Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Luiseach · 02-25-2003, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amos
Your "he grabs hold of his artistic vison" is correct and true, but my responce would be: that's a good idea but why don't we all do this?

Perhaps because some people are more interested in living the life that others wish to represent in art? Or, perhaps, we all grab for the artistic vision and apply it in different ways: some to the more conventional art forms of writing, painting, sculpture, music; others to their families, homemaking, relationship-building; still others to architecture, career-management, etc. Living artfully can be as valid an art-form as the more conspicuous ones. Even conversation, debate and discussion can be viewed as an art.

Quote:

I should tell you here that I am not a critic (just critical) and not interested in it. I once wrote a character delineation of WE for which I received much recognition but was left alone because it would upset all established criticism.

Now that you have intrigued me about this character sketch, would you mind posting it here?

Quote:

I've also argued that the popularity of Shakespeare plays in different countries over a different period of time are a good barometer of the spiritual well being of a nation as it moves through time. Here, for example Coriolanus was popular in France but never in England while Macbeth was always popular in England but not always in France. The interesting part here is that Coriolanus is a divine comedy while MacBeth is a Senecan tragedy (failed divine comedy). If you apply Craigs argument to this we would be forced to conclude that divine comedies are not identified with in England but they are/were in France. This, of course, was my argument.

'Spiritual well-being' is an interesting turn of phrase. Are you talking about the mental/emotional health of a nation? Is it something like when you feel a bit down and listen to sad music, or when you're in love and listen to up-beat music?

Quote:

I really don't make a distinction but I could tell soon that Northrop Frye was a protestant. Do you know Frye?

I certainly do know his work...he was a Canadian (like me!) :-) What made you realise he was a protestant, then?

Quote:

BTW. Don't look at me as literature buff because I haven't read a book for 15 years (time is a factor and now I need reading glasses).

15 years?! Goodness...you're missing out on a lot of good reading material, Amos!

02-25-2003, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Luiseach
Hmmm....using the Bible to analyse literature...don't you find this approach restrictive to your understanding of the complexity of literary texts?

You wouldn't have that original essay you wrote handy, would you? It would be interesting to know what your thesis was, for the sake of discussion.

Heavens no Luise, I find just the opposite to be true. The bible is a marvelous piece of literature because it contains the reality that the art of art works is grounded in. The bible is like a long poem and I should tell you here that I use the NAB because it is by far the most poetic. Notice how I readily admid that the Catholic Church as a "she' is the whore of Babylon and I love her for it.

I'll bet I can find it but I would probable rewrite for you because I have no way to feed it into this computer. Is there something in particular you are interested in here? or would you just like to see the poem done. Are you still referring to Pophyria's Lover here?

John Page · 02-25-2003, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by phaedrus
Language => The very means moi is using to convey this thought to you

Yes, nice response but sorry Phaedrus, looked very hard but couldn't find the thought anywhere. Perhaps it was a half-formed thought that didn't transmit very well, or perhaps I'm not your ideal reader.

Slightly more seriously, this brings us back to a deconstructionists assumptions/assertions about the relationship between thought and language. Do you consider that thought precedes the language used to convey it? Second question, do you think that language itself is generated by a thought process?

Cheers, John

Luiseach · 02-25-2003, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amos
The bible is a marvelous piece of literature because it contains the reality that the art of art works is grounded in. The bible is like a long poem and I should tell you here that I use the NAB because it is by far the most poetic. Notice how I readily admid that the Catholic Church as a "she' is the whore of Babylon and I love her for it.

I agree that the biblical texts can be viewed in a literary manner; many theists object to this approach, preferring instead to view it as an unmediated reflection of historical reality. In my opinion, as soon as we write about something, we enter into the realm of representation (re - presentation) - the possibility of a 'true' reflection of reality is lost.

I don't quite understand what you mean about the Catholic Church...could you explain?

Quote:

I'll bet I can find it but I would probable rewrite for you because I have no way to feed it into this computer. Is there something in particular you are interested in here? or would you just like to see the poem done. Are you still referring to Pophyria's Lover here?

My bad...I thought one of your essays was on Joyce's Portrait. I know you wrote one about the Browning poem, but did you write one on Joyce as well? If so, I was interested in what your thesis for the essay was.

Hugo Holbling · 02-25-2003, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by phaedrus
ok.....but there can be no progress in the discussion if we dont define our stands or explain/crticise the same and come to some conclusions

Sure, but i'm still waiting on some references for that link. Where is Fish a social structuralist?

Quote:

Positive in the sense "constructive". Dont just deconstruct, reconstruct as well or propose an alternate model. No point only cribbing that things are not right

Hmm... what if you don't have a suggested alternative but still see the problems with the current model? Your policy seems kinda restrictive.

Quote:

In the sense? ("Why Reason Can't be Naturalized?", in Realism and Reason;Truth and History ;Representation and Reality )

Yeah - i doubt if he didn't forsee the opposition, but i can't remember what he wrote.

Quote:

The whole issues is rorty's statements on the history of philosophy and his interpretation of the same is equivlanet to saying ....no GEV from a GEV. Why should one listen to rorty? Has he formulated an epistemological model which denies it is an epistemology?

What has Rorty got to do with my attempted argument? I was trying to learn whether the impossibility of a God's-eye view could be proved (or at least hinted at) without positing a God's-eye view; in any case, i'm skeptical of your charge contra Rorty. Why do you say he claims a GEV? In CIS he's making anti-epistemological statements from a linguistic perspective; where is this epistemological model? How about some references to where you're getting this stuff?

02-25-2003, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Luiseach
Perhaps because some people are more interested in living the life that others wish to represent in art? Or, perhaps, we all grab for the artistic vision and apply it in different ways: some to the more conventional art forms of writing, painting, sculpture, music; others to their families, homemaking, relationship-building; still others to architecture, career-management, etc. Living artfully can be as valid an art-form as the more conspicuous ones. Even conversation, debate and discussion can be viewed as an art.

I agree, but it was fun posing the question. To enjoy life is what counts.

Quote:

Now that you have intrigued me about this character sketch, would you mind posting it here?

It's a very interesting one. Do you know "WE?"

Quote:

'Spiritual well-being' is an interesting turn of phrase.

Sometimes I use phrases that are to big me but could it mean that if religion is for the benefit of the nation that here the benefit of religion is reflected in the nations response to artists concept of a good time?

Quote:

I certainly do know his work...he was a Canadian (like me!) :-) What made you realise he was a protestant, then?

Let's just say that he was 'close?' (honestly I admired him and think he was a good choice as a guide to archetypal criticism).

Quote:

15 years?! Goodness...you're missing out on a lot of good reading material, Amos!

I know. I used to love it. But you know what? Just as those were the best years of my live, so are these.

Luiseach · 02-25-2003, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hugo Holbling
Hmm... what if you don't have a suggested alternative but still see the problems with the current model? Your policy seems kinda restrictive.

lol Hugo...you Menckenian you.

Luiseach · 02-25-2003, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amos
I know. I used to love it. But you know what? Just as those were the best years of my live, so are these.

Fair enough!

Speaking for myself, I couldn't live without my books...I'm a right bibliophile. It's an occupational hazard.

02-25-2003, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Luiseach
I agree that the biblical texts can be viewed in a literary manner; many theists object to this approach, preferring instead to view it as an unmediated reflection of historical reality. In my opinion, as soon as we write about something, we enter into the realm of representation (re - presentation) - the possibility of a 'true' reflection of reality is lost.

I don't quite understand what you mean about the Catholic Church...could you explain?

I don't like labels too much because I have so many of them.

That's a difficult subject but if Jesus could say to Peter "get thee behind me satan" I can say that the Catholic church is the equivalent of satan in our turn. Peter was Judaism personified and Mary is the bride of Christ (here called the Catholic church) and she is the woman who "will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel." In other words, she is the cause of our "dream" that we built into our personal 'spire' and later recall into heaven. It really is a pre/post trib thing. If you need more detail I can give you that.

My bad...I thought one of your essays was on Joyce's Portrait. I know you wrote one about the Browning poem, but did you write one on Joyce as well? If so, I was interested in what your thesis for the essay was. [/B][/QUOTE]

I don't know what I wrote on Joyce but I'll take alook.

phaedrus · 02-25-2003, 10:27 PM

hugo

Sure, but i'm still waiting on some references for that link. Where is Fish a social structuralist?

The focu n fish one? No references. So olsen/fish?

Hmm... what if you don't have a suggested alternative but still see the problems with the current model? Your policy seems kinda restrictive.

Restrictive? Come on....just think of how you would approach the same in your daily life. You dont like something, what would you do? Just complain or do something about it?

Yeah - i doubt if he didn't forsee the opposition, but i can't remember what he wrote.

Forsee opposition for ?

I was trying to learn whether the impossibility of a God's-eye view could be proved (or at least hinted at) without positing a God's-eye view; in any case, i'm skeptical of your charge contra Rorty. Why do you say he claims a GEV? In CIS he's making anti-epistemological statements from a linguistic perspective; where is this epistemological model? How about some references to where you're getting this stuff?

Ummm...take a look....a recent paper....could help you Rorty, Putnam, and the Pragmatist View of Epistemology and Metaphysics.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-25-2003, 10:27 PM	#100
phaedrus Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Indus Posts: 1,038	hugo Sure, but i'm still waiting on some references for that link. Where is Fish a social structuralist? The focu n fish one? No references. So olsen/fish? Hmm... what if you don't have a suggested alternative but still see the problems with the current model? Your policy seems kinda restrictive. Restrictive? Come on....just think of how you would approach the same in your daily life. You dont like something, what would you do? Just complain or do something about it? Yeah - i doubt if he didn't forsee the opposition, but i can't remember what he wrote. Forsee opposition for ? I was trying to learn whether the impossibility of a God's-eye view could be proved (or at least hinted at) without positing a God's-eye view; in any case, i'm skeptical of your charge contra Rorty. Why do you say he claims a GEV? In CIS he's making anti-epistemological statements from a linguistic perspective; where is this epistemological model? How about some references to where you're getting this stuff? Ummm...take a look....a recent paper....could help you Rorty, Putnam, and the Pragmatist View of Epistemology and Metaphysics.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.