I nodded in my part in those conversations with a nod to inter-subjective knowledge – “When Montagu wrote in science publications about his findings about our skin, then did he expect his subjectivity to be brought into mine – by his written science texts?” Those conversations over there are not reducible to mere private canons. I know you know this. It’s a heuristic – not a law of canon – to consider canons – privately.
We feint with canon. Or feign inter-subjective consent. I’m not saying such inter-subjective agreement over canon never exists. Just that the praxis measurement for authentic inter-subjectivity in canon is especially hard to get at. You can beta and alpha test your computer work by following operating procedures in written texts. And have a reasonably certain knowledge that the books (even books you wrote!) correspond to operational tests. These books suffer correction based on feedback – more inter-subjectivity. You know the drill. Does canon?
Canon is immiscible. Not necessarily immiscible in its body of “in-or-out” component texts. Though that too. Just more difficult to measure for authentic operational inter-subjective agreement. Conciliar Christianity thought it had this inter-subjectivity locked up (I can’t do Hobbins right now). Look again. Please know I’m not claiming effective answers. At least not broad spectrum. In the trenches of everyday life (remember my former question to you about praxis?), the truth is that we – negotiate – these operational meanings. We negotiate – your usages! Jonathon and his armor bearer – go up – to see what answer they will get.
Whether negotiating and ephemeral agreement-partners (inter-subjectively) really treat their own proximate agreements (praxis agreements) as operationally inerrant and operationally infallible (rather than just say they do) is a whole different matter. Wouldn’t you need to be batting pretty near 1000 – with the Spirit! – to assume such a high standard? I don’t know about you. But for me, this is an empirical question. Not a question about what agent so-and-so says. Because agents acting in agency can claim anything about infallibility and the kitchen sink.
Again, so what?
This is my bottom-up (non hologram, non-holistic, and even my non-canonical way) of adding agreement to one of your own operating tests – every revelation of the Spirit is true. Without using the hifalutin terminology of inerrancy or infallibility. As if I’d know them if I saw them.
So what if the Spirit’s inter-subjective canons of truth are ecologically appropriate? It’s not like the Spirit is locked in a Turing halt function with our expected obediences moving away from us and off of our event horizon as lost operating data. Another matter.