Re: Chemistry from a Baha'i perspective


On Jan 13, 2006, at 11:18 AM, Kent Johnson wrote:


"Douglas McAdam" <douglasmcadam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:5f7cd61258647bfb2e2592682ceac63a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

You: "Our interpretations are different and so we need to consult."

I have lost track of the reasons we need to consult, so I will just take
your word for it.

Thanks, again, for clarifying your meaning. I will see you in several other
threads.

--Kent


Dear Kent-
What I meant by this is that each of us, all of us, all people who read Scriptures will have differing understandings and thus we need consultation amongst ourselves to discover the unity of these Scriptures. For example in my class I have student each read the same quote and write down what they think it means and how it "feels" to them.
I then ask them each to read their explanation and they usually are all different, maybe some, a few being similar. So then we consult about these meanings and summarize our findings and we come up with a new meaning that we all agree upon. Then I caution them to not get fixed on this new meaning for as we develop more spiritually we will find even new meanings.

regards,
doug





On Jan 11, 2006, at 2:38 AM, Kent Johnson wrote:


"Douglas McAdam" <douglasmcadam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:a1d3d277f96dd40354f18cec677e4e9e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

You: >There is the official translations of the Writings and their
official
interpretation by the Beloved Master Abdu'l-Baha. However each one of
us, when we study these interpretations for our own understandings,
which
often are different for each other.<

What is different for each other? Translation is different from (for?)
interpretation? I don't understand the sentance. There are translations
and interpretations. However we study and what? What is different?

You: >So we consult and we may find another point of view even greater
than
our two original views. <

I am too lost to follow.  Can anyone help?

--Kent


The Writings are written in Arabic or Persian and then translated into
other languages. The Master has interpreted these Writings for us. When
we read the Master's interpretation we ourselves are interpreting His
interpretation. We are perceiving and understanding (interpreting) His
interpretation based on our own degree of development. Each of us have
different understandings. Our interpretations are different and so we need
to consult.

regards,
doug


Dear Kent-
There is the official translations of the Writings and their official
interpretation by the Beloved Master Abdu'l-Baha. However each one of
us,
when we study these interpretations for our own understandings, which
often are different for each other. So we consult and we may find
another
point of view even greater than our two original views. And then we get
deeper into the Writings and we find our original understandings
changing
dramatically. And then there is the subject of going all the way back
to
the original language and finding the English meanings we have been
using
are different than the original and so that may change our ideas
somewhat.
This does not mean the official translation or interpretation is wrong,
it
only means our understandings are relative and will change as we deepen
and become more familiar with the original language as academics do
their
job and uncover things.

regards,
doug

On Jan 9, 2006, at 11:32 AM, Kent Johnson wrote:


"Douglas McAdam" <douglasmcadam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:9e234e97098a69cf7d4eeb035759a42f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"However some academics will tell you that by going back to the
original
language it might even change your current
interpretation ... or something to that effect."

I would like to hear about an academic who promotes this practice. Who,
specifically, Doug, advocates changing current interpretation of the
Baha'i
Writings based on new translations? Or something to that effect.

--Kent







Dear Kent -
I think you have a good point here.
Many times I have considered the phrase in the prayer which says-
"a prayer that shall rise above words and letters and transcend the
murmur
of syllables and sounds." and some other Writings I have perused which
indicate to me that it is the concept that is the Revealed Word of God
and
it cannot be accurately embodied by any language, including the
original.
However some academics will tell you that by going back to the
original
language it might even change your current interpretation for even the
Guardian said there will be future translations beyond his, or
something
to that effect.

In recalling the verse about 70 and 2 meanings to each word, and the
fact
we are limited in our powers of perception and understanding, I don't
get
too caught up in nit picking over words in Scripture because also as
our
spirituality develops we may find our earlier understandings greatly
modified by new evidence.

God bless,
doug


On Jan 6, 2006, at 10:25 AM, Kent Johnson wrote:

It seems to me we should be reading the Writings in English
translations
provided by the Guardian and the Universal House of Justice. If we
do
that,
there is no need to second-guess what Baha'u'llah meant when he used
one
word or another. His Writings are clearer in English, I am told,
than
in
Arabic or Persian, even if your native language is Arabic of Persian.

Spanish and French also use the word for "name" as the word for
"noun"
in
grammar. In English, we use the word "noun" as a variation of the
French
word "nom" in the 14th century as an aid to studying grammar. Much
like
we
use the Germanic "pig" or "cow" on the farm but the French derivative
"porc"
or "beef" in the kitchen. There is very little difference in meaning
between the words "name" and "noun" anyway. A Noun is a naming word.

Moreover, often when the Writings refer to names they differentiate
between
words and names. A word helps define and specify processes and events
in
our
world, while names familiarize our surroundings. With the words and
names
of
our languages we build our surroundings.

To me, that we can name something does not mean we can dismiss it.
Doctors
who can call a malady by a Latinized name cannot necessarily treat
it.
And
that is my point. What good is chemistry or physics or anthropology
if
it
begins in words and ends in words?

The analogies that Baha'u'llah used to explain spiritual verities, as
Christ
did with parables, show us the order of the universe. We have seen
the
patterns in language and life, and now we can apply principles we
have
learned to a higher order if we can but comprehend what He is telling
us.

That is knowledge. That is applicable. It does not begin and end in
words.

--Kent



"Matt Menge" <mspmenge@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1136421910.391280.210190@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Dear Kent,

That is a very deep topic. One thing that has occurred to me when I
took my Arabic class this fall is that that Arabic word for 'name',
which is 'ism' is essentially the same word for 'noun' in grammar.
That is to say, any person, place, or thing (i.e. a noun) is a
'name'
in Arabic.

So when Baha'u'llah says things like:

"Most of the people in Persia are steeped in deception and idle
fancy.
How great the difference between the condition of these people and
the
station of such valiant souls as have passed beyond the sea of names
and pitched their tents upon the shores of the ocean of detachment."
(Words of Paradise)

I think He means that, yes, learning names is an important part of
learning, but to really understand something you have to move beyond
them. And yes, a lot of us could really bear that in mind from time
to
time.

Best Regards,

Matt













.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: 9 Bills That Would Put Creationism in the Classroom
    ... have repeatedly explained to you what interpretation is and how ... Do you even speak a foreign language ... The English equivalent meaning is "they lived happily ever after." ... No it was to show that translation isn't perfect. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: 9 Bills That Would Put Creationism in the Classroom
    ... People here have repeatedly explained to you what interpretation is and how translation works, and you have done nothing but repeat your assertions without addressing the objections. ... Do you even speak a foreign language? ... carry thought (the meaning of something). ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: truth/falsity of sentences in first-order logic
    ... the interpretation of symbols of the ... language to objects and relations of the model) *do* provide a completely formal way to seperate language and meaning. ... the existence of any infinite numbers of formulae ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: 9 Bills That Would Put Creationism in the Classroom
    ... have repeatedly explained to you what interpretation is and how ... translation works, and you have done nothing but repeat your assertions ... Do you even speak a foreign language ... meaning can be conveyed accurately. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: 9 Bills That Would Put Creationism in the Classroom Car Owners
    ... arrogantly deny is an interpretation) trumps what you are supposed to ... that "determining the meaning of something" is one meaning of ... translation" meaning of "interpretation", WHICH IS NOT THE ONE WE'RE ... as is meant by the original language. ...
    (talk.origins)