From: Michael Hamilton (thethemichael@gmail.com)
Date: Thu Jun 23 2005 - 20:04:10 BST
Hi Scott,
You wrote:
Sorry to be so tiresome about this, but Owen Barfield has already knocked
your thesis down. He shows how your various presuppositions derive from
having a type of consciousness that only started to appear with the Greeks,
though it didn't achieve its present absolute split between subject and
object until about 1500 CE. It is only with this type of consciousness that
such beliefs as:
MH:
Not tiresome at all, Scott - precisely what I needed to be persuaded
that Saving The Appearances is a book I really need to read. I've
ordered it. It's really going to tell me how pre-scientific people
never made explanations for their experiences?
Scott:
Also, on a pedantic note, the theo- in theory stems from roots meaning
'seeing' or 'contemplating', not 'storming' or 'raging' as in the case for
the theo- in theology (according to the New World Dictionary).
MH:
Damn. Etymology really isn't as easy as it looks, I guess!
Regards,
Mike
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 : Thu Jun 23 2005 - 21:23:02 BST