[Gilthalion]

Kalessin:

My point is about axiomatic (or absolute) statements that are philosophically (logically) unsound which imply the superiority of one individual over another (in whatever aspect, and for whatever reason) ... an examination of history should show you why.

This has nothing to do with "superiority" of one individual over another or the sad history of avarice, torture, murder, rape, destruction, and blasphemy that is part of the record of the Church. I could list what has been done to the credit of my Lord, but that would be another digression.

The heart of our difference of opinion lies in my insistence that my general observation is correct, and can be applied generally. Your argument is with application to the individual. No statistician would take the profile of an individual, compare it to a public opinion poll, and state categorically that the individual MUST have an opinion that his demographic category holds. Nevertheless, the general observation of the group holds. That's how products are sold and elections are won. But when used without cause in law enforcement against individuals, it is racial profiling and it is wrong.

As I say, I did not come to argue/debate, but to make an observation (and to discuss it if need be, but that surprised me). Folk are free to disagree. If you want to argue that until polls are conducted to verify or to disprove my assertion, it is merely a theory, that's fine. My assertion or theory is verifiable (though not provable in a scientific sense) if a valid poll is conducted with accepted statictical practices. I believe that you will GENERALLY find that with any given work of literature, folk who share worldviews with the author most closely will find resonances that enhance their appreciation above those with divergent worldviews. A poll could control well enough for demography so that the assertion could reasonably be shown to be correct or incorrect. But an argument about the nature of the observation I make will not make a difference. Folk who think as I do will continue to. Folk who don't, won't. Everyone else is asleep by now.

I'll read the rest of your post now, because I appreciate your forthright effort, but I'm not sure if much else is served. (I thought my last post was my "final" post!)

I also notice you didn't address Maril's point that some Christians consider Tolkien immoral because of the element of 'magic'. Surely this also illustrates the logical flaws in the original assertion ... or my point about the role and purpose of the author - the skill and vision in the communicative process that allows a work to transcend 'resonant' (or "similar") worldviews.

Sorry. I'm really not up to giving every point a response. There is a lot here!

To Maril's point: I've argued against these people myself, on the radio, before doing my Tolkien Reading last year at the Public Library. This is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Exceptions are expected and noted. Take a poll. This isn't science or philosophy. This is statistics.

To your point: I would say, that the transcendence of the work is testimony to the depth of Truth that the work embodies. (This is also irrelevant, except perhaps as corroboration of Tolkien's conviction that his worldview was closest to Truth.)

Your entire argument about the blind men is based upon an unprovable notion that the blind man's sensory appreciation of the sunset is somehow "equal" to the sighted. This is another difference of worldview, and irrelevant to my point. Some minds revolt at consideration of the possibility of inequalities. Some look for nothing else. Everyone else lies in between. (As I'm sure you and I do. I think by the time you got to the end of your argument, you saw that.) I think that this is one of the sticking points for a lot of people. Unequal attributes, situations, etc. do not necessairly imply inferiority or superiority. To say that 99 is greater than 98 does not mean that one number is "better" than the other. 99 is only numerically greater than 98, not superior. They are still both whole numbers and indespensible.

'If a reader is not a Christian, he will not have the same Christian experience (when reading works by a Christian) as a reader who is a Christian. Non-Christians cannot deny the experience of Christians.'

Well, at the risk of reductio ad absurdam this IS, on closer inspection, a somewhat circular argument. At its heart it says 'a non-Christian will not have the same experience as a Christian'. Yes, okay, but one human being is always different enough from another human being to not have the same experience.

That is a fair enough interpretation, and more clearly expressed than I managed. I am not even an amatuer philosopher! But I maintain that I am not really ARGUING my point, but merely ASSERTING it. This may be frustrating to those who relish philosophical (or theological) debate, and I'm sorry, but as Maril pointed out, there is no way for me to actually prove my point in any satisfactory sense.

Even the hypothetical poll I speak of could be argued. It would merely serve to either corroborate or discredit my assertion. It can't be proven or disproven philosophically.

I only report that it can be experienced, and therefore statistically measured as a matter of opinion.

IMPORTANT : to put the whole matter into perspective ... you can read the whole of this post of mine and use the words "rich", or "white", or "old", or "Buddhist" every time I have used the word "Christian". My argument, which has to do with logical reasoning, challenging axiomatic assertion, and implications of superiority, would be exactly the same.

Exactly. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

By the way, it is worth talking. And listening. Being open-minded (and open-hearted), to any who are willing to engage in reasonable discourse.

Can't really disagree with that. And I hope that's why I made the effort. Thanks for an interesting discussion! I will pray that your open mind and heart has an opportunity to find that in the "varieties of religious experience" (I actually read it) reports might be confirmed that seem to Wormtongue fantasy (and foolishness), and to Maril arrogance (and far worse).

Then you can go back and read Tolkien and see if you, yourself, do not experience what I report! [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[ April 26, 2002: Message edited by: Gilthalion ]