List,
Asking "Who do you say I am" creates an unusual "mirror-mirror" effect. We
can examine this question using the ideas of the philosophy of phenomenology
(which states, simply put, that there is a self which is existential--which
just exists--AND there is a self which does something...the two selves can't
both think at the same time: You can't measure the position and the action
at the same time, uncertainty!...so you must observe the phenomenon of self
as it manifests between the two positions).
Asking the question creates a mental phenomenon, a nested loop (to use
computer terminology). Is Jesus "who he is", "who he says he is", "who he
is to the observer", "who the observer says he is"...seems the question is
more important than the answer. For the mind to resolve this question it
must look for Jesus-the-phenomenon (not the subjective nor the objective
Jesus, but the "spiritual" Jesus...the one formed whenever 2 or more are
gathered).*
Relating this to Christian magic: The question is a magical formula which
places both the one asking the question and the one answering it into a
higher realm of logic--a diminsionalized, "spiritual" realm--where the
distinction between self and observer is resolved. From this perspective
(like addling "eyes in the back of one's head" as a silly example of taking
on the perspective of both self and other), certain relationships might be
noticed which are not usually noticed (like the person with two sets of eyes
could see his position in relation to a 360 degree topology).
I can assume that certain acts which are not possible for the two-eyed
individual (walking backward?) would be possible for the 4-eyed person...and
similarly that a Jesus/Observer pair who were viewing a self/other
dichotomy from a unified perspective might be able to accomplish "magical"
acts which the person of the more limited perspective doesn't have the
ability to comprehend ("How can you walk backwards without tripping over
objects...I can't do that").
Brett
*a difficult point to clarify...when one person says "I" they are seeing
things from a perspective which is impossible to see through another
person...though we assume that the other person can also say "I" (meaning
him, not you), and must also see things from this singular perspective...we
cannot keep the "I" perspective and include the "you" perspective without
inventing a "we" perspective
Returning,
rBERTS%n
Rabble Sonnet Retort
On a paper submitted by a physicist colleague:
"This isn't right. This isn't even wrong."
Wolfgang Pauli