past, and then He stopped, and that everything after this stopping point is simply commentary and interpretation.

Quite simply, I don't buy that.

Maybe I'm not a proper syncretist, as you're using the term—more precisely, I guess you'd call me a mystic; I believe direct and unmediated contact with the voice of God is possible for all people. I'm not ruling anything out, and I am undecided on a great many things.

But.

The notion that the Voice of God fell silent when St. John laid down his quill at Patmos seems like bullshit to me—bullshit in 1545, and bullshit now. Same for the idea that God fell silent after His revelation to Muhammed. Nor were the golden tablets given Joseph Smith by the angel Moroni God's last words to His creation.

Who can tell an infinite God when He's said enough already? Not me, and it seems pointless to try.

And that, in a nutshell, is the foundation of my beef with orthodoxy.
 
 
Jack Fear
02:36 / 09.10.05
Sorry, missed this:

However, for the purposes of this debate, if you would prefer to differentiate between lowercase-t truth and capital-T Truth, that can be done.

Depends. Which is which, in your estimation?
 
 
grant
02:46 / 09.10.05
from the other thread:

In that holy text of your choice, He has done all the hard interpretive work for you - all that's left for you now is to not fuck up.

You should probably take a glance at this article, especially section VII.

And then look over this and this, just to cover the major three People of the Book.

There are similar traditions in pretty much every system that has a book.

I really want to know what the "hard interpretive" work is, in your view.

Do you actually know what the Old Testament is? How it relates to the New Testament? How the Gospels relate to the Epistles? Why all the books in the Bible have different people's names on them?


(Jack pretty much covered this already, but I think the root of your comment is a grave misconception about the nature of religious texts.)
 
 
Unconditional Love
06:21 / 09.10.05
What if we are talking about many gods and goddesses and not one god here. How does religous syncretism stand up in the face of polytheism ? , many systems will acknowledge an all pervading life force but not all personify it as one divine figure.

Isn't it a little arrogant to assume that there is only one god, doesn't that in and of itself reinforce the notion of one self that holds one view point about a certain matter creating the premise of an all inclusive perception that reduces everything to a monocultural divine conception?

When i think of Religous syncretism i picture roman/greek pantheons, but it is not limited to that, many conquering nations absorb religous attitudes of those they conquer just as those conqured absorb the attitudes of conquerers. The interplay also happens with trade and as communities and nations mix and diversify. Is it nessecary to reduce all gods and goddesses to one principle, rather than say recognise the diversity of religous experience, accept the similarities, yet understand that its the differences that also help to create a variety of gods and goddesses.
 
 
astrojax69
22:05 / 09.10.05
cross-posted from headshop

and of course one of the over-riding but unstated issues of this thread is how to reconcile some of the aspects of different religious doctrine: the christian states separate [as a rule] church from state and have done since constantine, but the q'ran and muslim states do not see any separation in the word of their god and the organisation and instantiation of a community and state with their 'religious' beliefs.

how will syncretism of christian and moslem beliefs ever take place without affecting, on a pardigmatic scale, the beliefs and moral prescripts of christians and moslems?
 
 
*
23:37 / 09.10.05
Since syncretism is more than just different religions coexisting, it means different religions influencing one another, I don't see how that it is possible either, astrojax. But I also don't see it as a negative. Religions undergo change and growth all the time, most notably in response to other religions, but also in response to political situations and the changing needs of their adherents.
 
 
grant
01:55 / 10.10.05
When i think of Religous syncretism i picture roman/greek pantheons,

When I picture it, the first things that come to mind are Santeria/Lucumi (Yoruba animism plus Roman Catholicism) and Tantric Buddhism (Vajrayana ((?)) Buddhism and Hinduism).

In the first, it's polytheism (sort of) adapting to monotheism (sort of), and in the second it's atheism (sort of) merging with polytheism (sort of). Both polytheisms have a concept of an ultimate, singular creative force who is at some remove from reality, the monotheism is kind of famous for flirting with idolatry in the form of cults of the saints (the official term), and the atheism is profoundly metaphysical, with lots of arcane details about spiritual realms and the beings that inhabit them. So the terms aren't exactly illustrative of the reality.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
11:57 / 10.10.05
Well, Temple regulars will know that I have been exploring Santo Daime, which is a syncretic goldmine. It has completely rewired my entire view of the Universe and my place within it, and pretty much about-faced me on just about every theological position I used to hold.

I mean, it's impossible not to believe in the stuff I used to 'keep an open mind' about, and 'model agnostic' waft about, and maintain a careful professional materialist rationalist get-out clause because, faith aside, it's stepped right up and looked straight into my eyes. Like, 'Oh. Well, that's that then.' To say I have 'faith' in this is somehow miles left of centre...like saying I have 'faith' that today is a beautiful sunny day. That's not how it works - I just stick my head out the window and there it is.

So, syncretism : I'm all for it.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
12:17 / 10.10.05
Also, I think it's important to be aware when discussing this, that the institutions that have sprung up around the teachings are not the teachings...Unfortunately a large part of wider religious organisation I observe seems to me to be worshipping ego, people very much into the church of themselves, decorated in memorised scripture, a stool to perch on looking down on the heathens. This unfortunately visible type is what I think informs many modern perceptions of 'religion' because people can't really be arsed to go straight to the teachings and do a little bit of work themselves...

I mean, Jesus and Mohammed...Here are two teachers whose ideas are still shaping the world we live in...maybe not as they might have liked, but the ideas are clearly important, and the teaching is recorded...it can be studied like any teaching and it's simplicity and subtlety is self-evident, requiring no stuffed shirts or special vestments to grasp entirely. Where's the conflict?
 
 
Leidan
18:04 / 10.10.05
Just a question on what kind of definition of Syncretism we're talking about here; Does syncretism always involve combining the *texts* of the different religions? The reason I ask is that this seems like a central thing that's making Riding incredulous.

For instance, can it instead be a conception where the various religious texts are held as being, say, inexact representations and guides toward a central mystical truth that can be accessed and shared by all? Thus the texts themselves, instead of their word being iron, are believed to be the culture- and power-affected words of various mystics and their disciples throughout various stages of history, and thus very flexible in their interpretation? i.e. while the various mystics had access to the truth of God, the *language* they could set this down in was biased and faulty.

So, Jung believed in God, but took passages from dozens of religious and non-religious texts when making utterances related to this belief - and at the same time would have been critical of many of them, and also believed in scientific objectivity and so forth. Is this a form of syncretism? It seems like alot of Riding's arguments do not hold up against this conception.
 
 
babazuf
05:44 / 11.10.05
Christ. Here goes my long and possibly self-contradictory rebuttal:

Okay, firstly and probably most importantly: If you don't believe in objective truth, then why are you arguing from that position? Do you agree with me about varieties of truth, or not? Or are you (of all people) trying to have it both ways?

I'm only arguing from this perspective for shits and giggles. I don't find either orthodoxy or syncretism particularly appealing, personally. The challenge for me is to logically defend something that I have no particular investment in.

It's not either/or; it's both/and.

. . .

If you cannot or will not make that leap, then this whole conversation is slightly pointless; it just becomes you and me yelling, "Is!" "Isn't!" "Is!" "ISN'T!" at each other, across a rapidly emptying dance floor.

Is that what you came here for? Not me. I came here to dance. You gonna take my hand, or what?

Were I a pretty girl, I would giggle coquettishly and flutter my eyelashes at this point.

My beef is largely with the use of the word "truth" in this context. I like language to be precise, and the idea of a statement being both true and not true at the same time irks me on a linguistic, though not an ideological level. I would prefer to think of them as two contradictory and paradoxical untruths chatting over wine and dinner.

Now then. I find your invocation of Revelation a bit confusing. Because, you know, when St John referred to "this book"—I mean, you do know that he was referring to the Revelation itself, and only the Revelation? That he did not know, in his exile, that he was writing the final book of something called "the Bible"? Because the Bible as such did not exist yet.

Whether or not he was only referring to The Apocalypse or the Bible as a volume is up for a certain amount of debate among Bible scholars - granted, the Bible as a volume did not exist until the thoroughly overrated Council of Nicaea in AD 300-and-something (damn Dan Brown and his good-time religion), but the fact (ha, "fact." Derrida would have a field day) remains that it is a cogent ethical and ideological volume - and assuming it was in fact written by Him Upstairs via human conduits (all Scripture being God-breathed, after all), what is applicable to one part of the volume is applicable to all parts.

What are your thoughts on the Epistles of Paul as a source of supernal wisdom? Because in his Epistle to the Galatians, he addressed the theological ramifications of syncretism directly, if not by name:

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
Galatians 1:6-11

Depends. Which is which, in your estimation?

For the purpose of this argument, let Truth represent those things (arguably) external to human perception which can be empirically or logically qualified - id est the precipitation of moisture in the atmosphere causing rainfall; and truth can represent those things which may exist, despite lacking a priori or a posteori in favour of their existence. The burden of proof lies upon lower-case truths.

I really want to know what the "hard interpretive" work is, in your view.

Hermeneutics bother me, to be honest. It always struck me as a bit of a redundant discipline given that the purpose of the Semitic religions (disregarding fringe sects such as certain Gnostic groups, the Sufis and followers of the Qabala) is not one of gnosis, but one of salvation. Whether or not you understand God is irrelevant if you are not saved by God.

What I mean by the "hard, interpretive work" subsequently has nothing to do with hermeneutics and everything to do with salvation - God outlaying the 613 Mitzvah, the Decalogue, Jesus teaching the disciples how to pray (Matthew 6:9-15), Allah providing the Five Pillars of Islam (you'll notice that Islam means "submission," not "let's have a party and go all Madame Blavatsky on his arse") and the crux of salvation itself (John 3:16). As long as you are saved, then what does hermeneutics matter?

I'm sorry to cut this short, but I'm running short of time and I will reply to those remaining as soon as I am able.
 
 
grant
16:55 / 11.10.05
I'm not sure I buy Judaism as being all that concerned with salvation, but I think I get your point.

Part of the deal with hermeneutics, by the way, is that texts are not homogenous. Genesis was written in a different language from Judith, which is different from Joel, which is very different from the New Testament. There are a few hundred years spanned in the Old Testament writings -- imagine trying to read a historical account from 1605, and see how the plain language then becomes all tangled up today.

With the Decalogue & subsequent elaborations of the law, an awful lot depends on legalese. Think: if your salvation (or inclusion in God's Chosen People) depends on it, it's really important to know if you're doing it right.

(Fun, pertinent story: the three words that led to the biggest schism in Christianity.)

Also, many of the oldest Bible texts were written well after the fact. Religion (and this is equally true for things like Santeria/Lucumi or Tantric Buddhism) isn't a matter of simply painting by numbers. Life is complicated. The books (if there even are books) offer guidelines for living life... but not step-by-step instructions for day-to-day existence. You have to interpret them for that.
 
 
alas
17:42 / 12.10.05
Like Grant, I'm not sure I buy that Judaism is fundamentally about "salvation"--I'm not Jewish and it's been awhile since I had a class on the Torah, but I don't hear Jews or Jewish scholars using that term much. So I'm skeptical that the equation is as simple as you're suggesting. And, generally, I'm still having a hard time pinning down your perspective, riding astride--it feels like it's pretty slippery: "hard interpretive work" is not, it turns out, "interpretive work" at all, apparently, but salvation--so "hard salvation" or the "hard work of salvation"? What does that mean?

I think one could argue that "salvation" does then automatically imply some level of interpretation--answering the question "Am I saved or not? And, if so, what does this mean for my life." But this doesn't seem to be your point--in fact you seem to be resisting that idea.

(I can't tell, sincerely, if you're saying you misspoke, or implying that we all need to read words like "interpretive" differently. Perhaps consider accepting some responsibility for arguing unclearly, and without the cop out, "I don't really believe what I'm saying"?)

I think part of my problem is that the grounds of your argument feel like they are shifting somewhat wildely: sometimes you produce passages from an English translation of the Bible as if it provides clear evidence for you claims about how truth works (not just, say, evidence for what one Western translation of one central religious text says about truth, as you apparently understand it.) There's been a kind of disconnect between the argument and the validity of the evidence, I think, that's further confused by the citation of, say, Derrida and historical/contextual evidence of the Bible's construction, which is operating from a pretty distinct epistemological framework.

In short, I can't quite make out where you stand, and, while I admit to being a fallible reader who does not have expertise in Biblical exegesis, I don't think that confusion is entirely my fault.
 
 
Mirror
21:41 / 12.10.05
Simply because you believe that rain is caused by angels' tears does not render the fact that rain is precipitated water vapour any less true.

You're misrepresenting my position. Of course it's not "less true." That's my whole point.

It's not either/or; it's both/and.

That's the leap of imagination, of understanding that's necessary for faith—or even for a fully informed discussion of faith, even if one does not have faith oneself. To attempt a discussion of faith in terms of objective empirical truth is fool's errand, worse than dancing about architecture.

If it's both/and, then what's the use of declaring anything true? I mean, hell, if every proposition, whether rational or backed up by observation or conjured by a deranged imagination is true, then what's the point of having a discussion in the first place?

Let's try an experiment, Jack. I propose that it's no longer necessary or desirable for you to eat, drink, or sleep. Let me know how it goes for you.
 
 
Jack Fear
23:19 / 12.10.05
On some level, I am already doing without food, water, or sleep. I both eat and starve; I both drink and thirst; I both sleep and, uh... lie awake without...uh... sleeping.

Do you get it?
 
 
Foust is SO authentic
23:54 / 12.10.05
So Jack...

A = non-A.

On what level is that true?
 
 
Foust is SO authentic
00:00 / 13.10.05
I'd also like to echo Mirror's question. If every statement is as good as any other statement, why bother ever expressing an idea?
 
 
babazuf
00:24 / 13.10.05
I'm not sure I buy Judaism as being all that concerned with salvation, but I think I get your point.

Granted, given that Orthodox Jews do not even believe in an afterlife. The Mitzvahs and the Decalogue are then guidelines to a righteous life - something worthy of attaining even for its own sake. I should have been more specific, my apologies.

With the Decalogue & subsequent elaborations of the law, an awful lot depends on legalese. Think: if your salvation (or inclusion in God's Chosen People) depends on it, it's really important to know if you're doing it right.

And unfortunately, the only person who can tell you is God. What is another human interpretation when compared to the awesome will of He on high? I'm sure that these hermeneutic works were written with the best of intentions, but that doesn't grant them any more credibility.

The books (if there even are books) offer guidelines for living life... but not step-by-step instructions for day-to-day existence. You have to interpret them for that.

I'm not sure that I agree there. The Levitican Laws are pretty explicit.

And, generally, I'm still having a hard time pinning down your perspective, riding astride--it feels like it's pretty slippery: "hard interpretive work" is not, it turns out, "interpretive work" at all, apparently, but salvation--so "hard salvation" or the "hard work of salvation"? What does that mean?

The purpose of the inclusion of the "salvation verses" was to remove ambiguity from the dogma of salvation and/or righteousness. Now there are no more excuses.

I would consider discerning the dogmas of salvation and righteousness pretty damn important, myself. That is what I mean by the "hard, interpretive work."

(I can't tell, sincerely, if you're saying you misspoke, or implying that we all need to read words like "interpretive" differently. Perhaps consider accepting some responsibility for arguing unclearly, and without the cop out, "I don't really believe what I'm saying"?)

I don't believe my reasoning to be particularly unclear, nor was my statement a "copout." Jack Weird was asking for my position on objective truth and why I was arguing for it, and I told it to him. Please read what I write in context.

I think part of my problem is that the grounds of your argument feel like they are shifting somewhat wildely: sometimes you produce passages from an English translation of the Bible as if it provides clear evidence for you claims about how truth works (not just, say, evidence for what one Western translation of one central religious text says about truth, as you apparently understand it.)

I'm not making claims about how truth works. I'm saying that syncretism and the Bible are incompatible.

Also, my Derrida comment was referring to my use of the word "fact." I intellectually reject the concept, but covertly affirm it through the constraints of language.

And Mirror, thank you.
 
 
Lurid Archive
01:34 / 13.10.05
A = non-A.

On what level is that true?

But the world and our thoughts and feelings about it aren't comprised of logic. I don't really share Jack's outlook, but it isn't nonsensical either.
 
 
Unconditional Love
07:32 / 13.10.05
The bible itself is synchrenistic, look at the influences within its structure, greek,egyptian,babylonian, some scholars would argue buddhism, creation and the flood story based on old sumerian stories, folklore. Then look at how christianity itself is synchrenistic in its various branches, various secular interpretations. Christianity breeds well with other faiths thats how its always spread, similar in character to buddhism. Synchretism is an essential part of its character, history will back me up.
 
 
Foust is SO authentic
12:15 / 13.10.05
But the world and our thoughts and feelings about it aren't comprised of logic. I don't really share Jack's outlook, but it isn't nonsensical either.

When you say "the world," do you mean our physical surroundings? Or something else?

To be clear, I don't think anything is "comprised of logic." I think things are described by logic. And of course, the correlation isn't necassarily 1:1.

This being said, there are two views of the non-physical world at odds in this thread. One view says the non-physical world follows the law of non-contradiction just as much as the physical world. And the other view says that at least some aspects of the non-physical world are not subject to the law of non-contradiction.

I have no idea how to resolve the conflict. My questions were just geared to find out exactly what Jack thinks.
 
 
Lurid Archive
12:56 / 13.10.05
And the other view says that at least some aspects of the non-physical world are not subject to the law of non-contradiction.

But what about the possibility that the law of non-contradiction isn't meaningful? Much of language, and many of the things we have to say don't have binary truth values. Leaving aside things like "Batman is a great movie", it isn't even clear if "The sky is blue" can in any reasonable sense be said to have a definite truth value. That way of thinking just isn't appropriate, and so contradiction becomes much more slippery. And this point is just as valid in the physical world - really pinning down what it means for something to be true is kinda tricky and thinking of things as either true or false just doesn't work. Argue with any creationist and you'll see what I mean.
 
 
Mirror
13:03 / 13.10.05
On some level, I am already doing without food, water, or sleep. I both eat and starve; I both drink and thirst; I both sleep and, uh... lie awake without...uh... sleeping.

Do you get it?

Not really. It's the "on some level" bit that causes problems for me. Sure, you can posit that in some parallel universe you're not eating, drinking, sleeping, existing, etc. However, even if such an assertion could be objectively shown to be true, I'm not convinced that it would be meaningful unless there were some causal relationship between what goes on in that universe and what goes on in this one.

And if you could somehow prove that to be true, I would suggest that it'd be Nobel Prize material, at the very least.
 
 
Mirror
13:24 / 13.10.05
Much of language, and many of the things we have to say don't have binary truth values. Leaving aside things like "Batman is a great movie", it isn't even clear if "The sky is blue" can in any reasonable sense be said to have a definite truth value. That way of thinking just isn't appropriate, and so contradiction becomes much more slippery.

The fact that many of the assertions we make don't have objective binary truth values doesn't preclude the existence of objectively true statements, so I'm not sure why you say that "That way of thinking just isn't appropriate." The examples you gave are both imprecise statements, the first moreso than the second, but if you fully qualified them then it could be possible to assign a binary truth value to each.

Now, it may be that uncertainty at the quantum level does preclude the objective truth of a large number of statements about the world, but I'm not well enough educated on the topic to have a coherent discussion about that proposition.

Speaking of which, in terms of religious syncretism it is interesting to see how frequently quantum uncertainty is starting to pop up in discussions about religion. A lot of new-age religion is adopting at least the language of science, if not necessarily the rigor, to support its position.
 
 
Foust is SO authentic
13:50 / 13.10.05
I'm pretty sure I understand you, Mirror, and to the extent that I do understand, I agree. But I'm not sure you are actually defending Jack's position.

Look at Jack's quote from the mother thread:

But rain is also the tears of angels, ceaselessly wept for a sinful, fallen world—and that is also an undeniable truth, albeit a different kind of truth.

I read this as:

There are non-physical entities known as angels. They percieve our world as corrupted (sinful, fallen) from an original state of non-corruption. They have an emotional reaction to this corruption, and their reaction causes the physical phenomona of rain.

Those statements do have binary truth value.

If Jack meant his statements purely as metaphor - the angels represent humanities collective conscience, for example - that is one thing. But if he was suggesting a particular cosmology, then he needs to scrap even the principle of non-contradiction.

And if he does, I'll have a few more questions to ask.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
17:29 / 13.10.05
On some level, I am already doing without food, water, or sleep. I both eat and starve; I both drink and thirst; I both sleep and, uh... lie awake without...uh... sleeping.

Do you get it?

Not really. It's the "on some level" bit that causes problems for me. Sure, you can posit that in some parallel universe you're not eating, drinking, sleeping, existing, etc.

I think he just means that it is often unnecessary or undesirable to eat, sleep and drink in this universe, just as you proposed.
 
 
Lurid Archive
17:59 / 13.10.05
The examples you gave are both imprecise statements, the first moreso than the second, but if you fully qualified them then it could be possible to assign a binary truth value to each.

I'm really going to have to stop this arguing someone else's position but....firstly, the idea that you can make completely unambiguous statements is pretty contentious. More importantly, while you might be able to go away for a few months and work on a sufficiently qualified statement that said something true about the boiling point of water, it isn't really the point. No one talks like that. And part of the point being made is that ambiguity, metaphor and layers of meaning are to be *embraced*, not dispelled (which is probably impossible anyway).

Sufficiently complex and sufficiently interesting things you want to say just aren't simply true or false. Even *I* - loud mouthed atheist materialist - think that thats the wrong way to approach these things.
 
 
grant
19:51 / 13.10.05
With the Decalogue & subsequent elaborations of the law, an awful lot depends on legalese. Think: if your salvation (or inclusion in God's Chosen People) depends on it, it's really important to know if you're doing it right.

And unfortunately, the only person who can tell you is God. What is another human interpretation when compared to the awesome will of He on high? I'm sure that these hermeneutic works were written with the best of intentions, but that doesn't grant them any more credibility.

Hmm. I think my point is that you're not there to blindly accept the words of the interpreters; you yourself are an interpreter. You might choose to believe that this version or that version of the truth is closer to capital-T Truth, but the fact that you're choosing makes you an active agent in an interpretive process. The only person who can tell you that God is speaking is you.
 
 
grant
19:58 / 13.10.05
A = non-A.

On what level is that true?


On the level that a triangle with a line across the middle is not a sound made with an open mouth and slightly tensed tongue.

A is not "A".

If you'd prefer to keep the discussion in the realm of graphical representations, the little spaceship from Asteroids is also non-A.

It only *looks like* an A.
 
 
Mirror
21:49 / 13.10.05
Sufficiently complex and sufficiently interesting things you want to say just aren't simply true or false. Even *I* - loud mouthed atheist materialist - think that thats the wrong way to approach these things.

But, can you decompose the statement about rain being angel's tears in such a way that it is true in our universe? If not, then it's false.

On the level that a triangle with a line across the middle is not a sound made with an open mouth and slightly tensed tongue.

This is confusing semantics. A=A is an expression of the logical identity relationship. It has nothing to say about our representation of A, which is what you're talking about here.
 
 
Mirror
22:00 / 13.10.05
Sorry for the double, but in reviewing the thread to make sure I wasn't missing something I came across this statement, which I think needs a little clarification:

By the way, as I mentioned in the last thread, I reject the concept of objective truth, because I believe it to be logically at odds with itself.

hiccups?
 
 
babazuf
01:40 / 14.10.05
Watch me titter.

I'm not going to make the absurd statement that objective truth does not exist (ostensibly a paradoxical statement until you consider the "universe" the sum total of a series of subjectively true statements), but I am dubious from a purely epistemological perspective.

Consider that our method for gathering information about the universe is via our five senses. The assumption that (plural)you exist as an entity is somewhat taken for granted (post the Lacanian mirror stage), but that cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. True, one cannot make the positive statement "I do not exist!" without contradicting the Law of Non-Contradiction; however, with that said, it does not automatically render the opposite statement true. As far as I am concerned, the only thing that "I do not exist!" proves is that you don't not exist. There is always a grey area.

That all said, for the purposes of this slash-and-parry, I am arguing as if there is an objective truth separate to ourselves (which is certainly not out of the question - however, with only suggestive evidence and a lack of a definitive proof I am unwilling to support the concept whole-heartedly), so my personal views on the nature of truth are somewhat irrelevant in the context of this debate.
 
 
grant
02:51 / 14.10.05
This is confusing semantics. A=A is an expression of the logical identity relationship. It has nothing to say about our representation of A, which is what you're talking about here.

In this case, I think the representation is part of the identity -- I mean, when discussing the ineffable & infinite, all you've got are pointers. (Insert parable of blind men and elephant here.)

Which is a sophisty way of saying logic is just part of the deal, I suppose. What is A if it's not a representation?
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
08:41 / 14.10.05
Consider that our method for gathering information about the universe is via our five senses

Not always.
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply