Re: <nettime> Forget who owns the truth. Just talk about the weather.

[Joseph Rabie via nettime-l <nettime-l@lists.nettime.org>]

Dear Christian,

> I fully agree. The example does not justify any general conclusions for sure. And there are certainly people who feel a need in spiritual content for their lives. This also does not allow the general conclusion that all people are in need for some spirituality, religion or the like. So what should we do? As far as I see it's a good idea to let everybody take a personal decision. A perspective, that renders general arguments that are based on some sort of spirituality and include consequences for others useless. In short: Spirituality justifies nothing. In this respect, there is still some room for improvement in today's world, isn't it?

I agree with you, of course. Any particular individual’s spiritual quest is their own, intimate affair.


> Interesting. I got the list of scientific, political, religious etc. truth spheres from Max Weber and connected it with the idea of different language cultures from Wilhelm von Humboldt. Didn't know that Halbwachs argued this too (only read his book on memory). Thank's for the hint! Can you give me a hint in which of his writings I can find it?

A work of Halbwachs that has been of particular interest for me – because my central concern is place – is “La topographie légendaire des évangiles en Terre sainte, Étude de mémoire collective”. It studies the Old City of Jerusalem, and the way that the city plan has been configured to materialise Christ's arrest, condemnation, passage along the Via Dolorosa, crucifixion, resurrection and ascent to heaven, as related in the Gospels. He demonstrates that this process originated in the Stations of the Cross in Europe, before being transposed in Jerusalem, at the site of the alleged events. In reality, by the time different places in Jerusalem were so designated, the city had been destroyed and rebuilt. This, in addition to the fact that the Gospels were written a century after the event.

For Christian pilgrims, and many others, there is absolutely no doubt that those places in Jerusalem are true, in the sense that they are the physical places where the events occurred. For me, they are “true” in the sense that they are an incontestable part of the subjective “truths” that have been incorporated into Christian belief. After all, for the religious, beliefs have the value of truths. This is demonstrated by a virulent critique of Halbwach’s book by Louis-Hugues Vincent, Catholic priest and highly esteemed biblical scholar and archeologist, who spent most of his life at the École Biblique in Jerusalem. As far as he was concerned, Halbwachs was a heretic for contesting established, fundamental truths!


> Can a truth be objective and subjective at the same time? Sounds like a contradiction, but I think it's possible. With physics as an example: In this case, the truth does equate to objective facts, but the meaning of "objective" does not include the claim that it will be true tomorrow. Even physicists changed their idea of truth occasionally. From an educational point of view, I would argue that the term "truth" might be considered as true today - but it needs to be passed on from older to younger people in time. And in this process, people might change the idea of truth.

To be truthful, I have a problem discussing truth! Thus different social groups establishing their particular shared, subjective truths do not necessarily have anything to do with any objective form of Truth. Truthfulness is more related to a person being honest or telling a lie, whether it a child being questioned by her parents, or a person in court being questioned by a prosecutor.

Referring to “scientific truths” can be misleading: the term “facts" is surely preferable, insofar as processes of scientific investigation, peer review, controversy between researchers, and so on, serve to establish or disprove the hypotheses that precede them.


> Indeed. A pluridisciplinary approach is a good idea as far as I see. And if all things have everything to to with everything, that's a monodisciplinary perspective. But that's challenging if you consider a pluridisciplinary perspective as relevant. I would really like to learn how you integrate a monodisciplinary and a pluridisciplinary perspective (same question as " Thus I wonder how you think true criticism and unified truth together?"). Can you give me a hint on that?

I am currently working on a project to set up a bioregional design cooperative. This has to combine expertise from many different fields, coming together to construct a synthetic approach. This means different scientific disciplines, both earth sciences and the humanities. And politics is an inseparable part.


> For some people, spirituality certainly works. I have to admit - I'm to lazy for it. I've learned that most spiritual ideas are connected with lots of regulations. Thinking, nutrition, partnership, and the like - all regulated. And since I've not grown up with the protestant ethic of hard work, that's to much for me. I thus decided to change my understanding of "depressing" instead. Solved the problem for me - maybe since I have no idea what "spiritual needs" might actually be. Never felt something like that. But others say they do. Personally, I enjoy this heterogeneity.

As I said in my initial text, their is something unfathomable about what people refer to as spirituality. The myriad ways in which people try to materialise or symbolise it simply reflect upon the belief or hope “that there is something there”. As for myself, being a non-believer, it manifests in the curiosity and amity I feel towards a cosmos that defies human understanding.

Best wishes -
Joe.



-- 
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info: https://www.nettime.org
# contact: nettime-l-owner@lists.nettime.org