[MF] faith, hope and love

Kevin Perez juan825diego at yahoo.com
Thu Jan 26 01:19:30 PST 2006


  Marty,
   
  Thanks for the response.
   
  I'd like to respond first to your lament of James Fowler's words.
   
  >     "Faith is not always religious in its content or context.  To ask
>     these questions seriously of oneself or others does not
>     necessarily mean to elicit answers about religious commitment or 
>     belief.  Faith is a person's or group's way of moving into the force
>     field of life.  It is our way of finding coherence in and giving
>     meaning to the multiple forces and relations that make up our
>     lives.  Faith is a person's way of seeing him- or herself in relation
>     to others against the background of shared meaning and purpose."
>
> These are statements that seem to be meant to describe what "faith" is, but
> they don't do that.  Sentences like "Faith is a person's or group's way of
> moving into the force field of life" APPEAR to define what faith is, but it
> doesn't succeed; in fact, it creates more questions then it answers.  What
> is the 'force field of life'? What is it in faith that facilitates movement
> through this force field?  These quotes sound more like poetry and a
> description.  I don't have anything against poetry, but when we are
> discussing metaphysics, I think some more precise defining is called for.
> For instance, "Faith is a person's way of seeing him or herself in relation
> to others against the background of shared meaning and purpose" doesn't
> having any meaning. It tries to define 'faith' in terms of "a way of seeing"
> - what doe that mean?  Is faith like a pair of glasses? - Of course not, but
> we get no clue from this statement.
   
  The following quote from Kierkegaard echoes this despair.  I located it at
http://philosophyquotes.com/archives/20010110.shtml.
   
       "How poor is language in comparison with that symphony of sounds
     unmeaning, yet how significant, whether of a battle or of a banquet, which
     even scenic representation cannot imitate and for which language has but a
     few words! How rich is language in the expression of the world of ideas, and
     how poor, when it is to describe reality!"
   
       "Is love, perchance, privileged to be the only event which is to be considered
     after, rather than before, it happens? If that be the case, what then if I, having
     fallen in love, should later on think that it was too late to think about it?"
   
       "So then we see: to love corresponds to the lovable; and the lovable is the
     inexplicable. Well, that is at least something; but comprehensible it is not, as
     little as the inexplicable way in which love seizes on its prey. Who, indeed,
     would not be alarmed if people about one, time and again, dropped down
     dead, all of a sudden, or had convulsions, without anyone being able to
     account for it?"
   
       -Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855), Stages on Life's Way (1845)
   
  To understand faith as Fowler refers to it is to understand love as Kierkegaard
refers to it, it seems to me.  Whether faith and love are real or imaginary or nothing
  at all may depend on which stage one finds oneself on.
   
  I find it interesting that both Fowler and Kierkegaard use the term stages; 
  Fowler's Stages of Faith and Kierkegaard's Stages on Life's Way.  But again
there are questions of meaning.  Do Fowler and Kierkegaard see a developmental
  aspects to faith and love?  I know Fowler does.  I'm not sure about Kierkegaard.
   
  > So, you asked "What would you say is the basis for true meaning?"
> I would say that in this case the basis would be understanding and clarity.
> If faith is to be considered as an issue, it needs a better description; it
> can't be a private experience that can't be translated.
> 
> "Does meaning, assuming it is possible for an observer to apprehend it,
> require some orientation or disposition or effort on the part of the
> observer?"
> 
> Yes, I think so.  Like the relationships you were talking about, meaning
> requires a two-way street; meaning either conveys or symbolizes - it can do
> neither without someone to understand what is conveyed.
   
  Me too.  
   
  > "And if this observer chooses not to make the effort is the meaning empty
> for all observers?"
> 
> No, each stands alone, although if the meaning is ambiguous then no one may
> have a clear understanding.
   
  Likewise.
   
  I would add that for things like faith and love, and quality, the meaning is
always ambiguous.  People should never be expected to agree 100% on the
meaning of these things.  But then this doesn't mean that these things don't
exist or that they can't discussed.  What's been written about them actually
does fill the libraries of the world.  They are what a well-lived life is all about.
   
  What does all this have to say about the Metaphysics of Quality?  Is Pirsig's
undefined Quality in any way like faith, hope or love?
  
 
  Kevin


		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 With a free 1 GB, there's more in store with Yahoo! Mail.


More information about the Moq_Focus mailing list