I wouldn't have been able to predict who would find him idealistic and who naive, who would understand that he's describing a process rather than a mere attitude or outcome, or who would interpret the call to quasi-convert to the other tradition as "blasphemous" and to whom it would be the most obviously true thing. Guess it all goes to show that dialogue's a gift that keeps on giving. It was the 25th class session but we're still learning about each other! (Picture source)
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Dialogin'
Well, discussion of Swidler's "Dialogue Decalogue" went well today (except for the student who kept calling him "swindler," and then observed that perhaps it was more than just a slip). We discussed the ten "commandments" avidly for more than an hour, surprising each other (or at least me!) by our reactions. While I wasn't surprised at who understood that Swidler's concerned with a broader reality than you or me or your tradition or mine and who didn't,
I wouldn't have been able to predict who would find him idealistic and who naive, who would understand that he's describing a process rather than a mere attitude or outcome, or who would interpret the call to quasi-convert to the other tradition as "blasphemous" and to whom it would be the most obviously true thing. Guess it all goes to show that dialogue's a gift that keeps on giving. It was the 25th class session but we're still learning about each other! (Picture source)
I wouldn't have been able to predict who would find him idealistic and who naive, who would understand that he's describing a process rather than a mere attitude or outcome, or who would interpret the call to quasi-convert to the other tradition as "blasphemous" and to whom it would be the most obviously true thing. Guess it all goes to show that dialogue's a gift that keeps on giving. It was the 25th class session but we're still learning about each other! (Picture source)
