Were she to do it, I want every single one to change in a puff of fairy dust and sparkles.
In theory heâd be old enough to be omniimpotent. (sorry God).
2 Likes
I wonder what the original tag had on it? Since the price ends in .99 this is probably not a mark-down, so there must be some reason for the re-tagging⌠Perhaps somebody had complained about the category on the previous tag.
Yâknow, and no offense intended, personally Iâd just file the bibble in the rack next to the Doctor Who books.
Did I mention itâs the Doctorâs 50th anniversary?
Sacrilege!
1 Like
Well, Doctor Who is God really isnât he?
The sacrilege has to do with demeaning the Doctor Who aisle with other texts, of course. 
1 Like
OK, your just pointing out maybe it s not the best term. I think I m starting to get why the term might be misunderstood - if I get it it s because history is commonly associated with factual or political - it may be that I have a problem with that as well. I m not sure whats being discussed anymore here. It does still flummox me to some extent that âhistorical documentâ should be a problematical term at all. I tend to think it s a productive way to approach the bible. I m by no means any kind of expert on the bible but it does contain many references to it s own time, not to mention being explicitly bound up with some pretty intense politics over the centuries. That some misunderstood doesnât seem like a proof of anything but misunderstanding. If I had a better term for what I am thinking here I d use it, but I don t. I don t think the Declaration is mythology, that was me trying to make a point about the permeable border between fact and fiction (though I might point out that cosmology is mythology, and therefore metaphysical).
Yeah, we do certainly seem to be talking past each other. Though from my perspective Iâm simply trying to express what seems to me a relatively intuitive concept while youâre engaging in semantic wrangling to apparently make a hash out of what it is I am trying to say. Natural language is an imperfect medium for communication and so a certain amount of cooperation is involved in trying to transmit some sort of statement from one person to another.
Let me try to sneak it in sideways. Which is a âbetterâ 2D representation of a human face: the Mona Lisa or one of these smileys: :)? Well, what do I mean by âbetterâ? Youâve already shot down âaccuracyâ and âverisimilitudeâ either of which I might have used as a criterion for the comparison. Iâm having trouble finding anything else that would provide a similar purpose semantically but which you wouldnât problematize. And yet I think itâs bloody obvious what the answer to the question is, isnât it? The Mona Lisa is a better representation of human anatomy than an emoticon. Thereâs not much room for debate except in semantic hair-splitting â at which point itâs difficult to avoid the conclusion that my interlocutor is just being difficult.
If thereâs a historical âfact of the matterâ â even one inaccessible to us â then some narratives will represent it âbetterâ than others. This remains true even if you shoot down any possible word I could use in place of âbetterâ. Some narratives will be wholly unrepresentative of this historical âfact of the matterâ and some will represent all the most salient details without bringing in anything completely made up. This latter sort of narrative clearly seems preferable to me, even if you wonât allow me to assert that itâs preferable in terms of accuracy or verisimilitude. If you want to give me a word go right ahead â that would at least prove youâre not just being difficult, right?
Itâs not actually a metaphor let alone a loaded one. Surely you wouldnât object to the concept of âarchaeological evidenceâ as a âloaded metaphorâ. So whatâs the difference between a potsherd and a cartouche? Texts are evidence of something even if the narratives they contain canât be taken at face value. If your concept of history completely lacks the notion of âevidenceâ then once again it seems to me that your concept of history is simply incoherent. If we canât assess some narratives as being more reliable than others then thereâs no reason to prefer believing any one thing to any other. Thatâs simply a form of solipsism.[quote=âtimothy_krause, post:119, topic:14759â]
I just think we have such opposed views as to a lot of these things, and Iâm particularly of the linguistic-turn school, which finds so many of the basic terms weâve used problematic, fun, poetic, rhetorical, whereas you seem to see them as more or less having a stable, central meaning.
[/quote]
Not so. Language is of course always problematic as I mentioned above. The question is whether you want to use language to facilitate communication or to disrupt communication. Truth be told, yes, Iâd prefer the former. You seem to prefer the latter. That would seem to be the difference between our views of language.
A fine example. A term that can refer to literally anything is essentially useless for communication. The reasons for this are obvious. To communicate we must be able to limit the universe of discourse and to differentiate that universe into discrete concepts. If we speak using only interchangeable terms then it is impossible to convey any sort of meaning to each other.
As far as the declaration goes, I wouldnât call the stuff about freedom and dignity âmythologizingâ except in a metaphorical sense. Please refer back to my previous definition of mythology as offered. Now, using your system of âcommunicationâ it might be acceptable to call the sort of rationalistic moral philosophy on which the talk of freedom and dignity âmythologyâ but thatâs only because by your lights any word can mean anything at all. (Again, thatâs certainly true in some sense but pragmatically it prevents communication which defeats the purpose of having a conversation about this stuff in the first place.) Rationalistic philosophy, even if based on unsound, unevidenced, or untrue premises, is simply a different sort of thing than mythology. At least, it is if you want to be able to conceptualize rationalistic philosophy and mythology and have a conversation about their interrelationships instead of smearing every possible concept into a solipsistic smear.
Also, while Iâd certainly agree that a great deal of mythology has grown up around the DoI, that would not indicate that the document itself is a work of mythology the way, say, the Iliad is a work of mythology. Yes, in some hand-handed way we can insist on calling the DoI âmythologyâ. But thatâs certainly a more metaphorical usage than the phrase âhistorical evidenceâ and itâs not going to help us to understand each other or to structure our internal ontologies into anything but an undifferentiated mass.[quote=âtimothy_krause, post:119, topic:14759â]
I feel that liquidself and I have been discussing these issues in a more critical, post-linguistic-turn, narrative-based sort of way, whereas you and others have been insisting on a stable set of meanings and a âthereâ thatâs there.
[/quote]
Iâm willing to work with ambiguity â as youâve already pointed out I donât have a choice. But yes, stable meanings are pretty much de rigeur if youâre going to, ya know, try to have a conversation where we donât talk right past each other. The IP protocol is just one arbitrary way of lining up bits â thereâs nothing special about it just as thereâs perhaps nothing special about the way the English language divides up the universe of concepts. On the other hand, if every computer used a different protocol we wouldnât be having a conversation over this lovely internet so perhaps there is something special about that arbitrary protocol after all â and that specialness has to do with the fact that the consistency with which it is implemented lets computers talk to each other. Similarly, while the English language is in some sense a bunch of arbitrary sounds, using it consistently allows us to convey meanings to one another.
If youâd rather engage in meta linguistic wankery I guess thatâs your prerogative but donât act like Iâm the ignorant one because I donât want to play Calvinball with you.
2 Likes
Now that I understand the sense in which you meant âhistorical documentâ itâs not a problem. I understand what you mean as it is a document of its time and thereâs a great deal we can learn about history by comparing the Bible to other sources. It was a matter of establishing context that wasnât established for me by your initial comment.
(though I might point out that cosmology is mythology, and therefore metaphysical).
Well, that doesnât seem right to me. Some cosmologies are mythological, certainly, but whether or not we want to categorize modern scientific cosmology as âmythologicalâ is going to depend on our definition of âmythological.â I tend to think a definition of âmythologicalâ that includes scientific cosmology is going to be more misleading than helpful but you can join @timothy_krause in his game of Calvinball if you disagree.
Edit: I would consider Carl Saganâs narratives about scientific cosmology to be a form of mythology.
The âthereforeâ doesnât seem to belong there, though. While cosmology is arguably metaphysical (thatâs a whole 'nuther can of worms regarding the distinction between âphysicalâ and âmetaphysicalâ which is, as far as I can tell, both arbitrary and poorly defined), that it is metaphysical is not, as far as I can tell, a logical inference that can be made from the categorization of cosmology as âmythologyâ. If you want to sketch out a proof Iâll consider it, but I simply donât see how that argument would go.
I can get you a good deal on a black cat if youâre in the area!
Edit: I dunno why the video embed isnât working. Itâs here -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNSYzXIiVrM
1 Like
Nah, thanks, I donât find that superstition any more compelling than all those others about spirits and souls and god(s) and such.
I am admittedly a total shill for both adoption & cats.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
