It assumes that all religions are "created" by the "viewer", and thus reflect on who and what the viewer is. I do not find this an acceptable assessment of Jewish tradition, which IMHO contains too many "counter-intuitive" elements to be [even mostly] "human based".
It assumes that all "viewers" are actually looking at the same "model". It is pretty clear to me that this is NOT the case, as you yourself pointed out in the beginning of this essay. If they aren't looking at the same thing, then there is absolutely no way to reconcile the differences, or even relate to their "paintings" at all, as there is no common ground. I think, in fact, that this is the case, between MOST world religions.
But I do strongly agree that the post-Roman tendency towards clear-cut "logic" is not generally applicable to anything but computer-science (which is why I can't wait for Yes/Maybe/No Quantum computing).
View of a Model as a metaphor
- It assumes that all religions are "created" by the "viewer", and thus reflect on who and what the viewer is. I do not find this an acceptable assessment of Jewish tradition, which IMHO contains too many "counter-intuitive" elements to be [even mostly] "human based".
- It assumes that all "viewers" are actually looking at the same "model". It is pretty clear to me that this is NOT the case, as you yourself pointed out in the beginning of this essay. If they aren't looking at the same thing, then there is absolutely no way to reconcile the differences, or even relate to their "paintings" at all, as there is no common ground. I think, in fact, that this is the case, between MOST world religions.
But I do strongly agree that the post-Roman tendency towards clear-cut "logic" is not generally applicable to anything but computer-science (which is why I can't wait for Yes/Maybe/No Quantum computing).