Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]And, of course you have a map(s)! The NT is one of your maps; the text is not the territory!
But the map is the territory, if the territory is not traversable. In the case of life after death, the only way we could talk about the territory is by having faith that the map is an accurate representation; i.e., to trust the mapmaker. A spi g orthodox Christianity (which the Vedantist foolishly glosses over to his or her detriment).[/b]
Epi:
But the map is the territory, if the territory is not traversable. In the case of life after death, the only way we could talk about the territory is by having faith that the map is an accurate representation; i.e., to trust the mapmaker.
No, the map does not become the territory: that makes no sense.
No map can be taken as guarantor of the existence of the territory that it purports to describe. In such a case, your decision is a
radical one.
You are choosing a particular map (the Biblical scriptures) as the
standard of truth for judging both the territory (including the given existential territory in which we are now holding this discussion, the territory of spiritual experience, and the putative reality of an after-death territory) and any other maps.
In such a case, no observation of the territory can confirm or disconfirm the validity of the map; nor can the claims of any other map. Your claim of the scriptural map as a standard of truth is
axiomatic.
If you have some other—non-circular!—standard by which to judge your map, then I will stand corrected.
—In theological terms, this may amount to the perennial debate between those who give preference to so-called scriptural revelation, and those who give preference to so-called natural revelation.
Epi:
Context
One of my hermeneutical principles is that, certainly, context matters. But one person’s text is another person’s con-text (pun intended with that hyphen). [We both saw how much that is so in our “great debate”.] The activity and interpretive choices of the reader simply cannot be removed from the equation. The notion of a self-interpreting text is an absurdity.
—For example, you likely use the NT as context for deciphering the HS texts; I do not.
Your trusting in your own reading of the map (or your own reading of others’ reading of the map) is
not qualitatively different from my trusting of my own (pre-conceptualizing) observations of the existential territory. The maps that I construct from such observation are always testable in terms of continued observation (meditation is really just a kind of observation). My observations may lead to inferences about non-observed territory (e.g., applications of non-separability and coherence), but I can never treat them as anything but inferential.
—Though how one would argue against a
coherent, as opposed to incoherent, all-of-it (however one views that all-of-it) is beyond me.
It is only the commitment to testability against observations of the observable territory, and to recognizing the inferential nature of my conclusions, that keeps me from simply “believing in my own belief.” It is also what keeps me from conceptualizing only about other concepts, mapping only other maps. My axiomatic standard is that observation—and the commitment that all maps must be judged vis-à-vis the territory, and not the other way ‘round. [And that decision may well be as radical as your own.]
—And I recognize that I do not have access to any kind of “view from nowhere”, and so do not simply
dismiss other folks’ views from where they are. That, too, keeps me from being a strict formalist.
Epi:
…the richness and precision of Greek and Hebrew, full of intricate subtlety of meaning, allowing us an opportunity to understand authorial intent.
B.S. 😉 Greek may be a precision language; biblical Hebrew is not—and no translation into another language can magically make it so. The richness of Hebrew (and its linguistic structure) leads inexorably to multiple possible readings with multiple possible meanings. The language itself militates against what rabbi and scholar Marc-Alain Ouaknin calls “the idolatry of the one right meaning”. Rabbinical exegesis embraces this fact.
That is not to deny the validity of historical criticism, form criticism, textual criticism, literary criticism, etc. I pay attention to all of them (though more to literary criticism than the others). None of them lead to the surety of a “one right meaning”. [Hisorical critics seem more sanguine, generally, about determining "authorial intent" than do literary critcs; however, that may not be a hard and fast rule.]
—For example, I might claim that the “authorial intent” behind the statement
eheyeh asher eheyeh—I will be whatever I will be, or I am that I am, or I am as I will be, or…; none of these interpretations can be taken as definitive—to be to deconstruct the whole idea of naming/defining/circumscribing (idolizing) the mystery of the godhead. All names/definitions are provisional. This, I think, is Rav Kook’s point. But, I have no other grounds for making such a claim than the text itself as I read it; no one else does either. So I do not make it as a claim; I make it as a valid suggestion.
—Another example: The
shema can be taken either as a statement of dualistic monotheism
or of nondualism. Both understandings are found in Judaism; neither is more “orthodox” than the other; neither represents a knock-down majority view.
Epi:
…which the Vedantist foolishly glosses over to his or her detriment
What the Vedantist does not do (and I don’t think she is foolish about this at all) is to take your text/map as her standard of truth. Therefore, the only way she can read it is through whatever her standards are. You judge her understanding through your own standard of truth, just as she judges yours through hers. Why one would be
per se more “irresponsible” than the other remains a mystery to me.
—Note: I have been assuming that no Vedantist worth her salt would simply take, say, the Upanishads, as her fundamental standard. If she did, then I would level the same map-versus-territory critique against her.
___________________________________________
With all that said, I do take your warning about “interpreting from the outside” seriously enough that I no longer argue about the possible meanings of the NT texts themselves.