Originally posted by epiphinehas
I see this divide (if it is a divide) a bit differently. Imagine that. π
The "non-formalist", as you put it, in bringing his or her subjective experience to bear upon the expression of a non-subjective truth, is engaged in an approach to truth which absolutely guarantees error (by "non-subjective" I mean truth which is impossible to arrive at t I idolize scripture and thereby lose contact with or an appreciation for the ineffable.
Articulate response, as usual! π
I dislike the terms “subjective” and “non-subjective” here. I do not consider my realization of non-dualism, for example, to be at all subjective. Since I do not have a “view from nowhere”, however—and since I realize that my very viewing is itself a process within the whole—whatever thoughts I have about that, however I am able to express them, is inescapably
perspectival at any moment. [The realization of figure/ground perspectivism, and the non-separability of the figures and ground—the gulfstream from the ocean, my smile from my face, myself from the whole—does not constitute a “view from nowhere”.]
Similarly, if the reality (the “territory” ) is not prior to any revelation, then what is being revealed?* And how can any revelation not be subject to that perspectivism?
I absolutely concur that “the mind itself can be idolized”—if, by the mind’s activities you mean the various (quite natural) endeavors at conceptualization, which I metaphorically call “map-making”. In fact, I have often used the phrase “images graven on the mind”.
I simply cannot assert that my map (realized, received or revealed) is the only “true” and non-perspectival map. That is precisely what makes me a non-formalist, who draws upon various map-forms. There are others who work within a single map-form, but do not insist upon it for everyone. (I might call them
de facto, but not
de jure, formalists; perhaps “de jure” is a better term than “strict”.)
I also want to keep myself from making new
mitzraim.
[I try to be pretty careful about by language on idolatry—I try to use words like “tends toward”, “flirts with”, “can become”, etc. I am perhaps not always as careful as I would like to be. But idolatry, as a spiritual danger, has always loomed large for me.]
When I worship the Lord I do so by relying upon what the Bible reveals about Him, but I also allow myself to go beyond His revealed attributes and engage Him as He is, beyond any conceptualization or expression. As a strict formalist I guard against the misinterpretation of scripture, and rely upon scripture to get my ideas about God straight, but this does not necessarily mean that I idolize scripture and thereby lose contact with or an appreciation for the ineffable.
I’m not sure I can argue against that, as it is worded. But—consider for a moment: guarding against the misinterpretation of the map (scripture) is not the same as saying that it is the only valid map.
There also seems to be a hint of circularity in that second sentence: it is the territory (the ineffable) that the map may or may not misinterpret—one cannot use the map to interpret the map, and then insist that the territory conform. Nor can I reject your map
simply based on my map; I have to test both against the territory (as I experience it), and allow some room for perspective. The map can never be guarantor of itself—without the danger of idolatry (even a subtle form, as Rav Kook says) raising its head.
And any claims
from the map that it is guarantor of itself are ultimately circular.
Vis-à-vis what—until someone saves me with a better term—I’ll call de facto religious formalism, I have no quarrel. Vis-à-vis –until someone saves me with a better term—I’ll call de jure religious formalism, I do have quarrel. At the moment, I am not sure where you’re at.
______________________________________________
* If one argues that the revelation is itself also part of what’s being manifest from, in and of the whole, I would have little to say—except to raise the point that then all such revelations have
that same status.