Like lesser men before him, Bill Bennett for recent example, Benedict has been misinterpreted by people with agendas looking for devils. Some of it deliberate, some of it sloppy. Such matters are inevitable, and I am returning this week to the themes of 'jumping meta' as in metaphysics. For the record, the blogosphere (which is fast outgrowing its name - we used to be a small community of a couple million) has come correct on the matter of papal original intent thanks to Stuart Buck. But what does it take to fool the entire blogosphere? And how fast is the emergent quality of truth we deal with on a daily basis?
I go in this direction prompted by a review of some of my old material, namely 'Sunglasses in the Auranet'. Furthermore I am still buzzing about the nature of Truth and our ability to percieve it, ascertain its provenance, and reconcile ourselves to it. In fact, I wonder at this very moment, hmm no I don't. I was going to wonder if Truth is actually Good and that only those who posit God are philosophically capable of merging the two. But I think it's human nature to ascribe good to that which sustains them, and even the most atheist cosmologist would have to concede that the laws of a godless universe are indeed good, because these laws sustain consciousness. Aside from that diversion, the warning is to beware of perfect simulacra and not to wed identity to information.
As I was driving along the coast this morning after having dropped off Boy to his Quartermaster duties at the local Scout troop, I noticed how lovely and calm was the Pacific Ocean off our shores. I had earily related to him how quaint our town would be had soldiers from the Pacific in WW2 not brought back stories of Polynesian splendor. If Hollywood hadn't supported romantic notions associated with watching sunsets from sandy beaches, real estate around here would be ordinary. And so it occured to me along the lines of metaphysics that fishermen see the sea in a completely different way. The jogger's appreciation, the admiration given by the couple sitting on the bench holding hands has nothing to do with experience with the ocean itself, but only the idea that this view is beautiful.
As well, related to the emergent quality of truth and fact finding with the internet as a communications tool, we must face some implications of the long tail theory. In this case, I am talking about the truth of moderate, rational Islam, which is apparently not self-evident enough for those lining up to prove once and for all that Islam has 'violent tendencies'. As I wrote yesterday at Protien Wisdom:
But I don’t think this line of inquiry is looking for moderate Islam, so much as it is looking for political actors who will side with the Coalition of the Willing. The fact that they are muslim is just a convenient proxy. Because, let’s face it, we’re not going to learn Islam anymore than the Mullahs are going to learn baseball.
All we really need to know is who the extremists are who are ready to act violently against America, Western interests and who would subvert state sovereignty. But let’s not pretend to care about Islam more than we do.
I happen to believe that somewhere out there, there is a muslim cleric who has responded precisely to Benedict’s theological challenge. And I cannot imagine that such a thing would be so very difficult. But I think it serves us well to be reminded that Benedict was also addressing ‘radical secularists’ who falsely believe they own a monopoly on Rationalism.
I’m not so convinced that Benedict is engaging in world-historical brinksmanship, nor does it behoove us to draw a line in the sand over Islam as soon as possible. That is because I believe that the kinds of acts of terror and perfidy we face on a global scale with these Jihadis is not a viral ideological plague. Syria did not empty out into the Iraqi desert, nor did Iran even send any numbers of troops across the border, though I’m sure there were spies and agents. Israel didn’t have to raise a finger. What indeed is the size of the al Sadr’s Madhi Army? Small.
Countering the real threat of Jihadi terror simply does not require a referendum on Islam. I can’t tell you who killed whom in Srebernica from a theological standpoint, nor can I recite anything from Hutu history. But we’ll know they’re Jihadis by their acts, by their acts, yes we’ll know..
Bottom line we don't have to be exhaustive in our knowledge to know enough. But by the same token we shouldn't pretend to know more than we actually do when our convictions are solid. I'm sure there are a class of logical fallacies associated with this. I was attracted to logical fallacies when I was a sixth grader and I remain fascinated by deception and the analysis of emergent corroboration. Which means if I get wealthy, I'll become the Kung Fu Santa Claus, if merely rich then a priest or philosophy professor, and if only upscale the same part-time essayist I am. Note to self, cobble together more paragraphs for book number one.
Recent Comments