Though I know what you're going to say back, I think: that it's our decision (or at least is in Judaism?) to have faith in a God that is making such a decision back.
Actually, that's not what I would say back. Instead, I'd invite you to consider the positivist 'theology' being set forth in all the 'New Atheist' literature. Absent a volitional deity, the positivists have faith in the Scientific Method but not in Science as in the forces of nature. I recall being absolutely shocked in Hawking's introduction to A Brief History of Time when he conceded that as far as he were concerned (philosophically speaking) gravity could stop working tomorrow, and he'd just have to turn the Scientific Method to whatever replaced it. Science in those terms is an avolitional deity following rules we don't understand. You can't have faith in that. You can't have faith that the sun will shine tomorrow.
So obviously there are those who reject this kind of positivism and decide that functionally at least they will have faith in the laws of nature. Hawking takes this approach on a day to day basis- until something observable changes he plans his life under the assumption that the sun will shine tomorrow. But, I mean... where does that faith come from?
I'm not saying this as any form of argument about the existence of God- God being convenient is not actually a compelling argument. I'm just saying that if "it happened yesterday, and the day before, and every time we've tried it" is the best assurance you're going to get, you take it, but it's not to me the basis for a genuine faith relationship.
in general I agree that neither Moses nor Aaron (or their relative philosophies) can function without the other, which is part of my argument in both fics (and as you probably saw I even tagged "Waters" to that effect).
Yeah, well, you tagged it "and if there were a third way?" but I wasn't really making claims about a Moses/Aaron dialectic. I find dialectics interesting, but sort of shallow. Moses and Aaron are people, not stand-ins for philosophical approaches, and when I say they can't function without the other I mean in a relational way, not in a "and their relative philosophies" way. Aaron and Moses believe that their philosophical gap is unbridgeable, because they are stubborn people who can't communicate with each other in the same language, and your Miriam is trying to present the third way because she loves them, not because she's interested in achieving dialectical synthesis. Right?
So yeah, that's why this is a tragedy, not because Idea triumphed over Image, which I imagine you're right, Schoenberg would largely say was a success. But it's a tragedy because it ends with Moses casting his own brother out of the nation, completely unsure of what his next step is, doubting that his belief in God will ever let him be anything more than a lonely man in the wilderness. Though I think you're right, that Schoenberg never set the third act because he wasn't ever satisfied with the text, not because he never had the music to go with it. (In my big M&A post I wrote something like "Yes, my favorite opera is unfinished. I know you're not surprised." I love and have always loved incomplete masterpieces. I love watching the artist running up against his limits.)
no subject
Actually, that's not what I would say back. Instead, I'd invite you to consider the positivist 'theology' being set forth in all the 'New Atheist' literature. Absent a volitional deity, the positivists have faith in the Scientific Method but not in Science as in the forces of nature. I recall being absolutely shocked in Hawking's introduction to A Brief History of Time when he conceded that as far as he were concerned (philosophically speaking) gravity could stop working tomorrow, and he'd just have to turn the Scientific Method to whatever replaced it. Science in those terms is an avolitional deity following rules we don't understand. You can't have faith in that. You can't have faith that the sun will shine tomorrow.
So obviously there are those who reject this kind of positivism and decide that functionally at least they will have faith in the laws of nature. Hawking takes this approach on a day to day basis- until something observable changes he plans his life under the assumption that the sun will shine tomorrow. But, I mean... where does that faith come from?
I'm not saying this as any form of argument about the existence of God- God being convenient is not actually a compelling argument. I'm just saying that if "it happened yesterday, and the day before, and every time we've tried it" is the best assurance you're going to get, you take it, but it's not to me the basis for a genuine faith relationship.
in general I agree that neither Moses nor Aaron (or their relative philosophies) can function without the other, which is part of my argument in both fics (and as you probably saw I even tagged "Waters" to that effect).
Yeah, well, you tagged it "and if there were a third way?" but I wasn't really making claims about a Moses/Aaron dialectic. I find dialectics interesting, but sort of shallow. Moses and Aaron are people, not stand-ins for philosophical approaches, and when I say they can't function without the other I mean in a relational way, not in a "and their relative philosophies" way. Aaron and Moses believe that their philosophical gap is unbridgeable, because they are stubborn people who can't communicate with each other in the same language, and your Miriam is trying to present the third way because she loves them, not because she's interested in achieving dialectical synthesis. Right?
So yeah, that's why this is a tragedy, not because Idea triumphed over Image, which I imagine you're right, Schoenberg would largely say was a success. But it's a tragedy because it ends with Moses casting his own brother out of the nation, completely unsure of what his next step is, doubting that his belief in God will ever let him be anything more than a lonely man in the wilderness. Though I think you're right, that Schoenberg never set the third act because he wasn't ever satisfied with the text, not because he never had the music to go with it. (In my big M&A post I wrote something like "Yes, my favorite opera is unfinished. I know you're not surprised." I love and have always loved incomplete masterpieces. I love watching the artist running up against his limits.)