"As far as I'm aware, every claim that the Course somehow cannot be understood largely literally within the accepted limitations of language, can be dismissed as agenda-driven religiosity, where the main complaint is a literal reading doesn't produce the pre-determined agenda, results and conclusions of the critic.
To be sure, in an academic sense, unclouded by religious passions and beliefs, a work written philosophically in a philosophical manner, concerned with philosophical issues is read literally, "as written" and stands on its on.
Why? Because the assumption is a writer who presumes to write in an exact, precise, philosophical manner assumes the burden of clarity within the accepted limits of language, and has no agenda or reason to be less than clear by the introduction of figurative or metaphorical language when unambiguous, clear language can convey the thought. In other words the purpose of philosophy and philosophical methods and methodology is extreme clarity of thought and not hiding, obscuring, or muddling thought to the extent a claim can be made that "as written," the philosophic thought or thought system offered is largely nonsense, or figurative/metaphor, or in short, simply does not and cannot mean what it says."
In the case of ACIM, the above notion is demonstrated by the author writing and presenting his work as a formal thought system.
What does this mean? It means the author writes in terms of given, but unproven axiomatic thoughts, introduces premises logically derived by logical rules of inference, then reaches clearly logically VALID conclusions based on the truth of his axiomatic thought. An example of unproven, axiomatic thought would be "God exists," and the attendant axiom, "that God created you and you did not create God."
An example of a valid conclusion reached would be that the Atonement works and can only work because God created you and you cannot create yourself.
The demonstration of a formal thought system in ACIM could be accomplished by placing key Course ideas in the form of either syllogistic or predicate logic, following accepted rules of inference. Which is the end would be unnecessary and trite, because its generally recognized and conceded that the author writes logically, in a logical manner, and is concerned with both his logic and fallacious logic.
As such and clearly, writers writing philosophically concerned with logic and reason, are NOT writing figuratively, poetically or metaphorically. Such methods and presentation of material are mutually exclusive, and I would challenge anyone of "ACIM as metaphor, school of thought," to give any example, anywhere of a poetic, figurative, metaphorical work presented as a formal thought system and concerned with formal logic. Such works don't exist and could never happened.
As such the counter claim that a formal thought system and rationality are the metaphor and thus demonstrate the allegedly figurative nature of ACIM, is non academic and contentious of the author presenting his thoughts in his own way and own manner, and clearly limits such a critic to non rational "proofs" that his meta-commenting is correct. In other words, by definition cannot be rationally proven, and thus self-refuting.
In short then, that for the above and other reasons, ACIM was written to be understood literally within the accepted limitations of language. This argument does make sense, and is pretty much irrefutable. I doubt anyone with any academic credentials or scholarly pretensions would attempt to demonstrate ACIM is not written and presented as formal thought system.
To be sure, a formal thought system as described is the gold standard for "making sense," and being intelligible. In other words, a formal thought system cannot NOT make sense or be "wrong," unless axioms and premises are first proven false, or that deductive rules of inference are violated or faulty. "When we talk about "making sense," in a formal way, making sense means valid logical inferences from premises.
This of course, challenges the "writing in language we understand," claim.
The author is clearly writing in language and logical structure we understand and largely cannot be critiqued or challenged without demonstrating that his axiomatic foundational statement are false.
That CANNOT be done because these axiomatic statements such as "God created you, and you did not create yourself," reflect God established Laws stated by a direct knower (Jesus) of these laws, not an interpretor of these laws. This is the author's claim. Furthermore his axioms cannot be in principle be proven or demonstrated false from the view point or context of an different, perception-based thought
To be sure, in an academic sense, unclouded by religious passions and beliefs, a work written philosophically in a philosophical manner, concerned with philosophical issues is read literally, "as written" and stands on its on.
Why? Because the assumption is a writer who presumes to write in an exact, precise, philosophical manner assumes the burden of clarity within the accepted limits of language, and has no agenda or reason to be less than clear by the introduction of figurative or metaphorical language when unambiguous, clear language can convey the thought. In other words the purpose of philosophy and philosophical methods and methodology is extreme clarity of thought and not hiding, obscuring, or muddling thought to the extent a claim can be made that "as written," the philosophic thought or thought system offered is largely nonsense, or figurative/metaphor, or in short, simply does not and cannot mean what it says."
In the case of ACIM, the above notion is demonstrated by the author writing and presenting his work as a formal thought system.
What does this mean? It means the author writes in terms of given, but unproven axiomatic thoughts, introduces premises logically derived by logical rules of inference, then reaches clearly logically VALID conclusions based on the truth of his axiomatic thought. An example of unproven, axiomatic thought would be "God exists," and the attendant axiom, "that God created you and you did not create God."
An example of a valid conclusion reached would be that the Atonement works and can only work because God created you and you cannot create yourself.
The demonstration of a formal thought system in ACIM could be accomplished by placing key Course ideas in the form of either syllogistic or predicate logic, following accepted rules of inference. Which is the end would be unnecessary and trite, because its generally recognized and conceded that the author writes logically, in a logical manner, and is concerned with both his logic and fallacious logic.
As such and clearly, writers writing philosophically concerned with logic and reason, are NOT writing figuratively, poetically or metaphorically. Such methods and presentation of material are mutually exclusive, and I would challenge anyone of "ACIM as metaphor, school of thought," to give any example, anywhere of a poetic, figurative, metaphorical work presented as a formal thought system and concerned with formal logic. Such works don't exist and could never happened.
As such the counter claim that a formal thought system and rationality are the metaphor and thus demonstrate the allegedly figurative nature of ACIM, is non academic and contentious of the author presenting his thoughts in his own way and own manner, and clearly limits such a critic to non rational "proofs" that his meta-commenting is correct. In other words, by definition cannot be rationally proven, and thus self-refuting.
In short then, that for the above and other reasons, ACIM was written to be understood literally within the accepted limitations of language. This argument does make sense, and is pretty much irrefutable. I doubt anyone with any academic credentials or scholarly pretensions would attempt to demonstrate ACIM is not written and presented as formal thought system.
To be sure, a formal thought system as described is the gold standard for "making sense," and being intelligible. In other words, a formal thought system cannot NOT make sense or be "wrong," unless axioms and premises are first proven false, or that deductive rules of inference are violated or faulty. "When we talk about "making sense," in a formal way, making sense means valid logical inferences from premises.
This of course, challenges the "writing in language we understand," claim.
The author is clearly writing in language and logical structure we understand and largely cannot be critiqued or challenged without demonstrating that his axiomatic foundational statement are false.
That CANNOT be done because these axiomatic statements such as "God created you, and you did not create yourself," reflect God established Laws stated by a direct knower (Jesus) of these laws, not an interpretor of these laws. This is the author's claim. Furthermore his axioms cannot be in principle be proven or demonstrated false from the view point or context of an different, perception-based thought
As such a ACIM critic can reject the author's axioms but cannot demonstrate or prove them false. So in this sense, ACIM as written is all true or all false.
In short then, ACIM is a heavenly based, formal thought system reflecting heaven, while alternative interpretations such a Wapnick's or Renard don't pretend to be a complete thought system, rather these interpretations are presented as a collection of beliefs, and pre-ordained, agenda driven conclusions, with no formal logical structure which could take scrutiny.
Moreover, Wapnick's assertion of non duality is irrational, and is for all purposes a categorical denial of rationally and formal thought systems as "duality," which leads him to the strange and highly peculiar position of refuting rationality by allegedly rational means. Wapnick assumed non duality and his definition of non duality, then made the non duality the first principle of course interpretation, so its hardly suprising that he concludes ACIM teaches non duality.
In Wapnick's critique and re-interpretation, "non duality," substitutes as first principle and axiomatic statement. Which by the law of allegiance to premises, must read and interpret all passages in ACIM as consistent with this first, inviolate principle. As such his conclusion of non duality is certain and ordained, though clearly because he changed axioms of the Course thought system and not because he had allegiance to the author's pure, holy, absolutely true, God-established axioms.
Let's say some dislike "stop think" commands like "duality," especially in a religious context, and especially when uttered [by sloppy thinkers]. In a course context "duality," is misused by people who either can't understand perception involves interpretation unlike the natural condition of knowledge, or can't explain a simple comparison and contrast, even though many claim to be teachers."
In short then, ACIM is a heavenly based, formal thought system reflecting heaven, while alternative interpretations such a Wapnick's or Renard don't pretend to be a complete thought system, rather these interpretations are presented as a collection of beliefs, and pre-ordained, agenda driven conclusions, with no formal logical structure which could take scrutiny.
Moreover, Wapnick's assertion of non duality is irrational, and is for all purposes a categorical denial of rationally and formal thought systems as "duality," which leads him to the strange and highly peculiar position of refuting rationality by allegedly rational means. Wapnick assumed non duality and his definition of non duality, then made the non duality the first principle of course interpretation, so its hardly suprising that he concludes ACIM teaches non duality.
In Wapnick's critique and re-interpretation, "non duality," substitutes as first principle and axiomatic statement. Which by the law of allegiance to premises, must read and interpret all passages in ACIM as consistent with this first, inviolate principle. As such his conclusion of non duality is certain and ordained, though clearly because he changed axioms of the Course thought system and not because he had allegiance to the author's pure, holy, absolutely true, God-established axioms.
Let's say some dislike "stop think" commands like "duality," especially in a religious context, and especially when uttered [by sloppy thinkers]. In a course context "duality," is misused by people who either can't understand perception involves interpretation unlike the natural condition of knowledge, or can't explain a simple comparison and contrast, even though many claim to be teachers."
No comments:
Post a Comment