User talk:Joe Spencer/By way of introduction: t(h/r)e(o/mb)l(o/in)g(y/)

From Feast upon the Word (http://feastupontheword.org). Copyright, Feast upon the Word.

Joe, thanks for posting this. Yes, it captures many of my concerns about theology very well (esp. in Jim F.'s "Theology and Idolatry" blog post sense), or at least I read my own views into your poem. B/c it's easy to make mistakes, I wanted to make sure that you intended the poem to end without punctuation—I read this as a transcendent experience with the divine that punctuates the struggle between knowing and knowing about...).

I'll send you an email to discuss theology issues more—any user can email any other user by going to the relevant UserPage and on the left sidebar a "email user" option shows up in the toolbox. --RobertC 13:36, 12 Jul 2006 (UTC)

Robert, it does end that way on purpose. In fact, what I think I was trying to do (my hedge there is of double consequence: studying aesthetics has convinced me that poetry speaks us, not we poetry; I don't know that poets are supposed to explain their own poetry, as Socrates pointed out long, long ago) with the end of the poem was to point to the title. The obvious missing last word and punctuation should be "trembling." However, that assumption is called into question by the title. "By way of introduction" is what is going on in the third stanza, and what is introduced? Why, t(h/r)e(o/mb)l(o/in)g(y/). The word is theology (following all the left sides of the /'s) and trembling (following all the right sides) interwoven. The poem is the way that leads to the introduction of a new kind of theology, one woven with fear and trembling before God. In other words, I support a theology beyond theology, a sort of theology (albeit a scriptural theology or hermeneutical theology as in Jim's posts). Marking all of that, the end trails off into the transcendent, almost into the mystical (the way the last planet in Holst's Planets trails off in the mystical ascent?). Yet, as is clear, the experience is the most concrete of all. In short, the "mystical" (I don't know that I like that word) is the most concrete experience of all.

I think the poem also addresses idolatry (the "ye" etc.). But perhaps we turn from here to the more direct discussion by e-mail. --Joe Spencer 15:19, 12 Jul 2006 (UTC)

I've been thinking about the transcendent nature (by which I mean "open to several layers of meaning, without being confined to the author's conscious intent") of poetry in the scriptures, based partly on Clark's post "Levinas and the Sacred"—in conjunction with the SS Lesson on Psalms). To whit, I actually took the title as theology (non-poetic) being on the left side (a la Matt 25:33) contrasted with trembling on the favored right side—a trembling which leads to more true (more mystical/transcendent than possible via theology per se?) experiencing of the Great Shepherd. Thus, do we experience the book or do we keep it at a safe distance that we can define in our own non-trembling terms (again, I'm projecting the Levinasian notion of destruction I've been reading about onto your trembling—our salvation is worked out with fear and trembling first in humbling ourselves completely before God, that is we undefine ourselves theologically, before we experience the love/experience of God...)? --RobertC 16:12, 12 Jul 2006 (UTC)