Ed Weick wrote:
>
> > Ray,
> >
> > Although I am sure that it would not be popular for Muslims to focus on
> > Universality at this time in history, the Quran uses the term 'ahl
> > al-kitaab' which means 'people of the book'.
I once read in a book that I have but cannot put my
hands on at the moment due to having made an effort to
protect my books from the infant getting her hands on them....
Anyway, this person made the point that the effect of the
printing press on different cultures might be different,
and that the printing press might not lead in a rigidly
hierarchical society to the enlightenment it led to in
Western Europe.
I think it is a shame that "people of the book" do not
study and learn the lessons of Habermas, Elizabeth Eisenstein
et al. concerning the universalizing logic of language.
But here as elsewhere, most if not all of the
categories of human existence can apply in either a
taxonomic or an honorific way. For instance, Heidegger
observed the "care" is a universal structure of human
existence. And I think he was right. But he was not
right if by "care" we understand solicitous nurturance
(the honorific). He was right if we understand the
determination to injure someone as a kind of care for them --
for if the injurer did not care about the person at all
they would not bother to injure them.
We know the cliche that the spoken word gives life,
and the written word kills (stifles the spirit, etc.).
Ands yet we have Abraham answering "Yes (I will kill
my son for you, Y-w-h)!" to J-w-h's call [calling,
vocation, etc.]. On the other hand we have the
example of persons who lived in claustral
environments but didn't realize it, whose "eyes were opened" by
books.
I would suggest that any person of the book should not
be heavily invested in any particular piece of real estate
(beyond pragmatic considerations). Israel should be
irrelevant to the jews (at least if living there
entails making a lot of people
miserable). Mecca should be irrelevant to the
Muslims. These are things, i.e., idols (physical
objects to which spiritual habitation is imputed). --But
obviously they don't see it that way.
Furthermore, how can there be a *people* of the book? Reading
is an individual activity of assimilation and interpretation
and giving an accounting to oneself and others for one's
interpretation.
How can we be sure that the Bible we hold in our hands is not
a Satanic one (like the edition which left the "not" out of
oine of the 10 commandments and the proofreaders didn't catch it
before it got out)?
I was reading today how Nietzsche hoped that one day
we would read Socrates' biography instead of the Bible, as
the words that inspire us.
I would like to see persons "identify" with the process of
discourse, not with the happenstance contents of that process
at the given moment (Westerners talk about Jesus and the Chinese talk
about Confucius, etc. -- but, as Heraclitus said, the process of
formulating experience in discourse is the same for all)....
\brad mccormick
> > This includes Muslims,
> > Christians, and Jews. Muslims believe that they were simply the latest
> > recipients in a series of messages from God. Ask any Muslim if
> > significant parts of the Quran are not also parts of the Bible.
> >
> > Bill Ward
> > **********************************************************
> > I would like to hear a Moslem speak on the Universality of all faith and
> > the value of each culture in the great quilt of the Creator's humanity.
> >
> > Ray
> >
>
> I have a good friend, a devout Moslem, who I'm sure would be happy to do so.
>
> Ed Weick
> 577 Melbourne Ave.
> Ottawa, ON, K2A 1W7
> Canada
> Phone (613) 728 4630
> Fax (613) 728 9382
--
Let your light so shine before men,
that they may see your good works.... (Matt 5:16)
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21)
<![%THINK;[SGML+APL]]> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Visit my website ==> http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
