|
generally, these discussion end up being fights about which rules are going to obtain for the discussion--whose framework gets to be the evaluative one, which gets to set the questions and determine what is and is not a legitimate response.
i think levite gives a good description of open-mindedness on the relation between the different modes of activity, each with it's own premises and rules, each aimed a different outcomes.
at the same time, the separations are not as strictly maintained as folk would sometimes think--string theory is a pretty good example of a space in which quantum theory and religious speculation got hopelessly tangled up. no mode of activity is entirely separate from all others---the traditional theory of evolution is as it is because the notion of species was assimilated to that of category and by extension to that of object, which required stretching the timeline out very considerably--more recent work in dynamical systems has maybe opened a way to think evolution as continual and the separations between types more fluid than had been thought...
just to say this, i have no particular use for religion in general.
but i also don't think that most forms of logic, particularly not traditional western forms, give anything like access to the complexity of the world.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|