Hobbled wrote:You just seem to be stuck in this pre-Enlightenment fantasy land. What the fuck do you mean "divine"?
I would suggest that your
post-Enlightenment fantasy land is quite similar in make-up to
a pre-Enlightenment one. That is of course one of my main thrusts, explained clearly and carefully in many mosts. It is this that requires
examination.
Instead of poetically spouting "divinity", you need to say something that has meaning.
Just as the 17th Century revolutions in thought and activity had a profound effect on how religion, and the metaphysical descriptions that support religious view, are
interpreted, so too did these revolutions effect how poetic description are viewed. It is generally true that poetical description became viewed as 'fancy' and therefor became
unreal when compared to the harder and more tangible styles of description. So far so good.
Yet I suggest to you, Hobbles, that no aspect of these revolutions in thinking and description (which gave rise to scientific materialism as it is called), made, nor could make, nor can they make any level of interpretive statement about Reality in any sense that can produce 'statements of meaning'. In fact, 'meaning' becomes 'fancy' just as poetic utterance is seen so. Therefor: the field of meaning, the capacity to say things, or to know and understand things about this Reality in which we find ourself
is still open. And that is another, and a major aspect, of my discourse. It is what most interests me.
You do not see the degree that you privilege a post-Enlightenement structure of view! You do not see the degree that you are wrapped up in it, that you defend as a group of religious tenets! The barking, growling level of conviction by which you deny meaning, or the possibility of anything meaning something, is what marks and defines your metaphysic. That
IS your metaphysic. But you cannot understand how tightly you are wound up in what is only a powerful, a common, and a shared narrative. And this is, once again, one of my main points. And it has gone over your head from the start.
A man needs to know the difference between truth on the one hand and literary fiction and mythology on the other hand.
This is merely a binary formula and it arises out of your chosen, selected, and your preferred
predicates. It is quite true on a certain level. There are indeed 'literary truths' and there are indeed 'solid, verifiable scientific truths'. But you, by your own definitions, and by being trapped within a binary contract, can make no interpretive statements about anything at all. You must become silent, as there are effectively not utterances allowed to one who can make no interpretive statement. However, what you go, and with gusto, resentment and anger, is to deny that possibility to anyone. And this reveals, I suggest, the trap you are in.
Talk of 'truth' then. What 'truth' is that? Truth involves interpretation, and you can interpret nothing. All you can do is attempt description of size, location, etc.
The truths that infuse, for example, Shakespeare or any of those we have mentioned, are totally outside of your scope. You can say nothing about them because they are all 'literary'.
I suggest. though, that this binary trap does not settle the question, and by no means. All the questions are open. All can be considered. We do not understand
ANYTHING about this reality except we are super-adept at describing events and physical interrelationships. We have immense power and great capability, and no knowledge. Not as knowledge has been defined though all time. Not a 'Shakespearean knowledge'. Not a Homeric knowledge. Not a Vedic knowledge.
Where we may agree is in the fact that the
Story has fallen to pieces. The
symbol-description no longer functions.
What the fuck do you mean "divine"?
I have already made statements about this. They went over your head or you simply can't hear them, for:
- Obstinacy renders a man unable to hear for all that he has ears.
We must start from the simple, inconceivable fact: Existence exists. It is impossible that existence either exists or does not exist. To plunge this fact, or question, involves the use of a man's psyche, a totality of his person. We ourselves become instruments of perception. It is a different use of self than what you, and your era, propose which is to assemble facts into categories. It involves conceiving of a different anthropology, essentially. Man must envision himself differently (than your narrow, binary traps-of-consciousness) and then the question can be revisited. Get it? Of course you don't get it!
It is expressed, elegantly, and ironically, by Blake:
“This life's dim windows of the soul
Distorts the heavens from pole to pole
And leads you to believe a lie
When you see with, not through, the eye.”
Seeing this world, then,
newly, is what it seems to be about. The destructive aspect of 'modern ideation' needs to be seen, described, addressed, and ameliorated. You are an example, an exponent of, this destructive tendency. You do not create, you tear down. You do not build up, you rip apart. You do not grasp that you destroy the possibility of 'higher meaning' and you become - it would seem - a man surrounded by stupendous monuments to meaning, and about life, wonder, beauty, and much else, but that
you understand none of it.
Whether that is
thoroughly true of course I cannot say. But your attitude, your comprehension level, your lack of subtlety of intellect, all point in this direction.
That is why you understand so little of what I write. Not because it is not clear, your crackhead!
I'm not here to be judged by you. The last time I posted an essay I was ridiculed for having an MA in Intellectual History from Sussex.
Since I doubt you've achieved a similar level of education, I don't recognise your ability to stand in judgement - a thing you are far too willing to persue.
I've learned not to be impressed by credentials. How many hundreds and thousands of mediocre intellects have been turned out by the university system is anyone's guess. They produce them as in a factory and set them to work on the world like masticating insects.
I asked you to demonstrate, not only to me but to a group of peers, writing of yours that demonstrates superiority to mine. You critique my writing on a spurious basis. I called you on it. Again, my writing is crystal-clear and - I suggest - yours is really rather turgid. Sloppy as I say. No more on this, m'boy.
