|
John wrote > None of us stand above
the "forest."
Well said, John. No doubt about it, in this age of
enlightenment that is a difficult truth to learn.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2005 6:56
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Truth as viewed
by one of the greats
Debbie:
Better said than my post, I
think.
Another way of looking at is this: In the "forrest
and the tree" illustration - it is the forest that is "truth" not the
tree. the question is not "is this a tree." We CAN
figure that out for ourselves with a high degree of certainty. The
question is not "is this a tree" but "is this tree a part of the
Truth." None of us stand above the "forrest."
All of us find ourselves nose-to-bark in front of one of these
trees. It may be a pole pine, a Juniper, a fig tree --
but it all is a part of the same forest. We are far too myopic to know
of the larger picture without the sharing of ideas -- even
on the most mundane of subjects
---------------- other than personal preference.
Jd
In a message dated 1/28/2005 10:01:48 PM Pacific
Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You can use me as an excuse to meditate anytime.
By defining truth in terms of
time/history (past, present, future), you seem to be saying that it
is
events/acts rather than
principles, hence
particulars rather than universals;
more like narrative, and less
like science.
Well, Annie Dillard would
agree with you! It would sure correct a propositionalist imbalance in
Western theology, even if it doesn't capture everything. Let me test my
thinking about what you've said by saying it back like this:
I like the way, in your
account, the truth comes "backwards" to us from the future--because the
purpose/end of acts is their meaning--and yet from the point of view of our
experience in time, it comes from the past through the present into the
future.
Also, I think I get that in the present moment, which is
durationless and hence eventless, the locus of truth must be the Person from
whom the events/acts emanate. That's what unifies them.
Jesus is the way (future in
your account), the truth (past), AND the life (present). I get how the 'way'
is predictive, but only insofar as it incorporates the life; that is, we
have to be on/in the way now in order for it to take us anywhere.
The way, the truth, and the life are not distinct things but
different views of the same thing...Hey, another one of these trinities
[note small t, all those waiting to pounce], another three-note chord each
of whose notes occupies the entire 'space'? Cool.
Debbie
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 2:17
AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re:
[TruthTalk] Truth as viewed by one of the greats
In a message dated 1/27/2005
6:52:05 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It is my contention that an awareness/assurance of
"truth" is not possible apart from the sharing of ideas (read
"truth"). In this remark, obtaining truth and having the assurance
that I possess the "truth" is the same thing. And I am NOT
speaking of the "whole range of truth."
Theory:
Truth in the past is "fact" --
truth in the present is the speculative moment or a relational
circumstance -- truth in the future is a mystery
(to we humans) but God's reality. It has differing forms and must be
revealed by others.
Application:
And
with Debbie in mind [four hours after writing these opening
words, I must confess I was only using Debbie as an excuse to
contemplate] , I want to add a thought or two. It
seems to me that community (call it counsel or fellowship ) is all the
more important, even critical, when we realize that truth, i.e. the "full
range of truth," is so large, that it cannot be understood by those
who stand in its presence -- the "forest and the tree kind of
thing. As I see it, we have time in three
dimensions: the past, the present and the future (I hasten to add
that I did not come up with this idea) Perhaps truth in the
past is "fact." "Truth" in the present is not so very different from
the speculative moment (thus dynamic to the max and as
fleeting as good looks) -- how could it not be in view of the
fact that the present is no larger than a pin point - a
point in time, a single point in time in which nothing else exists
except what is happening. If truth exists in the "present," is
can only exist as something associated with life, not
conceptually. There is nothing in the "present" that is
fixed. Everything is in transition. When Paul
claims that the truth is in Jesus Himself (Eph 4:21) -
he makes the only conclusion about "truth" that is possible --
that, if it exists in the present, it is the living form of Christ
Himself.
But, to move on: "truth" in the future
is only a mystery (to us). On the surface, it seems to have little bearing
on us except as we understand that the furture is the birth place for all
that we consider as life (present) and fact (past). It is pregnant
with everything that is about to happen. To combine the past
with the present is to create the opportunity for prediction.
At least this is how it works for the created. The Creator's
circumstance is very different from the created. His existence
includes the future. It (the future) is full of what is
about to happen because of the Creator's decision --
it is His reality and our mystery.
Outside of
me thinking outloud, what is the effect of this discussion with
myself? Truth as it exists in the past, cannot be separated
from the present because the present is transitional, and is a
part of God's reality if we consider its existence in the
furture. Truth, then, has more than one form and is
larger than our own abilty to consider it because it is
intimately related to itself in the past, present and
future. It has a conceptual reality, a Living Circumstance and
revelatory unveiling. And most importantly, there
is a time when it must be revealed by another (God or God at work
in ciurcumstance and community). We embrace it, a moment at
a time, as it fits into our limited and physical paradigm
---------------- a thing we call the
"present." This "revealing" gives the impression that "truth
changes." And while we all reject this thinking as being the
very antithesis of truth, it continues as a nagging
consideration ------- what I "know" today may
change 10 years from now, or 10 minutes from now. But,
perhaps, what we see as change is only truth as a continuing
revelation -- birthing from the future through our
present into the conceptual possibilities of the past. And if,
after years, those concepts are all we have, nothing more, we
are left with a graveyard of ideas with no Life.
Christ is the way, the truth and the life. Think about
it -- actually I am getting a little excited here -- the
"way" is always predictive, is it not? "This is the way to
your friends house." "This is the way to solve this
problem." It is pregnate with ideas, plans, goals
- a future in the truest sense of the word. The "truth" may
very well be the conceptual ideas of the Divine as embrace in the Christ.
If so, we would understand history as His Story (corny, I know) and
the Old Scriptures as the very specific accounting for the His
incarnation. The "life" is what Christ can only be in present
time.
How far off am I? Perhaps some
will offer an opinion. Understand that I am nothing more than a
California Okie trying, from time to time, to understand the philosophical
implications of (in this case) "truth" as it relates to me and my
God.
Aristotle on the Bottle,
The
Smithmeister -- out !
(that thing about the way,
the truth and the life, will preach -- big
time. )
|
