Silly Additions To Last Night's Post

[debka_notion]

1. At the art museum, Steve and I (ok, mostly me) decided that it would be really interesting for art museums to commission "no photography" signs in the form of art- maybe that way they'd get some more attention too. And then someday a museum could do an exibit of "no photography" signs. (And there there would be a really funny thing where you'd have to wonder if there would need to be separate signs to advise that the policy is in place for that exibition, and would those signs be part of the exibit or not...)

2. I got to have a conversation about the origin of the Torah with the same guy whom I'd totally confused when talking about the spiritual meaning that I see in contradictions in the text, while at dancing last night. And he seemed to at least understand what I was saying. It was rather nice. (I do wonder, when I talk about theology, I tend to make it clear that that's what works for me, not what one is theoretically required to believe, or something. Where does that line end- when does all the theology become more than just the way things make sense and work out for me between the world and the text and all that?)

Comments

[lordameth.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately, if there's one thing I've learned working in a museum, it's that visitors don't read signs.

People just do not get the no photography concept.

But, I do think it would make a great post-modernist type exhibit.

[tirerim.livejournal.com]

I definitely do not get the no photography concept. I would understand if it were "no flash photography", since I could see how flashes might damage exhibits over time, but not allowing people to take pictures at all just seems like the museum trying to make more money by selling postcards, and personally I'd be a lot more inclined to donate $5 to a museum and get pictures of the things I want to remember than pay $1 for a postcard that probably isn't even of the thing I'm interested in.

[hotshot2000.livejournal.com]

"I do wonder, when I talk about theology, I tend to make it clear that that's what works for me, not what one is theoretically required to believe, or something. Where does that line end- when does all the theology become more than just the way things make sense and work out for me between the world and the text and all that?"

Why does it need to be more than that?

[debka-notion.livejournal.com]

Lurking BT syndrome I guess? I don't know- somehow I feel like I ought, when things get to some level of basic-ness or fundamentality, to start saying "this is what the basic generally agreed-upon concept is, and here's where I go from there" rather than just "this is what works for me"... But I don't know where that is.

[hotshot2000.livejournal.com]

I think it's important to be able to comprehend and articulate "agreed-upon concepts" (adding the appropriate caveat of who is doing the agreeing) not because of their fundamentality, but rather because (a) it helps prevent reinventing the wheel and (b) it creates a shared discourse. But do you think there's a contradiction between making such articulations and then saying: "And here's how I use the extant linguistic construct [e.g., God, revelation, etc.], drawing on concepts A, B, and C, creating version D that gets me X, Y, and Z positive consequences"?

Let me concretize: A good Biblical literalist ought to be able to articulate the agreed-upon concept of evolution, and then say: "But even though this concept helps us understand biology and accomplish things in medicine, it destroys my ability to do Good in the world because it prevents me from believing that God is instructing us to be nice to people, without which I would go around acting immorally. Therefore, I must believe that evolution is false."