Re: MD Sophocles not Socrates

From: Elizaphanian (Elizaphanian@members.v21.co.uk)
Date: Fri Nov 22 2002 - 15:03:08 GMT

  • Next message: Platt Holden: "Re: MD Individuality"

    Hi Scott,

    I'm slowly catching up with some past posts....

    > This is all to the good, for ordinary language, but not for the
    > extraordinary language needed to discuss "the way things really are", if
    one
    > takes on faith, as I do, that the Buddha, Jesus, Shankara, Eckhart, etc.
    are
    > what they claim to be: knowers of the Truth. So I agree with, say, Rorty,
    > that such notions as that with our science and ordinary thinking, we can
    > asymptotically approach the way things really are, is bogus. Only a
    mystical
    > awakening can do that. So in my mind, what philosophy should be doing is
    > showing the paradoxicality of the unawakened mind, to bring it to aporia.

    Getting the mind to aporia is certainly how I would see the goal of
    Christian mysticism, and also a natural way to interpret Wittgenstein. I
    suspect we're in agreement, fundamentally, but I do have a question: do you
    see Jesus or Eckhart as offering 'essentialist' accounts of 'the way things
    really are'?

    Barfield seems to be using similar thinking to classical Christian language
    of the Fall and Redemption, just redescribing it. Is that fair? Perhaps I
    should seek out his book. I'll add it to my 'need to read' pile - which is
    unfortunately rather large already...

    Sam
    www.elizaphanian.v-2-1.net/home.html

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 22 2002 - 15:00:09 GMT