[OBW]

On the Berean forum, “The Public Square,” there is a thread under GENERAL CATEGORY | Good Medicine, called “Quotable Quotes.” On 5/23/2008, someone posted a number of quotes by J.P. Rizal. The following is in post #109:

In the study of truth, men are to me like students of drawing who copy a statue while they are seated around it. Some of them are close to it, others are farther away. Some are seated higher, others are at the model’s feet. They see the statue, each from a different angle. The more they try to be faithful in their drawings, the more their drawings will differ from one another. Those who copy the original directly are the thinkers. They are the founders of schools and doctrines. They differ from one another because they start from different points of view. A great number, either because they are far from the model or cannot see very well, or because they are not so adept or because they are lazy, or because of something else, are content a draw from a copy made by a person who is near the statue. If they are favorably disposed, they may draw from the copy which they consider the best or is regarded as the best. Such copyists are the followers, the active sectarians of an idea. Others still lazier, who dare not trace a line for fear of committing a mistake, buy a ready-made copy, perhaps a photograph or a lithographic reproduction. Not only are they satisfied with it, but are proud of it. They are the passive sectarians, who believe everything because they don’t want to do any thinking themselves.

Who, then, taking his own as the standard, can properly judge the drawings of others? To be fair, he would have to move to the same place occupied by each and other student and judge according to the viewpoint of each. What is more, he would have to place his eyes at the same height and distance as every other student did. The curves of his retina would have to be adjusted in such a manner that they would be the same as those of every other. He would have the same conditions of refraction, and the same artistic taste.
— J.P. Rizal

As I read this statement from a man who is somewhat revered as a philosopher of the Philippines, I understand his words. But I also must disagree, at least a little.

On the whole, his discussion and rankings make sense. But it is at the beginning and at the end that I take some exception.

First, he says “those who copy the original directly are the thinkers.” I disagree. Working from an original does not make one a thinker. He is correct to point out that differences will occur because of the differing perspectives. But he has cast them with a fixed perspective. This is not a thinker. The thinker is the one who will walk around the statue and consider the different angles. He will look down from above, and up from below. He will observe shadows over different portions as sources of light change.

Surely he will not see it all, or notice everything the same way another making the same set of observations will, but he is equipped to provide more than a two-dimensional view of the subject.

Then at the end he suggests that no one can judge another’s view. This is both true and untrue. To the extent that the view is a statement of observation and therefore limited to that observation, one cannot judge the observation. But that does not mean that a view is correct merely because it is observed.

If the observation is faithfully reproduced, much like a photograph, and nothing is presumed or extrapolated outside the observation, then it is a view of limited scope that is uncontestable.

But to the extent that anything beyond that view is drawn, spoken or otherwise presumed, we have moved beyond the observation. Such a representation can be judged. It can be judged form the perspective of the portions that were not observed but upon which the “drawing” projects. Further, it can be judged to the extent that it is presumed that anything beyond the limited scope of the observation is possible.

Further, to judge only if seen through the same eyes, with the same physical limitations, same light, and with the same taste in art is to eliminate the source of judging. If everything must be the same, its sameness mocks any claim of critique. Surely understanding one’s viewpoint is important, but it is not required in such an absolute manner. If it were, then where is the critique? All would be seen identically and all would be homogeneous. The review of a book could only be the words of the author. Only the artist would be qualified to rate his own work. Since no one else can match his view perfectly, their opinion would be summarily dismissed as invalid.

In complaining about Rizal’s suggestion that identical viewpoint is required to critique, I do not mean to say that we should be free to do as a postmodern might and dismiss what one has written, drawn, sculpted, etc., and “deconstruct” it by supplying our own interpretation as the actual interpretation of the object of scrutiny. The interpretation and meaning is what the artist has created and intended. Any interpretation can only be with respect to what the artist has actually created and any critique or critique can only concern the validity of the thing expressed or the success in expressing it.

So we turn to the analysis scripture and of the Local Church. In both cases, we too often find ourselves seated in front of a complex sculpture with varied lighting talking as if that perspective is the only one. Even those who see themselves as part of the sculpture (in the case of the LC) are actually in their own seat as if viewing from the outside. The rest of us may argue that faithful LCers are actually in a remote room seeing an image from a fixed camera that depicts exactly what the camera operator — the leadership — wants seen and understood. This is a point of contention. I will admit that almost all LCers have that fixed view, but also have some personal view, although it often is simply another fixed view just slightly askew with respect to the camera’s view.

But just as I critiqued Rizal’s analysis of who are the thinkers, I (we) must always be walking around and looking at the sculpture from multiple angles and intentionally allowing different lighting conditions to highlight new aspects. Otherwise, we may be somewhat “right” to have left the LC, but are no more enlightened for the effort.

Ultimately, there is something in every view. There is even something in so much of the thing that is the LC sculpture that we are studying. Christ is Life. There is a spiritual aspect to man no matter what you call it. Christ is a life-giving spirit. I’m just not sure that verse was meant to suggest that Christ is or became the Holy Spirit (i.e., the life-giving Spirit).

I see much in this analysis. I often fail to act as if I see it. I am called upon it on occasion. I like to consider myself a thinker, even if a poor one. To maintain any link between my view of myself and reality, I need to keep looking, asking and considering, then moving, looking, asking and considering, then again moving, looking, asking and considering, etc.

Part of seeing others perspectives is to listen and consider rather than simply argue against. You often see me in this posture when I try to be understood, coming back a second or third time with different words to portray my thoughts more clearly. Each of us should do this. But at the same time, just as I need to understand responses that suggest my point is missed (not merely disagreed with), I need to look into those responses for insight that I may be missing, or an angle that should be explored. No matter how hard I try, I do not have the entire sculture in view, even in my memory from my walks around it.