Exactly
>Heck, like most every word. "Chair" is as good an example as any.
What chair?
Seriously, though, "chair" is a general category noun, unlike "Eric", but
like "people". One of the things which makes people uncomfortable in
the modern era is that they feel they are "just a number"...that is, a
completely categorized and generalized "person". But people feel,
in their gut, that they are more than just a label...so we give ourselves names
and names
and names
and names
>> <Jesus> is a text.
>> All texts have and author
>> Thus <Jesus>, by it's very existence, implies an author
>> This Implied Author shall be named ___?___.
>
>"God" ??? ("...the inspired Word of God...")
>
>That would be the "fundamentalist" answer.
And who is the author of <God>?
For the fundamentalist there is none. <God> is the fundamental; the
text with no author; the inconsistency of the universe personified.
>I tend to think this is where the "Implied Author" argument from design
>breaks down.
Bah! This is where it really gets going!
>No one person is responsible for the current intrepretation*S* of the Bible.
>They have been memetically evolving for *thousands* of years.
Ka ching!
The word I like is "intersubjective".
It's kind of a technical way of saying "Karma", IMHO.
Reed
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Reed Konsler konsler@ascat.harvard.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------