Dear Gary,
Embracing Contraries. Loving the Enemy, yes”
Or Frenemy, if you prefer I saw some addict
on Celebrity Rehab describe “Friend” as the
Same Deal as an “Enemy” -- just the flip side.
And some say an Enemy is as Good as a Buddha
Embracing Contraries (without which Is No
Progress, says Blake. )
We all know this to be true. What I just wrote above.
But it’s the kind of yeah, yeah truth almost impossible
to factor-in to the day-to-day getRdone—learning,
teaching taking care of business & dominant pair
of dimes.
Disappear Fear. Don’t Postpone Joy
Into each Life a little Reign must Fall.
Opposites Attract. Then Attack. Etc.
Yeah, Yeah: in the mean time we
do our work program.
Peter Elbow draws a line of distinction between
disciplinary and inter-disciplinary approaches. But
then draws a bigger, thicker line separating
Disciplinary from NON- DISCIPLINARY
and suggests that the NON-DISCIPLINARY . . .
(not to be collapsed,
conflate, or confused
with the majors, minors
and capstone experiences)
might be an ALSO-way (not alternative, but
supplemental) to do educating: learning
and teaching..
I’m going to resist the temptation to try to spell IT out
for you (“neither sermons nor logic convince,” says Whitman,
and it’s become my mantra) and wonder whether the mere
distinction
disciplinary / non-disciplinary
might generate some emergent thinking. applicable to our
Gen –Ed concerns. (And don’t be using “experiential” as
the opposite & contrary of disciplinary: that’s like saying
temperature is the opposite of hot. It’s ALL experiential for
crying out loud)
How would any of us describe and embrace & incorporate
the non-disciplinary into our discipline-dominant ways of
talk and thought? Should be properly problematic seeing as
our education has always been discipline-driven…
Sort of like asking Joe Fish to consider WET.
ok. I’m going to shut up for a moment. xxxooo, Sam
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I hate false dichotomies.
ReplyDeleteAren't they all? (Draw me the line--so to speak--between false dichotomies and not-false dichotomies, and then the line between not-false dichotomies and genuine dichotomies, and then maybe the line between dichotomies drawn for the sake of argument and dichotomies merely inherited and not even realized how arbitrary they were (conventional dichotomies)
ReplyDeleteLaw and Gospel need proper distinction.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cph.org/p-8987-law-and-gospel-how-to-read-and-apply-the-bible.aspx?SearchTerm=Law%20and%20Gospel
Does this qualify?
Is there a difference between distinctions and distinction-drawing on the one hand, and on the other hand dichotomies?
ReplyDeleteI would say the distinction drawn between LAW and GOSPEL is a good one and crucial.
Faux Dichotomies are distinctions some one (or convention) draws to serve their agenda and some one(s) else don't like the separation, thinks maybe it occludes the relationship. And so FAUX!
I love my distinctions--dichotomies, either/or's, one the one hand and on the other hand.
Don't necessarily like other people's, other system's, other convention's. Might call them FAUX if they interfere with my own. Depends. . .
THe IDEA of dichotomy, distinction, difference ... is conceptual and absolute. The practice and what is generated by the practice is infinite, and relative.
You make good points.
ReplyDeleteGenerally, at heart, I am looking for consensus when discussing things/arguing with people. Often two things can be true at the same time, such as the simul justus et peccator.
I think the more ways of saying "these things" the better if not always the merrier. By consensus, you mean the over all agree ability that allows various agree-to-disagree ratios as is good and necessary in sustained discussion, and maybe edification. ???
ReplyDeleteDo you want to explain that a little bit more? ???
ReplyDeleteConsensus. I am thinking about such things as the Book of Concord, since my mind is always turning on theology.
http://cyberbrethren.com/2011/08/01/the-deluxe-pocket-edition-of-the-book-of-concord-available-now/
I honestly believe that if we all read it and discussed it carefully, we would not just throw up our hands and say we need to chuck our theology at the door (nakedpastor), and would actually agree (Concord). Not everyone is into such reading and discussion and that is not necessary, but those who do go that way I think should be able to agree for the most part.
You were on FB, and you saw some Lutherans go into complaining that the Book of Concord was too Melanchtonian and you wanted that explained. Well, some parts were penned by Melanchton, and some things were framed later on. Some parts are straight from Luther. So obviously the whole confession can be taken apart some more.
People were not going to take it apart for your there, but I think at the bottom of the complaint is the teaching of a thing called "the third use of the law", which some think lays the groundwork for a Calvinistic type understanding of "now if you really are a Christian you should keep this law"; but since the Christian has just come out from under the law and lives in the wonderful forgiveness and freedom won by Christ, you should not go around and put him right under the law again. Many argue that there is no third use, so to speak. There are two uses and they are the same for Christians and non-Christians. You can find all this in the Book of Concord (BOC).
If you want to read more along those lines we can make suggestions. Another controversy in this connection is in relation to anti-nomianism.
There was a Luther movie once, where a student at the university said to Luther: "You mean, I can whatever I want now." And he says: "Yes, so what do you want to do now? Do you want to go to the whorehouse,etc?"
Of course, we don't want to go there. Do we need to be told again, or are we free?
("Freedom" is a big word of course. I took an education philosophy course once and the way I remember it half the year was on "equality" and the other half on "freedom.")
"The Freedom of the Christian Person" is a hugely important document by Luther, and it can easily be googled. Luther comes across to some like a lumberjack because of his solid, rustic statements, but he is actually a genius and very subtle. He needs to be read carefully and whereever his disciples depart from him, they are usually not headed the right direction. He is the towering giant.
I like the notion of 3rd, as one who thinks he can practice some form of dialectic--where a synthesis rises up (emergent, as biologists tell it) our of opposites, contraries, dichotomies false and true--IF the two opposing sides, positions, teams, polarities are kept in play and not one winning or losing. Pop goes the weasel, as it were: a revealed point of view that does no injustice to the opposition like Temperature to Hot & Cold.
ReplyDeleteDialectic is a form of love yr enemy. Bring it on, the opposition. The process doesn't even begin until some one is hurt, insulted, injured, offended.
Towering giants galore. More than I can shake a stick it, or some 7th grader can keep up wiht, having a paper route and other obligations to tend to. Yrs in foolishness.
Have you read "The Freedom of the Christian person"? Then lets compare towering giants again. :)
ReplyDeleteI don't have enough testosterone, I think,to really enjoy combat.