A lovely short film/documentary. Well, at least the imagery in Nostalgia was spectacularly beautiful. Trying to weave the political into it didn't always work...to make people speak about their grief and despair can coarsen it; it can only be shared, ultimately, by other grieving people and can, quite amazingly, tend to the farcical if not handled with care (which means, you think, large areas of silence).
A very interesting article by Dworkin, which you need to read more slowly: Religion without God (in the NYRB). The lectures are also online. Now, how to tie this up with Putnam's Jewish Philosophy and Dewey's Common Faith-both of which are little gems?
What is meant by a 'religious experience' and what do we mean by the 'transcendent'? I think in modern times there's been a tendency to look for these things in ordinary experience and not some isolated, cordoned off, specific locality, or set of rituals.
'I saw there was nothing to learn in the deep north...you get enlightenment where you are'
---E. Bond.
That wouldn't work without the small e.
If all is holy then does that lead to a diffusion of the notion of holiness itself? Must value always be localised, focused in well-established forms, symbols, places or does the spirit bloweth where it listeth? If the latter, does that lead to a kind of subjectivism where people can even say watching Zidane is a religious experience? (Well, if you've watched the France vs Brazil World Cup quarter-final you might think again).
And then there's this wonderful story, which I think sounds real, since it appeals to our modern sensibilities.
Of course, the mullah will have none of this (partly because he has to sanction what counts and what doesn't).
...lecture. back later.
A very interesting article by Dworkin, which you need to read more slowly: Religion without God (in the NYRB). The lectures are also online. Now, how to tie this up with Putnam's Jewish Philosophy and Dewey's Common Faith-both of which are little gems?
What is meant by a 'religious experience' and what do we mean by the 'transcendent'? I think in modern times there's been a tendency to look for these things in ordinary experience and not some isolated, cordoned off, specific locality, or set of rituals.
'I saw there was nothing to learn in the deep north...you get enlightenment where you are'
---E. Bond.
That wouldn't work without the small e.
If all is holy then does that lead to a diffusion of the notion of holiness itself? Must value always be localised, focused in well-established forms, symbols, places or does the spirit bloweth where it listeth? If the latter, does that lead to a kind of subjectivism where people can even say watching Zidane is a religious experience? (Well, if you've watched the France vs Brazil World Cup quarter-final you might think again).
And then there's this wonderful story, which I think sounds real, since it appeals to our modern sensibilities.
Of course, the mullah will have none of this (partly because he has to sanction what counts and what doesn't).
...lecture. back later.
5 comments:
interesting Dworkin-article indeed (but without the ultimate answer, of course)
Hello, f!
Yes, you're right, but then again, I don't know if there is an ultimate answer or what it might look like. Actually, it's not really a question for me. Just the other day I was saying to a friend Islam would be quite good if it wasn't for the muslims! :-)
Okay, okay...on a serious note: isn't the ultimate answer there , hasn't it been there all along? From a muslim perspective there are things called duties to humankind and duties to God (failure in the latter but not the former, it is said, will be forgiven).
I don't like the word duties but you know what I mean, right?
Okay, I'll try and add to this post. Look forward to your own reflections/thoughts.
Take care,
b.
am i mixing up again my latters& formers? or is it really so that it is the failure in duties to humankind that will not be forgiven? that would be heartwarming!
duties ... perhaps not unlike kant's categorical imperative?
Sorry, it was written very clumsily, fff: failure to perform one's duties to God (the latter) will be forgiven; failure to carry out one's duties to humankind (the former) will NOT be forgiven).
I don't know what Kant's categorical imperative is (anton/flowerville, I'm sure could explain) but I'm not sure if duty is the right word. Hard to explain. Wil try and get back to you on that, if that's okay?
Keep well,
b.
glad it is the heartwarming version! (and it's really just me - for some reason always getting confused by latter and former)
Post a Comment