The Bible As A Closed System

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

The bible is for indoctrination, not education. As was stated early this threads intentions was not to discuss the value of Christianity. It was clearly stated that those to emotionally envolved with Christian doctrine should perhaps forgo taking part. You never know though, a little grit in the right crustacean might produce a pearl.

Boagie,

The bible is a literary piece. It serves many purpose, indoctrination and education included. Sad to say that when we talk of the bible, we always acquaint it with Christianity which should not be the case. Judaism is far more have claim on the bible as the Christians have.

@midas77,

Possiably, but, that is not the topic!:p Actually if you wanted to talk about how Judism as a system of tribal myth which give birth to a world mythology that would be nice, throw in a word here and there of system, systems within systems within systems within systems with----you get the idea! Very Happy

Actually we could even talk about the kind of system in the form of context which give rise to such ways of belief, this is a desert creation, so to was the Eyptian myth, what might this mean, what might we gather from the context which gives birht to such things.

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Possiably, but, that is not the topic!:p Actually if you wanted to talk about how Judism as a system of trible myth which give birth to a world mythology that would be nice, throw in the word here and there of system, systems within systems within systems within systems with----you get the idea!

What bible are you talking of actually? Or are you planning to introduce a new collection of one in this thread?

@midas77,

If I presented you with one would you take it seriously? Do you wish to dialogue on the topic or not?:mad:

:p Actually if you wanted to talk about how judaism as a system of tribal myth gives birth to a world mythology, that would be nice, throw in a word here and there about systems, systems within systems within systems within systems with----you get the idea! Actually we could even talk about the kind of system in the form of context which gives rise to such ways of belief, this is a desert creation, so to was the Eyptian myth, Judaism and the Muslim faith, what might this mean, what might we gather from the context which gives birth to such things------the desert mentality if you like. How do these differ from myth of other places around the world other contexts other systems, yes, systems within systems within systems.
[RIGHT]

http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/images/PHBlue/misc/progress.gif

[/RIGHT]

@boagie,

Well, what is the topic, then Boagie?

The discussion began with you characterizing the Bible as a closed system, and you pointed out that closed systems are not open for change.

However, this characterization has been criticized.

The Bible does not seem to be a closed system for several reasons. First, the Bible changes. Second, general systems theory was not devised as a tool for literary criticism, therefore, applying general systems theory for literary criticism seems misguided.

So, why are we investigating faith traditions using general systems theory?

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Well, what is the topic, then Boagie?

The discussion began with you characterizing the Bible as a closed system, and you pointed out that closed systems are not open for change.

However, this characterization has been criticized.

The Bible does not seem to be a closed system for several reasons. First, the Bible changes. Second, general systems theory was not devised as a tool for literary criticism, therefore, applying general systems theory for literary criticism seems misguided.

So, why are we investigating faith traditions using general systems theory?

Thomas,

Because we profoundly disagree:cool: General systems theory is used to examine the world and its objects, this isn't not special treatment, it is quite the opposite, you may wish it silenced--------to bad!! Just an added thought, of course when considering any system it cannot be considered in isolation--Overlapping spheres of thought, consider what you may, consider what you might, consider it in isolation, and it is, NOT!

@boagie,

Quote:

Because we profoundly disagree:cool: General systems theory is used to examine the world and its objects, this isn't not special treatment, it is quite the opposite, you may wish it silenced--------to bad!! 06-22-2008 09:15 AM

You are using general systems theory because we disagree? We disagree, but I don't want you 'silenced' I want you to explain what you say. :cool:

[SIZE=+1][/SIZE]

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

You are using general systems theory because we disagree? We disagree, but I don't want you 'silenced' I want you to explain what you say. :cool:

Thomas,

Get a grip Thomas! I am using general systems theory dispite your disagreement! The thread was here before you were Thomas. You want me to explain what I say? Does that mean you wish or are in need of another discussion on the distinction of what general systems theory calls a close system, and what indeed a close system would in reality mean. Google it Thomas.

@boagie,

Quote:

I am using general systems theory dispite your disagreement!

More power to you. You're free to do what you like, I'd just like an explanation, if that's not too much to ask. Then again, when the topic is religion, an explanation is often too much to ask of Boagie Sad

Quote:

The thread was here before you were Thomas.

I'll direct you to your own advice: Get a grip. Honestly, boagie, if a simple 'care to explain' is too much for you to handle, I'll leave the issue alone.

Quote:

You want me to explain what I say? Does that mean you wish or are in need of another discussion on the distinction of what general systems theory calls a close system, and what indeed a close system would in reality mean. Google it Thomas.

That means I'd like for you to explain the following:

1. How the Bible is a system.
2. Why general systems theory is relevant to literary criticism.
3. How something prone to change can be a closed system when, by definition, a closed system does not change.
4. Where you derive the supposed distinction between 'what general systems theory calls a close system, and what indeed a close system would in reality mean'

My searching on google leads me to believe that this whole thread is misguided and that a book is not a system. This is why I ask, but again, if answering questions such as these are beyond your ability, or if you are simply unwilling to address the questions here, that's fine with me. It's not like I'm going to be offended.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

More power to you. You're free to do what you like, I'd just like an explanation, if that's not too much to ask. Then again, when the topic is religion, an explanation is often too much to ask of Boagie

I'll direct you to your own advice: Get a grip. Honestly, boagie, if a simple 'care to explain' is too much for you to handle, I'll leave the issue alone.

That means I'd like for you to explain the following:

1. How the Bible is a system.
2. Why general systems theory is relevant to literary criticism.
3. How something prone to change can be a closed system when, by definition, a closed system does not change.
4. Where you derive the supposed distinction between 'what general systems theory calls a close system, and what indeed a close system would in reality mean'

My searching on google leads me to believe that this whole thread is misguided and that a book is not a system. This is why I ask, but again, if answering questions such as these are beyond your ability, or if you are simply unwilling to address the questions here, that's fine with me. It's not like I'm going to be offended.

Thomas,

Most of your questions have been answered earlier in the thread, that which is not, we can discuss, if you do not choose to read the thread, I refuse to repeat endlessly what has already been resolved. It is obvious that we both have an emotional investiment in the topic. It was posted earlier that those having an emotional investiment in Christian doctrine/ Christianity in general, might forgo participation, emotion in dialogue is seldom productive.

@boagie,

Quote:

Most of your questions have been answered earlier in the thread, that which is not, we can discuss, if you do not choose to read the thread, I refuse to repeat endlessly what has already been resolved.

Some of the questions have been addressed, but they have hardly been resolved. Number 3 on the list, for example, we have discussed, but the matter ended with you saying 'Have a nice day' - and I did have a nice day, usually do, but me having a nice day isn't the same as resolving questions.

Quote:

It is obvious that we both have an emotional investiment in the topic.

I have no emotional investment in the topic. I cant even put my finger on the actual topic - I only know that it involves the Bible and systems theory.

Quote:

It was posted earlier that those having an emotional investiment in Christian doctrine/ Christianity in general, might forgo participation, emotion in dialogue is seldom productive.

Then my involvement should not pose a problem.

@Didymos Thomas,

Honesty is a virtue Thomas!

A system, no matter what the system, it is not something which arises in utter isolation, to one degree or another, it is open to its surroundings, it is itself a system within a system, or a system within its own defining context. This can be used as a aid in understanding how the systems that are in place at the present were formed. For every system of the present has elements of the systems which proceeded its full development. So, a new system, is an emergent quality, even the physical environment contributes to the development of a new system. So, what with close examination can one conclude about the constitution of a system in the here and now. Lets think not only object but context, for it is context which defines.

"When you find yourself falling, dive!!" Joseph Campbell

@boagie,

Hi Y'all!

A bit of an update on the confusing term closed system. The general system theory uses the term to indicate little in the way of intake or output going on between the system and its environment, it uses the term in that sense, so, when systems science talks of a closed system, it does NOT mean literally closed, but perhaps isolated, relatively inactive compared to other systems. A closed system, is said to be impossibe, at least such a reality is not within human experience. It could not be a reality, it could not exist.

There is yet another aspect of confusion involved here that arose in another discussion. I was informed that one cannot hold Christians responsiable for what is done in the name of Christianity, one can hold individuals responsible for their actions, but that cannot touch the institution of Christianity. The reasoning behind this is that Christianity as an entity does not exist, there are as many forms of Christianity as there are believers, in other words this creature is all heads and no body, this obsurity is then, a non-entity.

This then fits the idea of a truely closed system, a closed system is without manifestation, without entity, without form, and so I am informed by a Christian, that this lack of being, form, entity or manifestation is the true state of Christianity, obsurity seems its only quality in the mind of man. It would seem self-evident then, that this obsurity, its only quality in non-being, is also its source of power. So one must ask, what is the great attraction to absurity? I imagine other religions, at least those of the middle east, are functioning on this same principle of obsurity, that which is not, is the ultimate unknown? Perhaps it is just taking it down to the lowest common denominator in the mind of man----obsurity! Do you know why obsurity would have such power over man? If we are to take this non-entity of Christianity seriously, and I do, I have been convinced, then we must stretch our imaginations somewhat to embrace the concept of this thing, which is no thing---------stretch those concepts!!!

Obsurity as a group activity?:rolleyes:

:)How could you be obsure by yourself---------------------------------------------------------practise!!:p

@boagie,

And boagie forges on with his misunderstanding.

Still trying to use systems theory to characterize literature? Gees, man.

@Didymos Thomas,

pray for me Thomas! Sure its a cold wind that blows!! Very Happy

:)Actually Thomas, this was the understanding I got from you, I would not have realized that Christianity in itself is a non-entity. How can there be consequences for a non-entity--------there is no one home-----there is no one back at the ranch. I can't reach Houston Thomas, the flight is off!!

PS: There is not a thing in the world Thomas, that is not a system, right down to, or right up to, subject and object as reality!

@boagie,

Heheh, well let's see if I can clear up another thing or two:

Quote:

There is yet another aspect of confusion involved here that arose in another discussion. I was informed that one cannot hold Christians responsiable for what is done in the name of Christianity, one can hold individuals responsible for their actions, but that cannot touch the institution of Christianity. The reasoning behind this is that Christianity as an entity does not exist, there are as many forms of Christianity as there are believers, in other words this creature is all heads and no body, this obsurity is then, a non-entity.

We're getting there, but I think you've gone too far. Institutions can be held responsible - we can hold, for example, the Catholic administration of Urban II responsible for promoting the Crusades.

Though, I still have to objected to Christianity being termed a 'creature', an singular entity. Think of Christianity as we think of the term mankind, just a little more specific.

Quote:

This then fits the idea of a truely closed system, a closed system is without manifestation, without entity, without form, and so I am informed by a Christian, that this lack of being, form, entity or manifestation is the true state of Christianity, obsurity seems its only quality in the mind of man.

So Christianity, no more than mankind, fits this part of the description of a closed system. However, aspects of a closed system you also mention do not apply.

With regard to the Bible, the book exists, has form (often leather bound), and still the book does not fit the description of a closed system as I will explain below.

Quote:

The general system theory uses the term to indicate little in the way of intake or output going on between the system and its environment

Christianity does not fit this description. Christianity has been hugely influenced by the environment - the adoption and incorporation of pagan practices, for example.

More importantly, the Bible does not fit this description. As the Bible has changed over time, and continues to change in response to the environment, the Bible, like Christianity, is not a closed system.

Talk of 'obsurity', which I assume is your persistent misspelling of 'obscurity', seems entirely out of place. Diversity among a group is not tantamount to obscurity of that group.

Quote:

PS: There is not a thing in the world Thomas, that is not a system, right down to, or right up to, subject and object.

We can describe anything as a system. I assume scientists use general systems theory to describe aspects of reality because this model has some practical use to them. So far, I've yet to see one practical use of describing a work of literature as a system.

@Didymos Thomas,

Thomas,

So where are you Thomas, is it a system according to you, if a system, is it an open system then. If so, why not give us a post on the structure and function of this system, and save us all a great deal of confusion, including spelling errors--picky picky Thomas! The Christian scriptures cannot be said to have changed, certainly not willingly at anyrate, I realize over time there were people in power who could edit to their liking and did so. Even in literature Thomas certain structures are recognized within, also each unit could be said to be whole and any whole infers a system, your flogging a really unwilling horse there. Tell a writer there is no system to writing, it may differ somewhat between individuals but the basic structures are held to. Please whatever you want to say, say it in the context of systems, that is the title of the thread. I don't really care if you do not accept general systems theory, many of your peers are still working on evolution---like sands through the hourglass, so the days of our lives---one Christian friend of mine still paint horns on pictures of Dawin. Wink

"The systems view looks at the world in terms of relationships and integration. Systems are integrated wholes whose properties cannot be reduced to those of smaller units. Instead of concentrating on basic building blocks or basic substances, the systems approach emphasizes basic principles of organization. Every organism- from the smallest bacterium through the wide range or plants and animals to humans is an integrated whole and thus a living system. ...But systems are not confined to individual organisms and their parts. The same aspects of wholeness are exhibited by social systems- such as an anthill, a beehive, or a human family- and by ecosystems that consist of a variety of organisms and inanimate matter in mutual interaction. What is preserved in a wilderness area is not individual trees or organisms but a complex web of relationships between them.
All these natural systems are wholes whose specfic structures arise from the interactions and interdependence of their parts. The activity of systems involves a process known as transaction- the simultaneous and mutually interdependent interaction between multiple components." - Fritjof Capra
The Turning Point

@boagie,

Thomas,

Sorry Thomas, I have no idea what just happened, somehow I was posted in your space, strange it has never happened before.:eek:

@Didymos Thomas,

Thomas,

Maybe your right about this thread, it doesn't look like it is ever going to fly. There does not seem to be many people into systems theory and also not a lot of people want to know to much about the origins of Christianity, including or especially Christians. I am no expert in either realm so unless there is someone out there with expertise in one and/or the other perhaps its best it comes to a grinding halt.

@boagie,

Quote:

So where are you Thomas, is it a system according to you, if a system, is it an open system then.

Well, I'm not entirely sure. I've done some looking around on google and I cannot find any use of general systems theory with literature, and so I'm not sure we can a piece of literature a 'system' in the way general systems theory uses the term. I'm not a scientists, so it's all foggy to me.

This seems to sum up the study:
"Systems Theory: the transdisciplinary study of the abstract organization of phenomena, independent of their substance, type, or spatial or temporal scale of existence. It investigates both the principles common to all complex entities, and the (usually mathematical) models which can be used to describe them."

Either way, as the Bible has changed, and the texts that make up the Bible has changed, all due to environment (as the Bible cannot change itself, other than deteriorate) the Bible is most certainly not a closed system.

Quote:

If so, why not give us a post on the structure and function of this system, and save us all a great deal of confusion, including spelling errors--picky picky Thomas!

I'm not convinced that general systems theory should or could be applied to the Bible. As I've said this already, I have given my post on the Bible as a system.

Quote:

The Christian scriptures cannot be said to have changed, certainly not willingly at anyrate, I realize over time there were people in power who could edit to their liking and did so.

What do you mean 'not willingly'? The Bible certainly doesn't have a will of its own. And yes, the texts have been edited. We do not have the original copies, so all extant copies of the book have been edited at least to some degree.

Editing of the texts comprising the Bible aside, the Bible has changed. From the first official canon, we now have many different configurations of the Bible used by different churches. The book changed.

Quote:

Even in literature Thomas certain structures are recognized within, also each unit could be said to be whole and any whole infers a system, your flogging a really unwilling horse there. Tell a writer there is no system to writing, it may differ somewhat between individuals but the basic structures are held to.

Sure, writers have their own 'system' of writing. One might prefer to write in the morning, the other in the evening. But this does not equate what they write to a 'system' in terms of general systems theory.

Quote:

Please whatever you want to say, say it in the context of systems, that is the title of the thread. I don't really care if you do not accept general systems theory, many of your peers are still working on evolution---like sands through the hourglass, so the days of our lives---one Christian friend of mine still paint horns on pictures of Dawin.

I've never objected to general systems theory, I've raised questions about applying general systems theory to literature - I've raised the most obvious question imaginable: Why are we using general systems theory to evaluate literature? I don't think this is too much to ask.

I would also object if you tried to apply the theory of evolution to literature - seems wildly out of place. So does this application of general systems theory. The difference is that I'm not well aquainted with GST, so I'm not rejecting the whole notion off hand, instead, I'm asking you to explain yourself.

Quote:

There does not seem to be many people into systems theory and also not a lot of people want to know to much about the origins of Christianity, including or especially Christians.

I'm interested in GST, which is why I want to know how we can apply GST to the Bible.

Quote:

I am no expert in either realm so unless there is someone out there with expertise in one and/or the other perhaps its best it comes to a grinding halt.

Well, unless we know enough to talk about GST, we probably wont be able to talk about GST as it may, if it does at all, apply to the Bible.

Philosophy Forum

The Bible As A Closed System

Quick Links

My Account

able2know