Front PageTRUTH As A Commons
Submitted by reido on Thu, 08/30/2007 - 11:34. Christology emerging Epistemology faithcommons
In recent days under the broad topic of Thematics, several directions have crossed my mind. Most notable was that I saw the need for Thematics to be seen as a control mechanism that more often than not places limits on behavior and faith. For instance it is very common to first meet a person and be asked, "Where do you go to church?" That is a loaded question -- loaded with all kinds of value judgments and connecting Themes.
It was this "Limiting" aspect that steered me again to the Commons as a means of understanding Universals. Most Themes are already highly developed and carry a lot of luggage that time has built into them, so it benefits me to try to view back in time to see how things might have been in the days before the Synods and Councils told people how and what to believe and do.
"TRUTH" is one of those words that is so loaded with value that the meaning is overshadowed by the authority enforcing it. If we look though, I think we can see a more primitive and simple view of Truth that I will describe here as Truth Commons -- accessible for all and benefitting all (universal). For starters, such widely known teachings as "You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free" John 8:32. It is common to read commentaries where pages explain this as a dictum linking every verse in Scripture that has any lexical bearing on the word, but that is not what the original hearers understood because they did not possess a thick lexicon or even a concordance or chapter and verse Old and New Testaments. Such a researched approach simply did not exist for more than a millenium after the words were spoken.
What then was Jesus drawing from in order for those listening to comprehend meaning? Was there a Common ground? At the same time, was there an Uncommon ground? That is, a limited viewpoint that took particular aspects of Jewish leadership into account that the Common man was not grounded in. Are both the distant and the near perspectives at play in the descriptive language? And does that hold a possible key to understanding the Commons and its relationship to the Limited sphere of Thematics?
Food for thought.
reido
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Welcome Back From Travels
Submitted by reido on Fri, 09/07/2007 - 06:31.
Bill
You are so right when it comes to knowing what is in your soul that makes happiness. I remember vacations that we mistakenly took with friends who had to have the itinerary all mapped out and hit the ground running each day to make the destination and keep the appointed schedule. The process turned out to be unbearable for us to the extent that we hardly, if ever, take vacations with friends.
reido
» reply
The Truth Shall Set You Free
Submitted by bill on Sun, 01/27/2008 - 17:25.
This thread needs more discussion, so I hope to push it out for more consideration.
If I understand correctly, Reido is pointing out that Themes, digested by scholars for the easy consumption by ordinary folk, actually limit understanding by building walls of definition around it And, as he points out, Truth is one of the important themes that get limited by marinades and predigestion. Often in life it is the hard work of chewing our own food that earns us that hard-won understanding that just doesn't taste the same in pureed form.
Also, if we look again at the chapter that Reido mentioned (John 8) as a whole, we find a dialog between the rebel Jesus and the accepted religious leadership. The discussion is on two levels, with the literalists missing every point because they are looking for Themes, rather then listening for understanding. What Jesus is saying here, basically, is this: the way one lives proves something about their parents. And parent, is not here designating mothers and fathers, but what from the child learns. If one makes Truth her parent, then she will come to resemble her parent. On the other hand, if one is a lier and a hater, then he is the son of the Devil. Pure, and simple.
We will become like our parents.
bill
» reply
Doing Violence to the Scriptures
Submitted by reido on Tue, 01/29/2008 - 20:01.
Bill
This is going to be Heresy, plain and simple. To do what Jesus did...to violently reinterpret Scripture and relate it to concurrent life seems to be his modus operandi. "But," people will say, "He was the Son of God." If we think about what those words mean, it proves the point I am trying to make about Truth.
It requires a revolution of sorts to be free, otherwise we would ignorantly remain in bondage. To what? The leadership of Judaism insisted that they had been slaves to no one. We might argue the same...unless we know that we have been prevented from being free.
Now I am not advocating Anarchy. That is to say, to simply discard the values and meanings of a distant past without seeing the need to improve life would be stupid. One would be better off a slave than to be an irresponsible free man and go about murdering people. At least the slave system offers some brakes on the dangers of freedom abused -- that may well be why many prefer not to think beyond the established boundaries of belief.
How then, would anyone be advised to go about this revolution? One of the ways I believe this can be done for the betterment of mankind is to reinterpret Scripture just like Jesus did.....to see the life in the words as they applied to the ancients, and to resurrect them in application to life today.
In the face of fundamentalism and its missions now taking place, humanity might do well to consider that our ingenuity in killing others is not Faith -- never has been. It is simply a repetition of the same old story of our own bondage and the crucial need for freedom.
reido
» reply
Lifting up the Son of Man Like the Serpent
Submitted by bill on Tue, 01/29/2008 - 22:23.
Reido,
The reason I've not yet replied to your other comment is that I've been stuck trying to figure out the major differences between the numbers three and four. (Three for completeness, divinity; Four for earth. Etc.) What I've learned is related to this discussion as well. But I'm not quite ready to show my ignorance of ancient spiritual symbolism and gematria. Still, I found something that might be of interest to you, and that is related to what you just wrote.
What I found out is that if you write the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew (י ה ו ה, these are written right-to-left, as you probably know) from top to bottom, then you get a figure that looks like a human being. (as it appears now: legs, trunk, arms, head) It also can be interpreted as the four types of matter, according to the ancients: earth, water, air (spirit or soul), and fire. Which are the levels of maturity that a person should go through. This revelation reminded me of Jesus's late night conversation with Nicodemus in John 3.
Jesus tells Nic that one cannot see the kingdom of God unless he (she) is born of spirit (or from above). Then Jesus says: “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” This is likely a contrast between those controlled by flesh or emotion, and those controlled by reason or better. Or, he's contrasting Law with higher Reason. A few lines later Jesus says: “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.”
The character Yodh looks a bit like a serpent, even though Wikipedia says that it might be related to the Egyptian arm hieroglyph. Speaking of Egyptian, Yodh also looks like the serpent (Uraeus) sticking out of the Pharaoh's crown.
Of course the typical, and I suppose official? interpretation regarding “lifted up” is Jesus's up and coming crucification. But that interpretation has bothered me for quite some time now. Although I'm not convinced that this is the right path either. It is very interesting, and it's intuitive.
bill
» reply
Lifting the Serpent
Submitted by reido on Wed, 01/30/2008 - 18:55.
Bill
It has been awhile, so I am rusty on Kabbalistic terms, but I do recall that Kabbalists regard these biblical symbols as different ways of symbolizing the same thing: Tree of Life, the Serpent, the Star of David, the Menorah, the layout of the Temple.
I know literalists will scoff at the idea that symbolism can have such deep meaning and be repeated thruout Scripture. But they forget...symbols came first -- before descriptive language. Also, I believe the key to understanding these symbols is in their simplicity. That is, they originated to call to mind very basic concepts -- they developed later into verse, chapter, book, but first these concepts were oral and symbolic.
Did Jesus use symbolism? "Not one jot or tittle" -- jot is the consonant "Yod". Here, we are discussing the Serpent. "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up."
The Tetragrammaton is a mystery. I believe the key to its meaning is that it is itself a symbol, but it is a collection of symbols. Kind of like four beasts bowing worshipping and praising God in heaven.
Don't know if any of this helps or just muddies the water.
reido
» reply
Pursuit of Happiness
Reido,
You bring up an interesting point about the way that we humans view most every good. Most everything that we have, or that we make for ourselves, we view as a scarcity that must be managed or hoarded. Even Truth—which is always an inner, personal conclusion, anyway—gets rationed, cornered and controlled. We lack faith in its unfailing availability to everyone who seeks it, and consider it instead to be a granite standard from which all personal copies must be cast alike. I'm beginning to think that Thomas Jefferson's “certain inalienable rights” included the right to pursue one's own truth. The Pursuit of Happiness can never end in catching said happiness, and thus, is really the human endeavor to know Truth and the Faith that such a pursuit will lead ever closer to the target. The exact opposite of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness—following one's own bliss—is utter tyranny.
bill