tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post3023746172642551369..comments2024-03-11T04:11:06.487-04:00Comments on The Smithy: What Can Men Do Against Such Reckless Hate?Lee Faberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-3618402071227512862009-02-12T18:57:00.000-05:002009-02-12T18:57:00.000-05:00Please check out this reference which (among other...Please check out this reference which (among other things) describes the origins and consequences of the totally godless power and control seeking perceptual strait-jacket in which we are now ALL trapped--NO exceptions, including those who presume to be religious.<BR/><BR/>www.adidabiennale.org/curation/index.htm<BR/><BR/>A perceptual strait-jacket which has created the situation described in this reference.<BR/><BR/>www.ispeace723.org/toc.html<BR/><BR/>Plus related references on the origins of the situation described in the above reference.<BR/><BR/>www.dabase.org/2armP1.htm#ch2<BR/><BR/>www.dabase.org/noface.htm<BR/><BR/>www.beezone.com/AdiDa/jesusandme.html<BR/><BR/>www.adidamla.org/newsletters/toc-aprilmay2006.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-19089506681683471332007-12-10T18:38:00.000-05:002007-12-10T18:38:00.000-05:00Actually I've moved beyond anger, to laughter.But,...Actually I've moved beyond anger, to laughter.<BR/><BR/>But, perhaps because of this semester of Derrida, I can see a kind of sense in what they're saying. Or at least, I see the features of scotus that they have read about in Thomist scholarship that they are reacting against.<BR/><BR/>Cunningham is interesting because he appears to be the only one who reads Scotus historical-critical scholarship. So I can often tell what he is saying, even that synchronic contingency passage is close to reality. <BR/><BR/>The "lateralisation" would be the Scotus' claim that at time t1 both the thing willed and its opposite are possible.<BR/><BR/>unfortunately, Cunningham endorses thomistic historiography and the RO genealogy in which scotus leads to bad things, so his often almost right interpretations are vitiated by insane conclusions drawn from them. But he is aware that he is doing so; he explicitly says that he is working in the thomistic historiographical tradition of opposing anlaogy to univocity, and won't call it into question.<BR/><BR/>If you've noticed, I post on what i'm reading at the moment. the RO section of my paper will probably be done in a day or two, then it will be off to scotus on the eucharist, or sacramental efficiency.Lee Faberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-68194176919209856492007-12-10T16:40:00.000-05:002007-12-10T16:40:00.000-05:00a virulent synchronic contingency that led to a de...<I>a virulent synchronic contingency that led to a de-existentialised existence, as it became first essentialised, and then factualised. This in turn facilitated a methodological lateralisation, as non-existence settled alongside existence.</I><BR/><BR/>This claim isn't gibberish. Let me do some translation:<BR/><BR/><I>Synchronic contingency is bad. It leads to essentialism, and that's so modernist. But Scotus does something worse - he intends that his philosophy actually talks about the factual world! Finally, Scotus thinks that reality is complicated enough to talk about things in two ways next to each other: things as existing, and as they could possibly not exist. But our side doesn't believe in such silly nonsense; we're neo-Platonists with thin veneers of Augustine and Aquinas, and we like emanation better.</I><BR/><BR/>See? Perfect sense.M. Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15355720086156463309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-18885709977020011272007-12-10T14:35:00.000-05:002007-12-10T14:35:00.000-05:00It's like John Cage music: you have to appreciate ...It's like John Cage music: you have to appreciate it for its constantly evoking effects you think it is supposed to, but then veering off into some other motif, so the whole is a bizarrely intriguing jumble.Codgitator (Cadgertator)https://www.blogger.com/profile/00872093788960965392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-76530220263176463732007-12-10T11:49:00.000-05:002007-12-10T11:49:00.000-05:00Yes, I think Faber is just trying to make us all f...Yes, I think Faber is just trying to make us all frustrated and angry. Faber, I agree that it might be time to lay off the RO stuff for while.<BR/><BR/>But my favorite was Cunningham. <I> a virulent synchronic contingency that led to a de-existentialised existence, as it became first essentialised, and then factualised</I> What the <I>hell</I> is that supposed to mean? <I>This in turn facilitated a methodological lateralisation, as non-existence settled alongside existence.</I> Garsh golly, them shore is a lotta big wards, it must mean somethin important.<BR/><BR/>As was said about Derrida in another context, this isn't even wrong. It's just gibberish.Michael Sullivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11191322302191384384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-2437726935399693812007-12-10T07:26:00.000-05:002007-12-10T07:26:00.000-05:00Are you just trying to make us all frustrated and ...Are you just trying to make us all frustrated and angry by such arrogant and ignorant claims?<BR/><BR/>I think perhaps my 'favorite' is Blond's claim that Scotus does not think anything is really distinct. This is a lie. Scotus thinks all sorts of things are really distinct, say for example, relations and their subjects are really distinct (i.e. separable; subjects can gain and lose relations) from one another. And perhaps in response Blond would say that Scotus inaugurates the view that creatures don't have to be creatures b/c they can lose their 'being created' relation to God. But if Mr. Blond would only read Ord. 1.1.4-5 he'd see that Scotus actually addresses the unique status of 'being created' vs. 'being double the size of x'. And Scotus denies that 'being created' is a relation really distinct from the creature.<BR/><BR/>Stop with the RO stuff- I'm gonna have a stroke in reading through a mountain of ingenious ignorance.Scott Williamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14109057421298257236noreply@blogger.com