Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Nothing "obtuse here" Amen

Sun, 21 Mar 2004 14:21:52 -0800

G ~P 235,
 
I am perplexed and a bit disheartened over this post. I've been sitting on it a couple days now (a long time in the fast-paced world of e-communalism). What is it that has you so stirred? And I mean that with no disrespect intended. When this discussion began, it opened with a question from you asking me if I preferred Plato over Aristotle: "but if not Aristotle's, what are the philosophical premises of your theology? Do you prefer Plato?" Your question was prompted by a comment I had made to Judy, pointing out the Aristotelian nature of her holiness doctrine. She didn't recognize Aristotle's influence on her thought. My guess is that neither did you. But I did, and I pointed it out to her. I did this not to attack her or to belittle her but to help her to maybe begin to realize that one does not need to study philosophy to be captivated by its lure. It is just as often the unsuspecting one who is hurt by philosophy as it is the one who makes it his prerogative to know. The point is, however, that I was not promoting philosophy over the Bible when this all began; instead I was awakening a sister to the silent whispers of Greek thought, when you wrote me to inquire about the philosophical underpinnings of my own theology.
 
Did I prefer Plato over Aristotle? I preferred neither, although I admire both for the good they did in preparing the Greek world to begin to think about "God" in a monotheistic frame of reference. No, I said, "if I were to say I adhere to a philosophy, I would look to the breakthroughs of Michael Polanyi." Why did I say that? I said it because I understand Polanyi and I know what he has done to free all thought, and especially Christian thought, from Enlightenment rationalism. You can read my Polanyi post to get the particulars on the whats of rationalism and the whys and hows he reacted (if you want documentation, I would be glad to send my references). If it is difficult reading, I humbly apologize -- I wrote to the best of my ability, and I wrote for you and your fellow TTers to read. Please, get your dictionary out, put it beside you, and begin to work your way through it. It won't hurt you. And if you learn a new word or two, then, so what, that won't hurt you either.
 
Beyond that, I do not worship Polanyi. I worship Jesus Christ. But I do admire Polanyi's contribution, just like I admire others for their contributions. I know I must "work out" my own salvation (to quote Judy, and partially quote Scripture), but I am not so enamored as to think I have to do it all myself. Nor am easily I intimidated -- I like looking for our Lord in all the "wrong" places. It doesn't surprise me to find him working in strongholds normally given to the other side. Jesus made it his career doing this. Why should it stir you to discover the same?
 
Thank you,
    Bill Taylor
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 3:08 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Nothing "obtuse here" Amen

Mr. Moderator: This irrelevant stuff (not the best word i'm thinkin' of) that LL and Bill wanna foist off on innocent readers is disgusting--pls have them either document and explain what it has to do with our lives or tell 'em to shut up about it
 
IOW, Lance, prove that Polanyi's philosophy is relevant to you--no one here would wanna listen to a tape of whom you've demonstrated to be irrelevant!
 
You and Bill have effectively reduced your favorite philospher to the level of Brittney Spears with your muttering chaotic meddling in his ideological affairs--and she, ftr, communicates her drivel with more common sense than all either of you clowns
 
Try this, Lance: post the (valid) text of an Polanyi Berkley speech with your view of it, and I'll post a readable layman's response you can read--I think you might be able to succeed at communicating while Bill travels aerospace...  
 
heck, Lance, I'll even write like a BS song that you and Bill can really dig
 
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 11:43:14 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
..Seriously, it'd appear that you have a thorough grasp of the Pman so, I won't venture into "expert territory". However, if you want to hear him I've got lectures delivered at UCBerkley in 1962. Lance
----- Original Message -----
Sent: March 19, 2004 11:38
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:SYNTAX SEMANTICS &THE CIA

??..all i wanna know is what's the astoundinG RELEVANCE OF MICHAEL POLANYI'S THOUGHT FOR you(!)?
 
Why not listen to Brittney Spears, Layman?
 

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 11:25:41 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
We won't blow your cover. Lance
Sent: March 19, 2004 11:21
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Layman's view

then i guess you've been enjoying a lot of irrelevant noise lately?
 
 
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:22:53 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
He's perhaps the only Christian philosopher, excepting Kierkegaard to have batted over 400. PS Check out the P Society for a more learned response. Lance
----- Original Message -----
Sent: March 19, 2004 10:11
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:RELEVANCE OF MICHAEL POLANYI'S THOUGHT FOR

since, for Polanyi, there appears to be no simultaneous coordination of conceptual and physical activity, we can boldly suggest at least a couple of possibilities:
 
1. he's not much of a baseball player, and,
 
2. in keeping with 1., unlike a trip to Jericho with Moses, MP ideology of 'Christian Faith and Life' sounds thoroughly academic (like from the right wing of a 66 story ivory tower adjacent to the Pontiff's window a stone's throw from the left wing of the secular and the sacred society and the myriad hot dog vendors)
 
or, layman Lance, would you rather tell us in your words the real relevance of Michael Polanyi's thought?
 
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 06:09:13 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[re: the book] CHRISTIAN FAITH & LIFE
 
From: Wm. Taylor
Sent: March 18, 2004 18:49
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] POLYANYI
..A bodily activity might be something like swimming or riding a bicycle, whereas a conceptual activity something like reading a book or solving a mathematical equation...

Reply via email to