Phillips engages with Harvey in his objections to the feasibility of the hermeneutics of contemplation. He discusses questions concerning “conceptual frameworks or grids” (Phillips 19).
“First, Harvey asks whether it makes sense to talk of choosing or adopting conceptual frameworks or grids” (19). Phillips seems to think that this is a confused idea – that we do not accept an entire framework the same way that we do not abruptly adopt an entire language ex nihilo. He points to the example of a “social contract” – it is supposed to enable agreement between citizens, however it presupposes this agreement in order to make possible the contract.
The second question that Harvey poses is “whether a person can use two conceptual frameworks at the same time” (20). Do scientific and religious concepts contradict each other? Phillips responds that this will be particular to the individual – some see a conflict where others do not. He also points out that the culture in which a person lives in large part can determine the lens through which she views religious claims – for instance a miracle. If a miracle is viewed through the lens of scientific, natural enquiry, then the miracle itself is likely to be ruled out.
“Harvey’s third question is whether, if religion is regarded as a conceptual framework, it can be regarded as true or false” (22). Philips counters that it “is judgments which are made under concepts which are true or false” – that it does not make sense to speak of entire conceptual frameworks as true or false (22).
The fourth question is, in the light of multiple conceptual frameworks, “how any framework or grid can be regarded as absolute” (22). Phillips argues that this does not imply absolute in the universal sense. We each have varying degrees of certainty about our conceptual frameworks.
The fifth question is “whether the adoption of a framework or grid is a matter of faith, and whether a clash of frameworks or grids is akin to those aesthetic disagreements which are notoriously difficult to resolve” (22). Phillips reminds us of the problem of phrasing the question, “decisions to adopt” (22). However, he does say that “clashes in perspectival views of the world involving religion…have, in fact, far more in common with moral or aesthetic perspectival clashes than disputes between competing theories or hypotheses” (23).
November 27, 2008 at 4:29 am
What we normally regard as a framework or grid is actually a lattice network. This perception is a product of moving from the linear string of text of the scribe to the tabular lists of text made possible by the printing press.
With the advent of the digital age networks have begun to emerge as a conceptual perspective in ways never before conceived. We understand grids very well if you consider relational databases. We don’t even know the laws that govern networks.
Even now social networks are expanding the horizon of our knowledge further than conventional networks. What do you do when every node is intelligent?
You are addressing interesting questions, however technology and thought are leaving grids behind.
November 28, 2008 at 12:24 pm
I think the framework’ ‘or ‘grid’ to which Phillips was referring was more in the order of a worldview. Just how our worldviews are informed and influenced by technology is a very interesting question. One question I’ve been thinking a lot about lately is how the social networking and connectivity is influencing new generations of kids growing up taking these technologies for granted. What are the advantages and trade-offs?
Phillips asserts that we don’t t simply adopt an entire framework like putting on a set of clothes – however, I believe that in response to certain critical questions, entire worldviews do in fact hinge. For instance, whether or not someone thinks that human nature is evil is a critical matter, if someone takes their thoughts and beliefs to heart.