religion

                            Interpretative potential and global society
   In this paper I want to explore the impact and effect of three Book religions (Jew, Christianity and Islam) on the global society. I think that analytically there are three main notions that have some interrelations with each other: religion, impact, and global society. With regard to intercultural perspective I propose interpretative potential as an appropriate framework for examining the interplay of these three important concepts. In other words, with the first part of the term interpretative potential I can explain the quality of religion and at the same time by the second part of this term I will explain its impact. Then the quality of this facing with global society in the context of this framework will be explored.
   I have limited myself to the three Book religions as wholes – although I will never forget their internal divisions. But as Book religions they have a common point that is interpretation, for they have their own special Books with different and many layers that for understanding them it is essential that interpreters as a community interpret these Books. Therefore the Book as a pivot necessarily needs interpretation as a communal and not merely individual task. Besides interpretation is a potency in-itself (but not a force) and can be made practical and actual in a same or different ways by the community of the interpreters or the other individuals that believe and support this interpretation.  
     Therefore these three Book religions will be analyzed and defined on the basis of interpretation category. This quality or nature is potency. Potency can mean change that is the ability of the interpretation for doing some change in the religion and also in the other things or some thing else, although here I am concerned with the last one. Moreover potency can mean the motion and being dynamic, this can mean that interpretation is not static and rigid. Besides potency can mean only a possibility, that is the possibility that religion change from one state to another state. According to these conceptions about potentiality by potential I mean that interpretation is a kind of change, possibility and movement and not a kind of unchangability, impossibility and statis.
            After describing this interpretative potential, we can speak about its impacts. This potency by itself can have both rational and non-rational impacts regardless of the global society. This means that first we analysis the impacts of this potency with putting the global society in the parenthesis. Accordingly, every potentiality per se has two aspects rational and non-rational, but the important point is this : rationality or non-rationality aspects of potency do not mean necessarily the positiveness or negativity of impacts respectively. Therefore this compound nature can exhibit in its own structure the dialectical moment in the general framework of interpretation: the rational and non-rational or the positive and negative impacts are interconnected and intermingled with each other. More specifically, in these three Book religions every interpretation can be judged as philosophic and rational or theological or a combination of both. And choosing every one of them can have its specific impacts on the society and beyond it, but it is not possible to speak about positive and negative impacts in a priori way.
    What I have said is analysis of impacts merely from the angle of interpretative potential. It is incomplete for there is another side that is named global society. It is possible to describe the nature of this notion according to different theories, spheres, disciplines and perspectives. It seems necessary to see what kind of encounter (s) interpretative potency makes with global society – encounters that may range from utter factuality, imagination, incomprehensibility, irrelevancy, superfluity, … and then speak of this or that impact (s) from this or that sphere. But with this issue a very fundamental matter will be on the table: is religion a whole and global society a part or the global society is a whole and religion is a part or something else. In the first case, the impacts of global society somehow must be put in a broader and larger context. But in the second case, religion will be analyzed in the context of global society. But in the third and last case, religion and global society will be put in a different or third framework and accordingly their impacts will be explained. In other words, it is possible to argue from a different but related angle, that is the relative position of dialectical theology and jurisprudence in these three Book religions. We suppose jurisprudence is the art that enables man to infer the determination of whatever was not explicitly specified by the Lawgiver, on the basis of such things as were explicitly specified and determined by him; and to strive to infer correctly by taking into account the lawgiver’s purpose with the religion he had legislated for the community/society to which he gave that religion.
    And we suppose that the art of dialectical theology is a positive disposition that enables man to argue in the defense of the specific opinions stated explicitly by the founder of the religion, and against every thing that opposes these opinions and actions. Accordingly in comparing these two arts we can say that jurisprudence takes the opinions and actions stated explicitly by the founder of the religion and, using them as axioms, infers the things that follow from them as consequences. But the dialectical theology defends the things that the jurisprudence uses as axioms, without inferring other things from them. According to this schema and broadly speaking theology has a paramount position in Christianity. Christianity is more or less constituted by a sacred doctrine and not by one single divine law that comprehensively prescribe opinions and actions of every kind. Therefore the interconnection of Christian interpretative potency can not be easy and flexible. In contrast Islam and Judaism are constituted more or less by a comprehensive revealed law that is all-embracing. Here jurist has a very important and complex role and can have a compound and multiple impacts. For explaining the impacts of this potency it is necessary to mention the qualities or limits of interpretative potency, the relation of jurisprudence and dialectical theology with civility at large (or in this context global society), and the kind of understanding that dialectical theology and jurisprudence have of global society that in accordance with this understanding they face with this category. In other words, dialectical theology has a special quality and limit that is defending axioms in a dialectical way, and the special quality and limitation of jurisprudence is to infer from axioms. These qualities and limitations partially and not completely define their operation and impacts. The other point is the kind of connection that theology and jurisprudence have with civility at large – are these two branches of religion before or after the civility at large. The other side is their understanding of and judgment about global society by concepts such as fact, fiction, concept, …. That according to each one of these categories they take a stand and position.
    If, for example, more or less dialectical theology be in the context of civility at large and also succeed in actualizing its interpretative potential (that is to defense axioms in a dialectical way) with regard to its chosen position and stance, its impact will not be negative. If it can not defense or defense in a good and desired way and wants to put global society in its context its impacts will not be positive (for many other factors are concerned). In regard to jurisprudence we can say that if more or less it considers itself in the context of global society and succeed in actualizing its interpretative potency (that is inferring) or feel that its inferring is positively affected by the global society or they have positive impact in the process of inferring, it will not have negative impacts. But if more or less it puts global society in its context and in the process of inferring have a negative feeling the result is not too clear, for jurisprudence in comparison with dialectical theology seems more flexible.  
      Therefore for considering the impacts of these three Book religions it seems better that we pay attention to their interpretative potentiality. Interpretation describes their common quality and nature and potency points to the impacts that result from actualization of this potency. It is possible to see this interpretative potency in jurisprudence and dialectical theology as two branches of these three Book religions that have specific qualities and at the same time limitations. Then their impact depends on three factors:
   - the quality of actualization of the interpretative potentiality,
   - the understanding of interpretative potency from global society and then its stance and position towards it,
   - the relation of interpretative potency and civility at large, that means which one is priori and which one is posterior.