Dear Dan,

Yes, existence is a limitation.

Apart from the obvious inability of anything existent to be non-existent (or if you like, to become "non-existent, then existent again"), only OBJECTS exist (or in common language, "things").

Objects are subject to time/change and can be manipulated - even the sun is affected by our small mass and as it pulls us we pull it back.

"Existence" is the subtlest attribute, but still is. Let's take a simpler example of an attribute - "creator". If something or someone creates a world, then that makes them a creator! Previously they were not a creator, but now they are. Have they changed? It's action and reaction: if you do something to X, then X applies an opposite force on you. That's a limitation.

Apart from this, existence is an illusion of the human mind - a divine illusion if you will, but still an illusion. Our brain is incapable and was not even meant, designed or evolved to grasp the Truth, but only to carry our survival and everyday duties successfully, so "existence" is just a practical abstraction which helps us to function and plan. Now would it be sensible to claim that God is within and subject to His own illusion?

It is simply inappropriate and futile to attempt to apply our everyday sense and mental experiences and the terms we invented for them, to God.

.

Dear George,

.

You wrote :

« >> I knew you would not take kindly to that expression <<

Thus you agree with what I wrote above, namely that “indoctrination” has become a pejorative word. »
.

For those who consider that indoctrination simply means teaching (cf., the Webster dictionary definition cited by Craig) then you are right : indoctrination may be interpreted as a pejorative word for teaching.

Webster is an excellent dictionary but it is an American dictionary. My reference is the Oxford English Dictionary which I think you will find is generally considered the ultimate authority in the English language.

The free online Oxford dictionary indicates the following definition for indoctrination :

1. Teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically

2. Archaic: Teach or instruct (someone)

Modern usage of the term indoctrination makes a clear distinction between teaching as it is generally practiced in most scholarly pursuits and the teaching of a doctrine or an ideology.

In the modern usage of the term, indoctrination is not a pejorative form of the word teaching. It designates a very unique method of “teaching” for which the corresponding pejorative term is brainwashing.

The online etymological dictionary indicates that the word indoctrination derives from the Medieval Latin word doctor : "religious teacher, adviser, scholar" (which reminds me of the term “witch-doctor”).
.

You then quoted Geertz as having explained :

“…rather like “culture”, “symbol” has been used to refer to a great variety of things … it is (also) used for any object, act, event, quality or relation which serves as a vehicle for a conception—the conception is the symbol’s meaning—and that is the approach I shall follow here” (op cit. p. 91).

It seems to me that the “vehicle” Geertz describes in his “definition” of religion is a system of communication which represents a process of indoctrination of something (a doctrine, an ideology, religion …) but not the thing itself.

I’m afraid we seem to be at odds, here, George.

Btw, why should cultural anthropology “not deal with teaching processes” ?

.

Dear Banjo,

>> the following definition for indoctrination :

1. Teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically<<

I agree, and have already admitted that as a child I have been taught to accept many beliefs uncritically (I mentioned languages, but similarly maths when learning to count apples, facts of science, etc.), although the word indoctrination is usually not being used in this context. Besides, I do not understand how a child could have accepted these things “critically”, except that his/her “criticisms” is guided (e.g. by his/her maths teacher in later years).

I agree that I accepted Geertz’s anthropological definition uncritically, since I am not an anthropologist. If you want to criticise it, you have to consult the paper I quoted from, and perhaps suggest an alternative anthropologist’s approach.

Otherwise I would have to agree with Craig’s last post, and leave it at that.

George,

I think you’re being deliberately obtuse. When I quoted the Oxford dictionary's definition of "indoctrinate", I included the synonyms for a reason. Dictionaries order their synonyms by their relevance and here are the first five synonyms that Oxford mention in regards to "indoctrinate":

brainwash, propagandize, proselytize, inculcate, re-educate

Not exactly the words one would use to describe the style of uncritical teaching that you’re trying to pass off as examples of what the Oxford dictionary could be talking about.

Sounds like they need to revise their definition for those who insist on not understanding.

Banjo Patterson,

Thanks for that last post. It said everything I didn't have the patience or time to say earlier.

Speaking of unreliable defintitions, here's one that serves as a good reminder as to why we need to be cautious of the definitions we accept, and why I (and Google's 'define:' command, apparently) only use the Oxford dictionary's definitions...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abiogenesis?s=t

.

Dear George,

.

You wrote :

« I do not understand how a child could have accepted these things “critically”, except that his/her “criticisms” is guided (e.g. by his/her maths teacher in later years). »
.

Naturally, there is a good deal a child cannot accept critically but I have observed in my own children and grand-children that they develop a capacity for critical thought, to varying degrees, fairly quickly – particularly when one gets a better deal than another – call it a sense of justice, if you like.

Turning to your example of maths - but it is true, too, for the sciences and humanities (to a lesser extent) - while young children are highly vulnerable and largely incapable of criticising whatever is dealt up to them, the job has already been done by others, through peer reviews and rigorous teacher qualifications and control. Society has long been aware of the problem and caters for it fairly effectively.

Where the problem lies is in the domain of religion, beliefs, doctrines and ideologies over which society has very little control. The humanities are not exactly watertight either despite the built-in safeguards of the education system previously mentioned They are often subject to conflicting interpretations and theories. Even biology is a borderline case. Scientology, creationism and intelligent design have made inroads into what otherwise may have qualified as a “hard” science.

As you know, my formal education ceased at the end of primary school. I was raised as a Christian, baptised, confirmed and served as an altar boy. One of my best friends is now a retired Anglican bishop. I never had a “teacher in later years” to “guide” me (as you indicate). I grew-up not knowing my father. My mother never mentioned him. I always thought he was dead but learned he was alive the day he died. My brother found out and told me in secret. Our mother never remarried.

Perhaps that is why I have always enjoyed relative freedom of thought and independence of mind, George, and why our world-views are so difficult to reconcile.

.

Dear Banjo,

Thanks for a sincere insight into your formatting years.

>>Perhaps that is why I have always enjoyed relative freedom of thought and independence of mind, George, and why our world-views are so difficult to reconcile <<

I do not doubt that you “have always enjoyed relative freedom of thought and independence of mind”, and I would appreciate if you could accept the same about me, (or other people whose worldview you do not share) since after all it is a self-assessment, and only a few people would claim the opposite about themselves.

I never thought these discussions were about reconciling different worldviews, often based on very different life experiences. I would rather think that they are about enhancing one’s worldview by learning from some honest upholders of the opposite one, without seeking an admission by the opponent that my worldview was superior (e.g. more rational because he/she was “indoctrinated” into his/her worldview while I was not). At least I have learned a lot from many (not nearly all) contributors here, including you.