the structure
For those of you who are/were English majors from ACU, you know all about Literary Criticism with Dr. Rankin. For me, it was one of my favorite classes even though it kicked my butt. Every day after class, I would have an information and intellectual high, but also that I had been beaten up. It was interesting. Also know that anything that I discuss from that class is up for critique because I could very well be wrong.
One of the critiques that we learned about was structuralism, that discusses the way in which we develop meaning and understand things based on the structure of that thing. One way we can use this confusing technique is to think about something in the terms of what we say about that thing. The words we use to describe something creates the meaning for that thing seperate of the actual meaning or essence of this thing. If I say that Megan is a dirtbag, me using the word "dirtbag" creates a meaning for her that is seperate (although correct) of her actual being. For example, she is also a mother, a sister, talkative-- but all these things are seperate of her being a dirtbag, but included in her being. A list of attributes does not fully describe all of her.
[Insert boredom here]
This could go on forever. Any word we use to describe something will never fully encompass someone or something's entire being. Words limit what we can know about anything if we apply this technique. So about God... Anytime we use words to describe him (by the way, the capitalization of all god words were created by people who cannonized the bible into English because we only have have about a bakers-dozen of different words for god, while in Hebrew and Aramaic there are scores of names for God; therefore, English is a lazy language. We get God, Lord and all the lord ofs, Jesus, Holy Spirit, and they get Yhwh tsaba'ot, yah, Elohim, Adonai which describe different attributes. Also, the capitalization makes it easier for English readers to decipher objects of the pronouns-- but I digress) we construct a static idea of God. Any time we say "God is...", we create something that is limited. God is infinate, so yes, maybe he is benevolent, but he is also jealous, and eternal, and mortal, etc. It is important to discover the character of God and actively seek right ideas of him, but my human words will never capture the entire being of God, because he is bigger than my words.
I think that is enough for now. I could keep going, but I am afraid I have already lost some readers. Oh yeah, the other day I found $20.
One of the critiques that we learned about was structuralism, that discusses the way in which we develop meaning and understand things based on the structure of that thing. One way we can use this confusing technique is to think about something in the terms of what we say about that thing. The words we use to describe something creates the meaning for that thing seperate of the actual meaning or essence of this thing. If I say that Megan is a dirtbag, me using the word "dirtbag" creates a meaning for her that is seperate (although correct) of her actual being. For example, she is also a mother, a sister, talkative-- but all these things are seperate of her being a dirtbag, but included in her being. A list of attributes does not fully describe all of her.[Insert boredom here]
This could go on forever. Any word we use to describe something will never fully encompass someone or something's entire being. Words limit what we can know about anything if we apply this technique. So about God... Anytime we use words to describe him (by the way, the capitalization of all god words were created by people who cannonized the bible into English because we only have have about a bakers-dozen of different words for god, while in Hebrew and Aramaic there are scores of names for God; therefore, English is a lazy language. We get God, Lord and all the lord ofs, Jesus, Holy Spirit, and they get Yhwh tsaba'ot, yah, Elohim, Adonai which describe different attributes. Also, the capitalization makes it easier for English readers to decipher objects of the pronouns-- but I digress) we construct a static idea of God. Any time we say "God is...", we create something that is limited. God is infinate, so yes, maybe he is benevolent, but he is also jealous, and eternal, and mortal, etc. It is important to discover the character of God and actively seek right ideas of him, but my human words will never capture the entire being of God, because he is bigger than my words.
I think that is enough for now. I could keep going, but I am afraid I have already lost some readers. Oh yeah, the other day I found $20.
I just thought that I would let you know that you ascribe to a sociological interpretation of the "individual" versus a psychological interpretation. Sociologists say that an object, whether a person or thing is described according to the "I" and the "me" respectively. Mead said that an object is so many different things or beings with each social setting that is entered...therfore Megan can be a Dirtbag, but she is also a mother etc. as you said. It is the sociological identity theory described almost perfectly. Good job. As for God I think that I will continue to default to Jars of Clay theology, "I won't give up on giving [him] a chance to blow my mind..." and I will continue every day to pray that he will blow me away with even the smallest glimpse of who He is. Great thoughts. I absolutely LOVE you!
ReplyDeleteum, yeah. you lost me. but that picture is classic and you are a huge dirtbag!
ReplyDeleteWow. You and Noel have a "special" connection (based on her comment)! You really know how to make us use our brains. I had to ready that twice. Thanks for the lesson today :) (Oh and I agree about Megan being a dirtbag!)
ReplyDelete