The Way of Suffering; Point of Departure - Week 1

Welcome to the first discussion week on The Way of Suffering!

Before we get started, I am going to highlight some things that will help us all get a better understanding of this book. For those of you that have spent time reading philosophy and theology, this book may seem a little strange (even a little self-helpy). That's because it's method is Phenomenological. It is focused on the experience of consciousness, the experience of an object, an other (which is a word you'll see a lot through out this reading). Miller does not write or think on an "even keel," something that we've come to expect from writings of philosophy and theology. No, you'll see no modal logic, or 5 Points or Steps for what he is trying to argue. He embraces the "drama of thought." and let's the questions he's asking guide the flow of the book.

Additionally, much of this book is written with the theme of a journey. The book will move us from a secure home to and abyssal wilderness. We see evidences of this journey metaphor in some of the titles of various chapters (Point of Departure, The Closed Home, Beginning the Journey, etc).

Ok - with that all out of the way, let's maintain fidelity to what the book calls for and sweep ourselves up in the drama of questions and thoughts. Feel free to answer these questions directly, ask your own, or talk about the book in general.

"The task of the thinker is to think, to submit his life to the rigor of reflection and self-examination."

What do you think about Miller's characterization of the nature of thought? Is thought an act of submission? Should we consider thinking a task of ours? When we do think, is it our responsibility to maintain an air of objectivity and distance from what we think about?

"Instead of allowing an Answer to govern our understanding of crisis, it is possible to allow our understanding of crisis to govern our evaluation of all possible answers."

Miller says that having a preconcieved notion of what we mean when we speak about crisis allows us to talk about it. What is your standard definition of crisis? What is Miller's? Why is Miller placing such an emphasis on crisis? Is it really that important for us to understand the nature of crisis? Is crisis good, bad, or indifferent? How should we deal with crisis when it is upon us?

Again, don't feel obligated to answer any of these questions, but hopefully they will help prime-the-pump on our exploration and understanding of what Miller is trying to say in this book.