Varieties of Revelation, Varieties of Truth—A Comparative Ontological Study of Revelation through Music and Sciences
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSee comments in the margins
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please find my remarks and responses to your review in the attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsVarieties of revelation, varieties of truth – A comparative ontological study of revelation through music and sciences
The Author proposes a kind of general theory of revelation based on a creatively used object/property distinction and the interpretation of the logos, ranging from mathematics, physics to the Scripture. Happily distinguishing between ‘conviction’ and ‘belief’, and between ‘truth’ and ‘true’, the author states that «As such, we can call God a set of properties as far as the limitation of our senses and the boundlessness of reason allow us to advance. Beyond that, it can be an existent, an object of our thoughts and, as such, of our mental experience. Approached this way, it is neither a purely logical entity nor a postulate but something else» (727-731). And, in another place, the Author clarifies: «considering that we are involved in a series of actions, which we call interpreting a musical work or mathematical formula, necessarily based on a prior understanding of them, where the process is a dialogue with the object and ourselves simultaneously. The interpreted (the object of our hermeneutic dialogue) is reflected upon itself, and through this hermeneutic cycle the interpreter reflects upon oneself. The musical sentence, the mathematical formula, and the Scripture are not just things understood but means toward understanding ourselves», and I would add: toward understanding of the world (775-780).
As far as I understand the train of thought of the Author, a musical sentence, a mathematical formula, and the Scripture are a sort of chain of meaning internally connected. Of course, in the realm of theology one can have different chains of meaning, but the distinctions between “conviction”, “belief”, and “truth” (71, 467), permits to write, that «Members of a culture may approach an object deemed sacred by another culture with the same respect, awe, admiration, fear, etc., but they may also remain indifferent to it. It is possible to say being sacred is not a universal property of Scripture—at least not without contextuality; therefore, it is not an ontological finding. Sanctity here is accidental because even within the same society or broader culture, past objects of sanctity may be stripped of their sacred status» (398-403).
Consequently, in my reading of the interpretation proposed by the Author, the revelation is the discovery of the meaning in the above-mentioned chains «of signs and symbols» (72) of mathematical formulas or musical sentences, or in the end, in the Scripture. Such reading leaves space for the discourse of the Meaning of meanings (G. Steiner), which could be seen as equivalent to the specific creed. For that reason, I have written the Meaning, with the capital letter.
It is my opinion that the paper should be published in its current form, as it constitutes an important and highly stimulating contribution to the understanding of the relationship between Scripture, mathematics, and art (music).
I would only have just a few minor suggestions, which the Author, if he sees fit, could consider in the final version of the essay.
1). The spelling of the term ‘revelation’, sometimes with the capital “R” (Revelation), sometimes the lower case “r” (revelation) - perhaps this could be standardized (I would suggest: ‘revelation’).
2). Keywords: I would omit the term ‘ontology’, while adding (after ‘truth’), the term ‘true’.
3). The Author sometimes speaks of mathematical and physical formulas (e.g. 404-405 or 458) - does this mean that he involves mathematics, physics, or the experimental sciences in general, in his discourse? Perhaps a sentence of clarification could be added to what is already there. In my opinion, in fact, the Author moves between different domains of knowledge - which is why the text is in many ways an interdisciplinary research, in which an analogy is sought in the ‘transmission’ of meaning in the chains of symbols/signs, as the author himself writes: ‘A search for parallels and similarities in the ontology of revelation across domains - arts, sciences, and scripture - is necessary’ (56-58).
4). Where the Author lists the ‘properties’ of truth, point (b) could perhaps be formulated as: “(b) truth is not believed, as truth can be understood, at least in principle” (478). This is to say that for someone a certain statement is accepted as a truth, therefore not believed, because in principle it can be understood, even though at the moment this ‘work of understanding’ has not been done yet (e.g. Pythagoras' theorem is proved, I take it to be true, but I have not followed its demonstration; not yet).
5). The sentence: «We may even go so far as to propose that (according to philosophical hermeneutics, or modern hermeneutics) I find that a Gadamerian hermeneutic dialogue is possible between the interpreter and the interpreted, and it may not necessitate two interlocutors» (770-773), appears to me not clear enough. I would suggest to simplify it a little.
Author Response
Please find my responses and comments in the attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article is very well-written and the argument is clearly presented. I was not entirely convinced by the argument because it seems to be too narrowly structured. For example, I would have liked to have seen some discussion on consciousness in the act of revelation. However, I appreciated what the author presented.
Author Response
Please find may reponses to your review in the attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
