This is the latest reply from the discussion I am having with Dave from Big Story Guide.
To read the evolution of the discussion, you can look to the comments on ‘Irony is..’ and most of it is on “A Story”. These just a few posts ago.
It is ongoing still.
But this reply by me I think is pertinent to my work and my upcoming book “Absolution”.
The reason why I asked about women: because femminism and social justice are closely intertwined.
Firstly, I think I cannot close religion into some arena that never addresses or concerns the rest of whats going on in the world.
Second; I am reminded of the OJ simpson trial. (Im watching the series but I also just watched the ‘Real Story’ that was an assemblage of a bunch of media clips.)
I think they do very well at showing the situation of the OJ thing that no one really could get a grasp on 20 years ago.
The question is: Is he guilty or not guilty?
Now, while this seems like a straight forward answer, we found that it is not. in general, blacks and whites viewed it differently.
The whites saw it as a straightforward, business as usual, determination of what actually occurred; i.e. did OJ take a knife and stick it in Nicole and Ron and kill them?
Of course the trial was turned into a trial about race and OJ was freed because the question was then never about whether he actually stuck the knife into those people. It was about whether the LAPD was a racist instiution.
In a larger sense, it was a trial that concerned the whole American institution.
What it revealed was that the Truth is not an objective situation. It is a subjective negotiation.
The trial brought out to view the situation that Black people has known for their whole time living: That while white people (in general) just saw things as matter of fact, black people were affected unfairly and unjustly due to this ‘matter of factness’, that indeed this matter of fact was not based on any facts at all, or rather, that the institution that was erected upon this assumption of ubiquitous and obvious truth of the universe, was not only faulty, but ethically contradictory. It brought into view that Fact that what people know as true Indeed informs them as to their truth, such that they are incapable of seeing reality in any other way. Knowledge, in this way, functions axiomatically and self-evidently.
Now; We should note that the above situation is not the case absolutely, but only transitionally, only to the extent and operation that something of the truth, for its reckoning, was left out. But the process by which we come to the truth must have truth as its object.
Ie: It is not that truth is subjective and negotiated so much as there must be a negotiation of subjects in order to arrive at what the truth is.
For reality, the truth always works itself out ironically.
A civil suit was brought and OJ was indeed found liable for the murders. See here that it was not the Law that found his guilt, a ‘filtering’ of objective evidence upon a leveled field of consideration; rather it was the Law that justified the occasion of truth. It was indeed the Civil case, a negotiation of subjects, that found the Truth.
But this is the real objective case. This is the situation in which we find ourselves, albeit, objectively. In the search for truth, reality is the process of uncovering all possible parties involved in the case and the hearing of them in a proposed level playing field, even as the field itself is adjusted as each new party concerned is found.
But what is left out in this consideration is the subjective case; we have to be careful here because too soon and readily do we tend to want to fall back into making the argument for the real objective case.
In the effort to find Truth, ironically, we do not look for new parties and search for all the evidence. In this effort, the parties are all present and evidence is all logged and available.
My point is that I understand that when you say “the Big Story of the Bible is the most cogent telling of the story of humanity”, you are indeed talking about what you are saying here: There is a story that encompasses all the facts, and the Bible presents the best telling of the assessment of the facts.
I say I agree. But when we go to discuss just what the facts are, what they mean, what that individual piece of information that goes to inform this logical result that is the Bible Big Story, we are finding that we don’t necessarily agree with one another.
The way I am viewing this situation is that you are proposing the Big Story like a case of Law, of real (subjective-) objectivity, upon a level playing field, and as new parties come in you apply the best you can the letter of Law the the Story to account for the new party, and likewise new evidence. Hence, sometimes God has not revealed to you the purpose or placement of these new aspects, so you ‘don’t know’.
Yet the way I see the Big Story is that your particular version, your orientation upon the story, your proposal as to its universality, as an objective ubiquity, is yet also part of the telling, Because all the evidence is in, all the parties accounted for.
So I say the Bible is telling the Story that includes our telling of the story. And this situation is what is difficult to view when one sees the knowledge they have of any situation as being that of the objective case being heard upon a eternally leveled playing field.
But yet also see: This statement of the truth of the situation is itself ironic, and depends upon where or how you are placing yourself in the situation; but more, not how you are placing yourself , as through some sort of choice, but the orientation upon the situation is dependent upon how you have been placed, in order to thereby view the situation.