met wrote: And I agree that our notions of God are necessary NOT-God. But I am also working in a paradigm where I choose to fix concepts. Actually everyone is doing this, even when they choose "not to fix" them, because then they are insisting on a position of not-knowing.
....only if they decide on an
absolute not-knowing? Further, how could an absolute not-knowing be anything but atheism?
I'd like to consider it differently, which is *active* not-knowing. This is how Islamic theology discusses the lack of belief: it's akin to ingratitude, or covering over, and yes this is the same behaviour that exists along the spectrum of denial of the "Truth" from lacking belief in the Quran all the way to lacking belief in any kind of deity besides the self. When referring to extreme agnosticism or "atheism" I have characterized this as a "black hole". By this I mean a person turns away from anything that could be given meaning as a sign of God and instead they look inwardly to their own desires, sense of self, or the world within their own preconceived borders....and nothing exists beyond that "event horizon" and nothing that comes to the person as a "sign of God" will come back out of them as belief.
met wrote:Also your first two statements seem a bit paradoxical. You are choosing to work with concepts that are necessarily NOT what they say they are? Why is that a better strategy?
Seems like you just "unsaid" everything too .....
So this only makes sense if you take seriously the notion that knowledge is not a product of our selves but rather something revealed within us from God. I mean ALL knowledge. Islamic theology is on the far end of the scale of the "omni-God" being taken seriously. I think even Calvin would blush. So there's a whole host of things that probably spring to mind, but focusing specifically on the issue you raise here I would respond:
The reality of God being "Merciful" is beyond our complete comprehension (
something like what Jim is saying in the thread on symbols, maybe? ??? perhaps?) but God gives us the limited form of knowledge so that we can appreciate something that is indeed real about Him. God is the "Creator" but it doesn't take effort, and He doesn't work from a set of instructions.
Is it better? Well....what's the criteria? God clearly thinks so
Striking the balance between fixating on the words (making them idols, which really means the idolatry of the self) versus being open to the intended guidance from God is literally the entire point of our lives. This is why we are here. Why? There is no answer for that which will be entirely objective and free of the whims of a person, except to completely accept that this particular knowledge (our purpose in life) is revealed from God and then to spend the rest of one's life struggling to realize the answer.
This is how Islam frames the "problematic" of man's separation from God. We have been sent here to come to know God, because that's how God intended it, for reasons that we have to actively surrender control over our selves in order to realize. And this is the test. ....to see who does it best.
....aaaaanyways, not trying to hijack this thread with evangelism for Islam. This is the paradigm I'm working in. From my perspective everyone is in active denial of the truth from their Lord (including me). It's a matter of degree, not black/white absolutes.
met wrote:. K, I looked it up, & THAT one took me a minute, but I got it!
the reference to communion.... My hunch is someone a bit out there, like maybe Zizek, might have noted this correlation before? Or is it yours?
Uhh...well, you might be giving me too much credit because I didn't see that specific imagery until you pointed it out. ....see, that's why I love Philip K. Dick.
I was speaking more generally how much I enjoy these "deeper" themes in his books. And it was a cheap trick chiasm.
Literary white belt lololol
Peace,
-sgttomas