David,
Thank for your considerate response. I think if you
will bear with me a while, I will be able to give you a better reply in a day or
two than I would if I were to attempt to answer your questions today. I am
presently reading a book written by Lesslie Newbigin entitled, Proper
Confidence: Faith, Doubt and Certainty in Christian Discipleship (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995). Why do I say I should wait? because Newbigin was for
many years a missionary to India and the Hindus who lived there. I know enough
about Newbigin to know his passion for Christ. I also know that he is familiar,
perhaps the most familiar, with the insights of Polanyi. I think it only wise
that I listen to the voice of the missionary to your questions, rather than
attempt to answer them hastily. In the mean-time I will say that this is an
excellent read and I highly recommend it. He is addressing the very issues you
raise.
Thank you. I hope you will bear with me. I just do
not have a good enough understanding of Hindu thought to feel comfortable
answering your very appropriate questions at this time.
Perhaps Lance would like to venture a stab at them
{:>)
I will say that I also said that it is "misleading"
to speak in the language of objectivity verses subjectivity. If it is not a good
enough reason to abandon this language because of its divisiveness, is it not
still a good enough reason to abandon it because it is misleading? I cannot
think of a single time in all of Scripture that Jesus encouraged us to mislead
one another. Can you help me out here?
Bill Taylor
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 5:37 PM
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk]
POLYANYI
> > Hence it is neither necessary, nor helpful to speak of
> > knowledge in terms of "objectivity" verses "subjectivism."
> > Such language is always divisive (think about the gap)
> > and always misleading. Let us speak of knowledge in terms
> > of a personal commitment -- whether it be to Jesus Christ,
> > to truth, to a spiritual understanding of reality, or
> > to being in the world but not of the it.
>
> This is a very interesting perspective you have shared. I must say that
> I have always expressed an appreciation for both approaches, both
> objective and subjective. Here you argue for a completely different
> approach to knowledge... a relational one.
>
> I have seen this perspective before, but not expressed with these terms.
> Tell me if I am misunderstanding you here, but isn't this similar to the
> way that Hindu's approach knowledge? For example, the Hare Krishna's
> sing songs and repeat chants to experience a kind of mystic experience
> of peace and tranquility. I have seen some Christian groups also
> forsake Bible Study with the idea of experiencing Christ in a group
> meeting together. They too will sing songs that are esoteric to the
> group, much like the Hare Krishnas. The mystic group experience becomes
> a way their group has a knowledge of Christ experientially.
>
> Now I know that you are going to think, "what is David talking about...
> why is he saying this stuff." What I would like to hear is how what you
> are sharing about how to approach knowledge differs from this other
> thing that I have just mentioned. I don't know if you have considered
> or thought about it or not, but if you see some distinctions that might
> help me understand better, I would enjoy hearing them.
>
> What I'm doing is sitting here from my position of appreciating both the
> objective (scientific approach) and the subjective (spiritual and
> personal experiential approach) and trying to see exactly what this new
> way of viewing knowledge is that you are presenting. I had previously
> thought you were kind of magnifying some specific subjective methods of
> apprehending knowledge, but I now see that what you are talking about is
> neither and that you view subjective knowledge to be divisive just like
> objective knowledge. Of course, Jesus did say that he came to bring a
> sword, so I'm not sure that divisiveness alone would disqualify it,
> but... anyway, I'm chewing on what you have shared. Very interesting
> stuff!
>
> Peace be with you.
> David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida.
>
> ----------
> "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
>
> If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
>
