relatively speaking
I remember once using the analogy of aircraft navigation: the electronic navigation systems used to refer to one or more beacons (whose positions were known) in order to calculate position, speed, direction etc. Modern technology probably uses GPS to determine these things, although the analogy holds: it's the certainty of a reference point that enables a calculation of your relative position.
is the analogy true of our lives? what is your "reference point" in the journey of life?
posted by barry at
12:57 am
subscribe to feed
6 Comments:
Do you think there is a concept such as Absolute Relativism?
i think that might be a contradiction in terms, but I would say that everything is relative because everything is relative to something else. Everything is interconnected and related (and therefore, to some degree defined) by other things....
By
barry, at 6/04/2006 04:19:00 pm
but before we get side-tracked into an unhelfully theoretical conversation, let me ask my question again:
what is your "reference point" in the journey of life?
By
barry, at 6/05/2006 10:51:00 am
My (admittedly simplified) understanding of post-modernism is this:
There was a whole mode of thought and approach to knowledge called modernism, which has it's roots in the renaissance and the emergence of science as a discipline.
At some point, around the 1960s, people started acknowledging that modernism really wasn't working for a number of different reasons. SO the basis of post-modernism is really what the name would suggest, that it comes after modernism. The only thing that is 'absolute' in this sense is that modernism is acknowledged to not work.
There is not ONE post-modern school of thought but many, for example in design theory (the field I have the most direct knowledge of) there are a whole range of post-modern theories (confusingly, one is called 'post-modern style'), some of which try to 'tweak' modernist thought to make it work, some of which search back in history and try to revive pre-modern ideas, and some of which reach forward and try to make something new. All are unified only in the acknowledgement that: modernism didn't quite work, and that my way MIGHT NOT be the right way.
In terms of Christ, we need to be open to the very real fact that what we have been doing hasn't worked perfectly, like modernism. We need to be open to the fact that OUR understanding of Christ might not be perfect. BUT that does not mean that we discard everything in our faith.
scvytev
By
Peter le Roux, at 6/09/2006 08:17:00 am
The basis of PM philosophy is flawed. I haven't found one PM who has the courage to admit this very simple principle. Once we've found this common ground, we can be really constructive...
herc, I'm curious:
do you find the philospophical basis of modernism to stand up to scrutiny? (or what alternative philosophy are you offering, and does it stand up to scrutiny?)
also, according to what criterion do you judge whether something is philosophically sound? What philosophy is the basis by which you judge the basis of a philosophy?
By
barry, at 6/09/2006 02:19:00 pm
just for the record, my reference point is also Jesus.
the thing that I especially like about him is his focus on judging a tree by the fruit it bears. i have begun to ask myself, is an idea/thought/philosophy/belief true in some abstract way (because it is "rational" or "right") or is it "true" when it works (i.e. bears good fruit)?
i have therefore, guided by Jesus I hope, begun to question the importance of (or need for) having right ides/thoughts/philosophies/beliefs. I am more interested in what works!
By
barry, at 6/09/2006 02:37:00 pm
herc, i'm confused. you keep accusing me of dodging questions. which question did I not attempt to answer?
Here is a record of your questions in this discussion thread:
1.Do you think there is a concept such as Absolute Relativism?
My answer is in comment no. 4
2. By saying everything is relative, are you not stating an absolute? Therefore, are absolutes not then a reality?
By my asking, what alternative philosophy are you offering? I am not avoiding your question, but trying to assertain which philosophy is satisfiactory to you. You state "PM philosophy is flawed" implying that's why you argue against it. Isn't it then fair to ask, what you suggest as an alternative.
I do not deny that PM philosophy may be "flawed". But it performs well in many areas that other philosophies do not. So in the market of philosophies, I'm quite impressed with the options PM gives me, as opposed to others like capitalism, modernism, fundamentalism etc...
i really think i have consistently tried to answer questions asked of me.
You say Once we've found this common ground, we can be really constructive... which means, until PM's admit that they are wrong (i.e. PM is flawed), we cannot be constructive.
I have never asked of you that you give up your convictions for me. I have just asked that you explore greater understanding of my position: i.e. to walk in my shoes. You have dismissed PM in such a dramatic way that it seems you feel it has not value at all.
I have sought to understand your position. I have asked clarifying questions to try to ascertain what your are really against. is it PM? is it relativism?
it seems to me that your greatest frustration is with academic theology that takes away the simplicity of faith. I fully share your difficulty with that. But I am also aware that there are many people whose greatest stumbling block to faith is an intellectual one. They will never be able to simply "have faith". They need to work through things with their minds. I think they should be encouraged.
For those in your congregation/youth who are able to cimply belive, your passion will be of great encouragement, but I am concerned about those who will need to be encouraged in the thoughtful way toward faith.
By
barry, at 6/13/2006 02:15:00 pm
Post a Comment
<< Home