Saturday, August 04, 2007
The Face of Worship
I am currently smack dab in the middle of a conversation with my pastor (at our evangelical church) about what a church service should look like on Sunday mornings here in Los Angeles. As I did two posts ago in my conversation with Thomisticguy, I will paratroop you down into the middle of combat, so to speak. I think you will get the drift. As help, however, here are the links on which the conversation his based, which my pastor sent to me. Here is the "first paper"referenced in my most recent email to him (which I am about to share with you): Worship Worthy of the Name, by Tim Keller. The other is "Evangelistic Worship," by the same guy. So here's the email that I sent in regards to these post:
-------------------------------------------------
As a whole, I kind of like his thoughts. He does seem more clear about some important issues than many folks, I guess. But here's my problem. Lets say that his two papers constitute a brick wall. There are many bricks or thoughts that go into the making of that wall. The wall looks all right, when you compare it to all the other walls and disorderly bricks laying around in its context. My problem, however, is that there is a hidden scaffolding, which is no longer around, that was used to build that wall. I think that scaffolding is like a formwork for an arch, lets say. There is a whole world view behind that wall that enables the wall to be built. From what I can gather, I dont' like that world view. Let me share example through the two papers that you sent to me.
On the first paper that you sent, Worship Worthy of the Name...
My main problem with this is an underlying assumption of the separation of ethics and aesthetics. I'll get into that more in a moment.
Also, however, I think that Keller thinks of the relationship between mind and heart that is about a certain essential separateness that is "against the laws of mind and self," as Dallas Willard put it in Ch. 4 of The Divine Conspiracy when describing the "jug to mug" model of informational learning. I think that he owes that separation of mind and heart to that underlying worldview of his that is like a scaffolding for his wall. I think that he spends so much time talking about how worship has to effect the emotions but clarifying that it isn't only about touching the emotions precisely because of the world view that leads to a problematic relationship between mind and heart in the first place. Without a world view that splits mind and heart, why would one have to make their relationship so central to one's thoughts on what it means to worship?
Back to Keller's separation of ethics and aesthetics. As a carry over to his - in my mind - whacky idea of how mind and heart relate, he says: "Aesthetics is a movement from the right brain to the left." Of course, I'm not going to write a dissertation on aesthetics here, but that statement is so problematic in so many ways to me that it - in my mind - falsely and unnecessarily renders the role of artists in society as being at least marginal and at most meaningless.
For example, he also says: "Aesthetics are negotiable; truth is not." This raises huge problems. Thomas Aquinas famously said: "Beauty is the splendor of Truth," which is a statement that I like quite a bit. So apparently something isn't jiving. Why would "aesthetics" be any more or less "negotiable" than truth if they are its "splendor"?
But I think that Keller has the typically modern attitude that art is just a matter of taste and opinion. As most folks think of it: "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." I strongly disagree, on the grounds of all that is essential about how God created the universe. Those "esentials," which are not "negotiable," are what make things, artificial or otherwise, both beautiful and true.
Of course, then, I think that, in a sense at least, God would "judge" aesthetics the same as truth and morality. Keller says, "Frankly, I doubt that to God there's much difference between the classically trained soloist and Brother Joe's nephew. God is the one we want to please, and I doubt he judges on the basis of aesthetics." But as I said, if "aesthetics" is "the splendor of Truth," then His judgement and mercy over it would be no different from His judgement and mercy over anything else. That doesn't discount Brother Joe's nephew, of course, but it also doesn't get him off the hook.
Additionally, this started as a coversation about how to make our church grow. Keller says, "I would go so far as to say that when planting a church, you determine its future size in part by the importance you place on aesthetics in worship." To me, then, there is a bigger "essential" issue that lies behind that statement that needs to be addressed before we, as a church, can even begin to address the question or issue of the size of the church. If he (with most of the rest of us) falsely thinks of aesthetics as separate from "truth," and yet they are not so separate, then the whole question needs to be reworked in the name of "truth" (or "aesthetics").
These "essentials," which are a matter of "truth," by the way, aren't necessarily exclusively right or left brain things. If they are "essentials," then they are "essential" to the operations of both right and left brain. Although I actually think that its more "right brain" activity by which we come to know these essentials of the cosmos.
On the second paper, Evangelistic Worship...
First off, to address the elephant in the room, so to speak. He speaks of the difference between looking to history and looking to "culture" (pop culture) as models for how to do worship. "While [Contemporary Worship] advocates do not seem to recognize the sin in all cultures, the [Historic Worship] advocates do not seem to recognize the amount of (common) grace in all cultures." I view that as a bit of a diversion from the "essential" issue.
So back to the "elephant in the room." I unapologetically and strongly belive that contemporary "pop culture" is utterly inferior to most all historic cultural persuits and fruits of past ages (prior to like WWII). Keller calls that "elitism."
The center of my view of history, however, is that the dawn of modernity (about 1600ish) brought to bear upon us the loss of those very "essentials" discussed above in regards to the first paper. Of course, the loss didn't happen overnight. I think it was pretty much final at the dawn of the "postmodern age," which also happens to be dawn of the age of "pop culture."
I think there are some key turning points in that modern history, too. For example, a movie director whose online blog I've been following, in trying to struggle with the money-concerned studio, wanted to have some Mozart or Bach or something in a particular scene to try to "express the feelings of death." The studio, of course, wanted "something with a newer feel." But according to said directore, he doesn't think that any music after 1800 comes anywhere near "expressing the feelings of death" as compared to the music produced prior to 1800. Interesting, the early 1800s-ish is the dawn of Positivism, which is pretty much when modern science won out.
The basic idea of Positivism, in regards to this conversation, is that things in the world have no "essential" or metaphysical meaning. Mathematics, previously having a connection the sacred and providing an "essential" grounds for all art, is now simply an operation of mechanically describing physical reality. Morality, of course, also looses its "grounding." And now, of course and not surprisingly, we think of ethics and aesthetics as two different and separate things. And its only some of us who even think of morality as being "grounded" in "non-negotiable essentials."
For me its not necessarily an issue that ancient cultures are "more biblical." That also sounds to me like a bit of a diversion from what is "essential." Partially because I don't even know if I agree with "Solar Scriptura." Partially because I think of the "essentials" of biblical truth as sort of hiddenly embedded in all cultures, whether they even realize it or not.
I had mentioned the loss of connection between mathematics and the sacred. Keller says: "Just as it is a lack of humility to disdain tradition, it is also a lack of humility (and a blindedness to the 'noetic' effects of sin) to elevate any particular tradition or culture's way of doing worship." What if, however, a particular culture doesn't view art, "truth" or anything else as having the purpose to "elevate" or "edify" (as per its roots or influcence in Postivism and such things as that)? Well, of course, we think that art should be "edifying," but what we mean by that has nothing to do with the actual "aesthetics" iteslf, in, for example the actual "edification" of a building. Insead, we just want to make sure that a movie doesn't have too many cuss words or too much nudity (which is fine, but...).
And we may claim that we are Christian, so we don't agree with Positivism, but yet it still so influences our view of "aesthetics;" and if beautiy is the splendor of Truth, then it also influences our idea of "truth!" And it certainly influences us "in practice" (of how we do worship, for example), which I think is where it really counts.
Keller says: "'Historic Worship' advocates often speak...about how incorrigibly corrupt popular music and culture is, and how they make contemporary worhip conpletely unacceptable." As you may have noticed from my above discussion, my issue with contemporary "culture" is not its "corruption." As I mentioned, I think that all cultures are just as corrupt or not corrupt as the next (for the most part). My issue is with the "aim" of a culture. When things are "corrupt", everyone is "looking down," so to speak. But what happens when there is no such thing as "looking up," when there are no metaphysical essentials, and a culture is not even meant or aimed at being something that "elevates" or "edifies." Its one thing to die trying, its another thing to stop trying.
So what does all that have to do with what I had said previously?
I had said that maybe I should just go to a "high church" and quit bugging everyone around me and making them somehow feel lesser. Obviously, from above, I feel strongly that contemporary culture actually is "lesser." Obviously, most of those around me don't feel the same way. My problme is that I actually view it as an issue of "essentials," whereas, like most other's view of "art," they don't. Keller says in note number 7 of Evangelistic Worship: "Too often, advocates for 'high culutre' or 'pop culture' worhip musich try to make their advocacy a matter of theological prinicple, when their conviction is really more of a matter of their own tastes and cultural preferences."
But my issue is not one of "theological principle," but of "cultural essentials." Or you could say that my whole problem is that Keller would say that it, like art, is a "negotiable" matter of "taste." According to my whole view of history, that's the very point (and it is in fact an actual point in history) when society starts to and then finally does simply come apart at the seams.
I had a bit of a conversation with Eric on Thursday night, which we did not get a chance to finish. It ended by my saying: "I'm interested in hearing more about why you think that the sacraments are not a question of 'essentials.'" And he then ended it by saying: "I'm curious to hear more about why you think that Catholic sacraments are a matter of essentials."
Additionally...you had noted during our car ride that to you Taize isn't so much a worship service as a worship experience. You actually had good reason for that, I think. I think there's good reason why many Catholics don't know their history or their Bible. They often learn their docrtine from conversations with Protestants, if at all. In regards to my points above - mainly the ones about "left and right brain" activity - I think that the whole reason why a Catholic service (or a Taize service) is more of a "worship experience" is becuase of the "world view" that it comes out of.
To me its sort of a trade off. Either you have a worship that is more about "experience" and yet also takes into account intellectual truth as part of it at its very core (but then lay folks who don't know their own history or doctrine), or you have a schizophrenic contemporary protestant service born out of the modern world view that was largely developed out of a heated arguement between modern philosophers over whether truth is known rationally by the intellect or experientially by the senses (leading to some big argument or discussion over how worship has to "touch the emotions" but then not "focus" on them).
The end. Lol.
Blessings,
Jason
-------------------------------------------------
As a whole, I kind of like his thoughts. He does seem more clear about some important issues than many folks, I guess. But here's my problem. Lets say that his two papers constitute a brick wall. There are many bricks or thoughts that go into the making of that wall. The wall looks all right, when you compare it to all the other walls and disorderly bricks laying around in its context. My problem, however, is that there is a hidden scaffolding, which is no longer around, that was used to build that wall. I think that scaffolding is like a formwork for an arch, lets say. There is a whole world view behind that wall that enables the wall to be built. From what I can gather, I dont' like that world view. Let me share example through the two papers that you sent to me.
On the first paper that you sent, Worship Worthy of the Name...
My main problem with this is an underlying assumption of the separation of ethics and aesthetics. I'll get into that more in a moment.
Also, however, I think that Keller thinks of the relationship between mind and heart that is about a certain essential separateness that is "against the laws of mind and self," as Dallas Willard put it in Ch. 4 of The Divine Conspiracy when describing the "jug to mug" model of informational learning. I think that he owes that separation of mind and heart to that underlying worldview of his that is like a scaffolding for his wall. I think that he spends so much time talking about how worship has to effect the emotions but clarifying that it isn't only about touching the emotions precisely because of the world view that leads to a problematic relationship between mind and heart in the first place. Without a world view that splits mind and heart, why would one have to make their relationship so central to one's thoughts on what it means to worship?
Back to Keller's separation of ethics and aesthetics. As a carry over to his - in my mind - whacky idea of how mind and heart relate, he says: "Aesthetics is a movement from the right brain to the left." Of course, I'm not going to write a dissertation on aesthetics here, but that statement is so problematic in so many ways to me that it - in my mind - falsely and unnecessarily renders the role of artists in society as being at least marginal and at most meaningless.
For example, he also says: "Aesthetics are negotiable; truth is not." This raises huge problems. Thomas Aquinas famously said: "Beauty is the splendor of Truth," which is a statement that I like quite a bit. So apparently something isn't jiving. Why would "aesthetics" be any more or less "negotiable" than truth if they are its "splendor"?
But I think that Keller has the typically modern attitude that art is just a matter of taste and opinion. As most folks think of it: "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." I strongly disagree, on the grounds of all that is essential about how God created the universe. Those "esentials," which are not "negotiable," are what make things, artificial or otherwise, both beautiful and true.
Of course, then, I think that, in a sense at least, God would "judge" aesthetics the same as truth and morality. Keller says, "Frankly, I doubt that to God there's much difference between the classically trained soloist and Brother Joe's nephew. God is the one we want to please, and I doubt he judges on the basis of aesthetics." But as I said, if "aesthetics" is "the splendor of Truth," then His judgement and mercy over it would be no different from His judgement and mercy over anything else. That doesn't discount Brother Joe's nephew, of course, but it also doesn't get him off the hook.
Additionally, this started as a coversation about how to make our church grow. Keller says, "I would go so far as to say that when planting a church, you determine its future size in part by the importance you place on aesthetics in worship." To me, then, there is a bigger "essential" issue that lies behind that statement that needs to be addressed before we, as a church, can even begin to address the question or issue of the size of the church. If he (with most of the rest of us) falsely thinks of aesthetics as separate from "truth," and yet they are not so separate, then the whole question needs to be reworked in the name of "truth" (or "aesthetics").
These "essentials," which are a matter of "truth," by the way, aren't necessarily exclusively right or left brain things. If they are "essentials," then they are "essential" to the operations of both right and left brain. Although I actually think that its more "right brain" activity by which we come to know these essentials of the cosmos.
On the second paper, Evangelistic Worship...
First off, to address the elephant in the room, so to speak. He speaks of the difference between looking to history and looking to "culture" (pop culture) as models for how to do worship. "While [Contemporary Worship] advocates do not seem to recognize the sin in all cultures, the [Historic Worship] advocates do not seem to recognize the amount of (common) grace in all cultures." I view that as a bit of a diversion from the "essential" issue.
So back to the "elephant in the room." I unapologetically and strongly belive that contemporary "pop culture" is utterly inferior to most all historic cultural persuits and fruits of past ages (prior to like WWII). Keller calls that "elitism."
The center of my view of history, however, is that the dawn of modernity (about 1600ish) brought to bear upon us the loss of those very "essentials" discussed above in regards to the first paper. Of course, the loss didn't happen overnight. I think it was pretty much final at the dawn of the "postmodern age," which also happens to be dawn of the age of "pop culture."
I think there are some key turning points in that modern history, too. For example, a movie director whose online blog I've been following, in trying to struggle with the money-concerned studio, wanted to have some Mozart or Bach or something in a particular scene to try to "express the feelings of death." The studio, of course, wanted "something with a newer feel." But according to said directore, he doesn't think that any music after 1800 comes anywhere near "expressing the feelings of death" as compared to the music produced prior to 1800. Interesting, the early 1800s-ish is the dawn of Positivism, which is pretty much when modern science won out.
The basic idea of Positivism, in regards to this conversation, is that things in the world have no "essential" or metaphysical meaning. Mathematics, previously having a connection the sacred and providing an "essential" grounds for all art, is now simply an operation of mechanically describing physical reality. Morality, of course, also looses its "grounding." And now, of course and not surprisingly, we think of ethics and aesthetics as two different and separate things. And its only some of us who even think of morality as being "grounded" in "non-negotiable essentials."
For me its not necessarily an issue that ancient cultures are "more biblical." That also sounds to me like a bit of a diversion from what is "essential." Partially because I don't even know if I agree with "Solar Scriptura." Partially because I think of the "essentials" of biblical truth as sort of hiddenly embedded in all cultures, whether they even realize it or not.
I had mentioned the loss of connection between mathematics and the sacred. Keller says: "Just as it is a lack of humility to disdain tradition, it is also a lack of humility (and a blindedness to the 'noetic' effects of sin) to elevate any particular tradition or culture's way of doing worship." What if, however, a particular culture doesn't view art, "truth" or anything else as having the purpose to "elevate" or "edify" (as per its roots or influcence in Postivism and such things as that)? Well, of course, we think that art should be "edifying," but what we mean by that has nothing to do with the actual "aesthetics" iteslf, in, for example the actual "edification" of a building. Insead, we just want to make sure that a movie doesn't have too many cuss words or too much nudity (which is fine, but...).
And we may claim that we are Christian, so we don't agree with Positivism, but yet it still so influences our view of "aesthetics;" and if beautiy is the splendor of Truth, then it also influences our idea of "truth!" And it certainly influences us "in practice" (of how we do worship, for example), which I think is where it really counts.
Keller says: "'Historic Worship' advocates often speak...about how incorrigibly corrupt popular music and culture is, and how they make contemporary worhip conpletely unacceptable." As you may have noticed from my above discussion, my issue with contemporary "culture" is not its "corruption." As I mentioned, I think that all cultures are just as corrupt or not corrupt as the next (for the most part). My issue is with the "aim" of a culture. When things are "corrupt", everyone is "looking down," so to speak. But what happens when there is no such thing as "looking up," when there are no metaphysical essentials, and a culture is not even meant or aimed at being something that "elevates" or "edifies." Its one thing to die trying, its another thing to stop trying.
So what does all that have to do with what I had said previously?
I had said that maybe I should just go to a "high church" and quit bugging everyone around me and making them somehow feel lesser. Obviously, from above, I feel strongly that contemporary culture actually is "lesser." Obviously, most of those around me don't feel the same way. My problme is that I actually view it as an issue of "essentials," whereas, like most other's view of "art," they don't. Keller says in note number 7 of Evangelistic Worship: "Too often, advocates for 'high culutre' or 'pop culture' worhip musich try to make their advocacy a matter of theological prinicple, when their conviction is really more of a matter of their own tastes and cultural preferences."
But my issue is not one of "theological principle," but of "cultural essentials." Or you could say that my whole problem is that Keller would say that it, like art, is a "negotiable" matter of "taste." According to my whole view of history, that's the very point (and it is in fact an actual point in history) when society starts to and then finally does simply come apart at the seams.
I had a bit of a conversation with Eric on Thursday night, which we did not get a chance to finish. It ended by my saying: "I'm interested in hearing more about why you think that the sacraments are not a question of 'essentials.'" And he then ended it by saying: "I'm curious to hear more about why you think that Catholic sacraments are a matter of essentials."
Additionally...you had noted during our car ride that to you Taize isn't so much a worship service as a worship experience. You actually had good reason for that, I think. I think there's good reason why many Catholics don't know their history or their Bible. They often learn their docrtine from conversations with Protestants, if at all. In regards to my points above - mainly the ones about "left and right brain" activity - I think that the whole reason why a Catholic service (or a Taize service) is more of a "worship experience" is becuase of the "world view" that it comes out of.
To me its sort of a trade off. Either you have a worship that is more about "experience" and yet also takes into account intellectual truth as part of it at its very core (but then lay folks who don't know their own history or doctrine), or you have a schizophrenic contemporary protestant service born out of the modern world view that was largely developed out of a heated arguement between modern philosophers over whether truth is known rationally by the intellect or experientially by the senses (leading to some big argument or discussion over how worship has to "touch the emotions" but then not "focus" on them).
The end. Lol.
Blessings,
Jason
Comments:
<< Home
For example, he also says: "Aesthetics are negotiable; truth is not." This raises huge problems. Thomas Aquinas famously said: "Beauty is the splendor of Truth," which is a statement that I like quite a bit. So apparently something isn't jiving. Why would "aesthetics" be any more or less "negotiable" than truth if they are its "splendor"?
This is a good question you raise/raze.
This is a good question you raise/raze.
Even if you grant that aesthetics is recognized by taste, then let's hop over to the Fourth Gospel. Here we find the ultimate embodiment of truth: capital "T", as it were.....How is Truth recognized in the Gospel of John???
BY ITS FRUIT! Which IS its "splendor"! In either moral action or an aesthetic icon :)
What's that got to do with the taste issue?
What's that got to do with the taste issue?
OH! "By your love for one another." Which in aesthetics, I think, corresponds to the CARE that we put into a "work." I have a feeling you're hinting at this faith/works thing :)
And I'm still missing where the taste issue comes into what you are saying (and am genuinely curious about it).
And what is "GoJ"?
And I'm still missing where the taste issue comes into what you are saying (and am genuinely curious about it).
And what is "GoJ"?
GoJ = Gospel of John.
In Fourth Gospel Christ = Truth
My Question: How did people recognize Christ/Truth? What was the means?
On my reading the "recognition" of truth in GoJ looks a lot like "taste." There is a "sense" of truth - having the eyes to see - being "of the truth."
In Fourth Gospel Christ = Truth
My Question: How did people recognize Christ/Truth? What was the means?
On my reading the "recognition" of truth in GoJ looks a lot like "taste." There is a "sense" of truth - having the eyes to see - being "of the truth."
Oh. I see. But by "taste" in this post in reference to aesthetics I was referring to how what is different about different people determines how they value works of art differently - as opposed to what is NOT different about each various person...which is I think what the "Truth" is about whose splendor is in a work of art and that is "sensed" in the GoJ. To me I guess it "wears a mask" in a "medium" (contextual/cultural), but that's different from saying art is not a matter of proportion and mathematics and things that participate in the substance of unchanging divinity that does not change but rather that art is a matter only of "personal taste." Like how to my old rommate Catherine Zeta Jones is the hottest woman ever, but I like others. So some folks say "its all a matter of personal taste." But the fact is that my favorites and his are both well proportioned mathematically. I'm not entirely sure how to translate that into our "sense" of morality, but I know it relates (I guess what Aquinas referred to as our conscience).
How does that relate to your point?
How does that relate to your point?
an email conversation between erdman and I:
me:
hey...i really am curious to hear more of what you meant in reference to "taste" on my blog. "sensus divinitas"?
jon:
Yes, I see a tie-in between the two.
Even think about logic and/or mathematics: How do we know that certain formulas are "correct" or "true"? (2+2=4 or Law of Non Contradiction) Is it undeniability or some such notion? Probably not, b/c one could then ask why "undeniability" is "correct" or "true." Rather, we just have a sense that certain facts are, in fact, facts. 2+2=4 just seems correct and true.
I call this a matter of taste. I think taste is involved in every aspect of life - including recognizing God and the truth of revelation.
me:
i'm going to post this.
me:
hey...i really am curious to hear more of what you meant in reference to "taste" on my blog. "sensus divinitas"?
jon:
Yes, I see a tie-in between the two.
Even think about logic and/or mathematics: How do we know that certain formulas are "correct" or "true"? (2+2=4 or Law of Non Contradiction) Is it undeniability or some such notion? Probably not, b/c one could then ask why "undeniability" is "correct" or "true." Rather, we just have a sense that certain facts are, in fact, facts. 2+2=4 just seems correct and true.
I call this a matter of taste. I think taste is involved in every aspect of life - including recognizing God and the truth of revelation.
me:
i'm going to post this.
A) I don't know where "undeniability" comes from?
B) How do we even "sense" facts in the first place? Is the sense given by God? What about the truth; is that given by God too?
C) Going back to the roots of this mathematical stuff. How did the ancient Greeks know that they were making a "right" angle, thus knowing that their building would stand up?
D) Especially in the case of having a "taste" for God's revelation...is what you are "tasting" tied to anything "essential"? Or only "personal"? Is what is revealed by God only TRUE to ME personally if I have a taste for it and someone else does not?
This could go either way, I would think. That's why I'm asking you. I actually don't know where you stand there...and am curious? What are you really trying to say to me :)
:)
Jason
B) How do we even "sense" facts in the first place? Is the sense given by God? What about the truth; is that given by God too?
C) Going back to the roots of this mathematical stuff. How did the ancient Greeks know that they were making a "right" angle, thus knowing that their building would stand up?
D) Especially in the case of having a "taste" for God's revelation...is what you are "tasting" tied to anything "essential"? Or only "personal"? Is what is revealed by God only TRUE to ME personally if I have a taste for it and someone else does not?
This could go either way, I would think. That's why I'm asking you. I actually don't know where you stand there...and am curious? What are you really trying to say to me :)
:)
Jason
A) I don't know where "undeniability" comes from?
I am taking this, firstly, from Christian apologetics (Geisler), but epistemologically this goes back to Modernity and Classic Foundationalism. The goal was to establish a foundation from which knowledge could proceed - a basis for what we can "know." Descartes talked about the fact that he could not deny his existence. He would have to exist in order to deny his existence. Hence, existence was undeniable for Descartes: "I think, therefore I am."
B) How do we even "sense" facts in the first place? Is the sense given by God? What about the truth; is that given by God too?
I was talking about the "sense" that a fact is correct. 2+2=4 is a mathematical fact that few would deny. But why not deny it? Is there really any reason why we can't deny it? I don't know that there is...except the fact that it seems absurd to do so! It would go against all "sense."
But this sensing of the "correctness" of a fact strikes me as something similar to taste.
C) Going back to the roots of this mathematical stuff. How did the ancient Greeks know that they were making a "right" angle, thus knowing that their building would stand up?
I can't speak for them, but I imagine that they simply found certain angles better suited for certain types of construction.
D) Especially in the case of having a "taste" for God's revelation...is what you are "tasting" tied to anything "essential"? Or only "personal"? Is what is revealed by God only TRUE to ME personally if I have a taste for it and someone else does not?
I think there is such a thing as a "taste for truth." Hence when Christ came he talked about people who were "of the truth" (John 18:37) vs. those who were of the devil (John 8). In my essays I usually refer to this as a "spiritual situatedness." The spiritual/ontological position of the soul of a person gives rise to their ability to tastefully understand and comprehend truth in its various forms. Truth taking on not just propositional forms, but existential and even ethical forms. These later two cannot be reduced to propositional form. Or, at the very least, it is awkward and undesirable to do so.
I am taking this, firstly, from Christian apologetics (Geisler), but epistemologically this goes back to Modernity and Classic Foundationalism. The goal was to establish a foundation from which knowledge could proceed - a basis for what we can "know." Descartes talked about the fact that he could not deny his existence. He would have to exist in order to deny his existence. Hence, existence was undeniable for Descartes: "I think, therefore I am."
B) How do we even "sense" facts in the first place? Is the sense given by God? What about the truth; is that given by God too?
I was talking about the "sense" that a fact is correct. 2+2=4 is a mathematical fact that few would deny. But why not deny it? Is there really any reason why we can't deny it? I don't know that there is...except the fact that it seems absurd to do so! It would go against all "sense."
But this sensing of the "correctness" of a fact strikes me as something similar to taste.
C) Going back to the roots of this mathematical stuff. How did the ancient Greeks know that they were making a "right" angle, thus knowing that their building would stand up?
I can't speak for them, but I imagine that they simply found certain angles better suited for certain types of construction.
D) Especially in the case of having a "taste" for God's revelation...is what you are "tasting" tied to anything "essential"? Or only "personal"? Is what is revealed by God only TRUE to ME personally if I have a taste for it and someone else does not?
I think there is such a thing as a "taste for truth." Hence when Christ came he talked about people who were "of the truth" (John 18:37) vs. those who were of the devil (John 8). In my essays I usually refer to this as a "spiritual situatedness." The spiritual/ontological position of the soul of a person gives rise to their ability to tastefully understand and comprehend truth in its various forms. Truth taking on not just propositional forms, but existential and even ethical forms. These later two cannot be reduced to propositional form. Or, at the very least, it is awkward and undesirable to do so.
A) Yeah, screw that. I kinda' figured it was something like that.
B) You said: "But why not deny it? Is there really any reason why we can't deny it? I don't know that there is...except the fact that it seems absurd to do so! It would go against all 'sense.'"
For one thing, this sounds like another form of "undeniability"?
And also - what does "sense" (or "taste") have about its "nature" that equips it to judge two plus two?
C) The answer is as follows. For a building to stand up, you need RIGHT angles :) How would a craftsman get one of those? Interestingly, if you take three pieces of wood, each with sides with respective lengths of 3, 4 and 5 units, you get a right angle at the base of the triangle :) With that, also, a Roman Auger can make a "gnomon" and found a city.
If the Auger just uses his "sense" to try and set up his auger, then it will be off, as will be the whole layout of the city. If the wall isn't "right," which can't just be judged by the "senses", then it will fall.
But so what? All that raises another question for me. Why does a three, four five triangle do that? I think it was "built in" to the essential struture and/or makeup of the cosmos by God. We participate in it when we make the triangle or when we make a wall that stands.
D) On what you reference as "spiritual situatedness", are you thinking of something from Calvanist theology of which I do not know? It sounds almost like you could be referencing predestination, in a way.
So far as propositions go: yeah, I think that they often lead to hollow characatures. But does that mean that our taste, cultivated even in existential mediums, doesn't participate in something beyond it that gives it the very order that we "sense"?
Fun conversation, BTW :)
B) You said: "But why not deny it? Is there really any reason why we can't deny it? I don't know that there is...except the fact that it seems absurd to do so! It would go against all 'sense.'"
For one thing, this sounds like another form of "undeniability"?
And also - what does "sense" (or "taste") have about its "nature" that equips it to judge two plus two?
C) The answer is as follows. For a building to stand up, you need RIGHT angles :) How would a craftsman get one of those? Interestingly, if you take three pieces of wood, each with sides with respective lengths of 3, 4 and 5 units, you get a right angle at the base of the triangle :) With that, also, a Roman Auger can make a "gnomon" and found a city.
If the Auger just uses his "sense" to try and set up his auger, then it will be off, as will be the whole layout of the city. If the wall isn't "right," which can't just be judged by the "senses", then it will fall.
But so what? All that raises another question for me. Why does a three, four five triangle do that? I think it was "built in" to the essential struture and/or makeup of the cosmos by God. We participate in it when we make the triangle or when we make a wall that stands.
D) On what you reference as "spiritual situatedness", are you thinking of something from Calvanist theology of which I do not know? It sounds almost like you could be referencing predestination, in a way.
So far as propositions go: yeah, I think that they often lead to hollow characatures. But does that mean that our taste, cultivated even in existential mediums, doesn't participate in something beyond it that gives it the very order that we "sense"?
Fun conversation, BTW :)
On what you reference as "spiritual situatedness", are you thinking of something from Calvanist theology of which I do not know? It sounds almost like you could be referencing predestination, in a way.
No. Nothing to do with predestination. "Spiritual Situatedness" is my term. I think that it shows parallels with some of Heidegger and Gadamer's thought...but I don't want to oversell that comparison b/c it is somewhat minimal.
So far as propositions go: yeah, I think that they often lead to hollow characatures. But does that mean that our taste, cultivated even in existential mediums, doesn't participate in something beyond it that gives it the very order that we "sense"?
I don't look at "taste" or "sense" as something you can define without referencing the referent. In other words, taste is always taste for something. Likewise, sense is always a sense of something in particular.
What taste/sense means depends upon the nature of what we are tasting/sensing. In the case of having a "taste for truth" or a "sense of God" (sensus divinitatis) there is a participation in something beyond it. However, even in these cases I would also say it has to do with our design. (Crf. Alvin Plantinga) We were designed such that if our "sense" or "taste" is operating correctly that it will be triggered by the thing it is tasting/sensing. So, if I have a good taste for fine wine, then that sense of taste will be triggered by tasting the wine. And that's what I see is happening when people encounter Christ in the Fourth Gospel - something is defective in their spiritual sensibilities. They cannot recognize the truth. In chapter 8 (and elsewhere) Jesus seems to say that it is because of the fact that they are "of your father, the devil." So, their sense of taste is defective because of their spiritual position. They are ontologically in the wrong place.
No. Nothing to do with predestination. "Spiritual Situatedness" is my term. I think that it shows parallels with some of Heidegger and Gadamer's thought...but I don't want to oversell that comparison b/c it is somewhat minimal.
So far as propositions go: yeah, I think that they often lead to hollow characatures. But does that mean that our taste, cultivated even in existential mediums, doesn't participate in something beyond it that gives it the very order that we "sense"?
I don't look at "taste" or "sense" as something you can define without referencing the referent. In other words, taste is always taste for something. Likewise, sense is always a sense of something in particular.
What taste/sense means depends upon the nature of what we are tasting/sensing. In the case of having a "taste for truth" or a "sense of God" (sensus divinitatis) there is a participation in something beyond it. However, even in these cases I would also say it has to do with our design. (Crf. Alvin Plantinga) We were designed such that if our "sense" or "taste" is operating correctly that it will be triggered by the thing it is tasting/sensing. So, if I have a good taste for fine wine, then that sense of taste will be triggered by tasting the wine. And that's what I see is happening when people encounter Christ in the Fourth Gospel - something is defective in their spiritual sensibilities. They cannot recognize the truth. In chapter 8 (and elsewhere) Jesus seems to say that it is because of the fact that they are "of your father, the devil." So, their sense of taste is defective because of their spiritual position. They are ontologically in the wrong place.
I'll probably respond more later. I have to get ready for church...but...
Well, that makes sense :) Whe you speak of "sense" here, you aren't excluding having a "sense" for something "beyond sense."
So when Calvin speaks of "sensus divinitas," does he distinguish between the powers of the intellect and of the senses? This in reference to where I said: "And also - what does "sense" (or 'taste') have about its 'nature' that equips it to judge two plus two?" But then Aquinas also even speaks of sense's inability to even identify or recognize objects as what or who they are (if I remember right).
I guess you are just working in a different formwork. Something in our being (mind, body, ?) "senses" its object of direction or attraction or whatever. Even in your formwork the tongue and brain themselves have a "sense" (rememberance) for (of) wine.
Post a Comment
Well, that makes sense :) Whe you speak of "sense" here, you aren't excluding having a "sense" for something "beyond sense."
So when Calvin speaks of "sensus divinitas," does he distinguish between the powers of the intellect and of the senses? This in reference to where I said: "And also - what does "sense" (or 'taste') have about its 'nature' that equips it to judge two plus two?" But then Aquinas also even speaks of sense's inability to even identify or recognize objects as what or who they are (if I remember right).
I guess you are just working in a different formwork. Something in our being (mind, body, ?) "senses" its object of direction or attraction or whatever. Even in your formwork the tongue and brain themselves have a "sense" (rememberance) for (of) wine.
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
