DM: So 'merely' has no purchase does it? That's why Rorty's talk of redescriptions is better than such dismissals.
Your Bible point is interesting. But do we understand the Bible as a bible when we read it as history and literature? Part of its history is its claim to divine status. Is there any way to dismiss someone else who chooses to read it as divine? More important I'd suggest is the right to have a choice about how to read it. So the right I assert not to read it as divine grants the same freedom to another to do so. Do we not need such a pluralist approach to our problems of difference and conflict? DM > Krimel said: > There is nothing wrong with looking at a system of levels. They are a > useful > > heuristic but they are rules of thumb not metaphysical laws. They are > metaphorical and in this case one might add merely metaphorical. > > David M > Are there concepts that this does not apply to? > > [Krimel] > No but then much depends on the claims made for and about the concepts in > question. Studied as a historical and literary work the Bible is a > fascinating document. When people claim that it is the inerrant divine > word > of God, it should be seen in a completely different light. > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
