The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Heavenly bliss and earthly woes > Comments

Heavenly bliss and earthly woes : Comments

By Rodney Crisp, published 13/9/2010

Religion plays an important psychological role in assisting us to assume the adversities of our earthly lives.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 22
  7. 23
  8. 24
  9. Page 25
  10. 26
  11. All
Dear Banjo,

>>As you find my comparison with a dictionary an over-simplification, I propose that contradictory debate in a court of justice is a technique enabling the emergence of "truth" similar to criticism .<<
I did not find your comparison an over-simplification, and I certainly did not write that.I only said I did not understand the relation you had in mind; now I understand beter.

Exactly because the word has so many definitions and connotations - some of them meaning simply rational analysis or interpretation of text, as you point out - I quoted the one definition I guessed you were referring to. I agree with what you propose: I thought I said more or less the same in the second of the four posts when referring to dialectics.

Now I realize my own inconsistencies, when later I allude to "constructive criticism" which is closer to your understanding of the word than to the definition I originally quoted.

Perhaps one should distinguish between (negative) criticism as "expression of disapproval" and (constructive) criticism as a process in which both the critic and the criticized are involved.
Posted by George, Sunday, 10 October 2010 2:12:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(ctd)
I can see your point so comprehensively expanded in your last post, and of course, I agree with you.

>>I feel no more bound by any particular dictionary than by any particular criticism<<
Neither do I, except that I think there is a difference in the purpose of a dictionary and that of a criticism.

In order to understand a criticism (aimed at some position or opinion I am holding) and eventually respond to it, I have to be sure that I have the same understanding (definition) of the crucial terms involved in the critique, or critical analysis. For that purpose I consult dictionaries (preferably those known not to be ideologically biased), or some other generally recognised authority on the matter, hoping to find the one that the author of the critique/criticism had in mind. I might have my favourite definition in this or that, but if it is not shared by the other side, there is no point in dwelling on it.

For instance, I had to change what I thought to be the standard definition of atheism to what I found (on this OLO) to be acceptable to the majhority of those who proclaim themselves atheists. And use the term anti-theist to describe what I previously thought was the standard definition.
Posted by George, Sunday, 10 October 2010 2:16:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear George, (continued)

.

I had not heard of the 6 to 60 year poem you indicate. However, I am familiar with the following one which is vaguely similar:

http://www.tadine.ca/poesie/gabin/gabin01.shtml

I think I already indicated I had no father, just a mother. The only father I know is me. The only grandfather I know is me too.

"all Catholics believe that the consecrated host becomes the Body of Christ, but even the most "uneducated" know that no laboratory procedure would detect a difference, so even they know the dogma is not about physical reality."

I was able to follow you regarding the "symbolism" of the world of religion and the "models of reality" in physics and religion, but I experienced a breakdown in understanding when I reached this sentence.

Are you inferring that you believe the host is neither the physical body of Christ nor simply a symbol of His body but some non-physical form of "reality" which remains to be determined?

Are you suggesting that in addition to having a physical reality the host also assumes a "supernatural" reality? Indeed, it seems, as you suggest, "no laboratory procedure would detect a difference".

May I ask you to kindly elaborate a little further on this point.

Also, I do not understand the following sentence:

"I "adhere unconditionally to all the official dogma of the Catholic church", where "unconditionally" means that I would not openly criticise those, who cannot accept the world of religious symbols unless they give them meanings familiar to them from everyday life."

Should I understand that you do not adhere unconditionally to all the official dogma of the Catholic church but that you choose not to express this openly in order to avoid upsetting certain people.

Would you kindly explain a little further.

I think I understand the rest of your post.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Sunday, 10 October 2010 5:04:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear George,

.

"Perhaps one should distinguish between (negative) criticism as "expression of disapproval" and (constructive) criticism as a process in which both the critic and the criticized are involved."

No, I should not operate this distinction. "Expressions of disapproval" may be quite positive if, as I indicated previously, they reveal genuine defaults, omissions and errors.

I suspect you and I are looking at "criticism" from different perspectives. The "criticism" I am referring to when I say I seek it as I consult a dictionary is "upstream criticism", ie, during the gestation period of ideas concepts and writings. I like to bounce my ideas off the minds of various people and submit them to their critique before giving those ideas, concepts and writings their final form.

Articles I publish here on OLO are ideas and concepts that are still in the gestation phase. I am here to collect a maximum of "upstream criticism" and I consider that it is all positive with the exclusion of any "peremptory judgements, unwarranted denigration, personal abuse, slander and insults" as previously indicated.

OLO has the advantage of providing a free source of criticism from a fairly broad spectrum of critics of all ages, cultures, fields of interest, experiences and social origins. It is a virtual melting pot.

I find it more difficult to think of "expressions of disapproval" as negative criticism though I am sure there must be cases where this is true. I consider they need to be examined in detail before deciding whether they are positive or negative.

For them to be negative, they are necessarily situated "downstream", ie, post crystallisation of ideas, concepts and writings. Had they been expressed during the gestation phase, they would have had either a positive effect (enabling their integration) or no effect at all as I would have rejected them after due consideration.

Generally speaking, I tend to feel that all criticism is good criticism. The worst possible outcome for anybody who wishes to communicate his or her ideas, concepts and writings, in my view, is total indifference (no "criticism").

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Sunday, 10 October 2010 9:33:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

I was busy during the weekend so only now can I try to answer your two challenging questions.

Before that, let me say that I agree again with what you wrote in your last post: OK, I should not have called "expression of disapproval" criticism negative. I certainly did not mean negative as a judgement on its merits or so, just a label. It can, and often does, function positively. In classical dialectics the anti-thesis being in a sense the opposite (OK, not negative) of the thesis, provides a "positive" contribution to the process that leads to synthesis. So if you like, I could label the first kind of criticism "antithetic", whereas "constructive criticism" is the process, that in its simplest form is the thesis-antitheis-synthesis dialectics. What you describe as (your) "gestation period of ideas concepts and writings" could perhaps be seen as a kind of multitasking dialectics like constructive criticism.

Still, there are many other meanings of the term criticism, e.g. literary criticism, that you also hinted at, that is supposed to represent the opposite (to where I am more at home) side of C.P. Snow's divide.

The Gabin poem is nice, but is different from the other which addressed our lifelong developing attitude towards father/authority.

Now to your questions. Please keep in mind that I am not a theologian, so I’ll probably sound too amateurish, and possibly "heretic".

>>Are you inferring that you believe the host is neither the physical body of Christ nor simply a symbol of His body but some non-physical form of "reality" which remains to be determined? <<

You are right to speak of the body of  Christ, referring not to (the historical person called) Jesus but to the (second person of the Trinity part of) God-incarnate called Jesus Christ, this relation being defined (albeit not explained) at the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD). So there is no "physical" body of Christ, only the physical body of the human (Jesus part) of Jesus Christ, which the host is certainly not identical with. (ctd)
Posted by George, Tuesday, 12 October 2010 12:52:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(ctd)
Not having theological qualifications I cannot further explain these things. However, even if I could, it would also depend on your qualifications: I could easily explain to a fourth year pure maths student the difference between diffeomorphisms and homemorphisms, but not to a person without the appropriate mathematical prerequisites. The best I could do is to talk about deformations of surfaces, obtained by "stretching and squeezing without tearing" them, etc, as is done in popular texts on algebraic topology, however not the above difference.

This is how I try to explain the fact that it is easy to uncritically accept (or reject) "theological popularisations" of basic tenets of Christianity, but certain nuances have to be left to those who have the historical, metaphysical, ancient languages etc qualifications.

Of course, there is a difference: many people with no theological qualifications find the concept of Jesus Christ (or Jesus the Christ, i.e. Messiah) useful in their life, whereas most people could not care less about diffeomorhisms or homeomorphisms.

After dealing with the "body" part of your question, let me turn to the "symbol". Yes, for many Christians the easiest way to understand the Eucharist is seeing in it a symbol of (the body of) Christ, the Messiah. The Catholic Church is against the use of the word "symbol", because it downplays the "mystery" that the Eucharist is supposed to convey. Again, my understanding of this is that, when I write down "$100" this symbolizes a certain value, whereas if this is written on a banknote issued by the Reserve Bank of Australia, that piece of paper IS worth $100, more than just symbolically . Of, course, for Robinson Crusoe the banknote would be just a worthless piece of paper, like the Eucharist is to "outsiders". (ctd)
Posted by George, Tuesday, 12 October 2010 12:58:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 22
  7. 23
  8. 24
  9. Page 25
  10. 26
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy