Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: betty boop; Alamo-Girl
The fancy Hebrew notwithstanding, I think it will be misleading to order the intellect (which I presume must be distinguished from consciousness) as a receptivity between two of sources of fundamentally different things--at least not without some major redrafting. The first step toward a revision is to abandon the notion that these two actions are in some way a polar opposites. Otherwise we will land ourselves in a horrible dualism--something already intimated in suspicion of passion. Next thing you know we'll be doing the pendulum swing, hating the all renaissance and digging ourselves under for a disembodied utopia, sine resurrectione

A body-soul dichotomy, as with any dualism, is a setup for the tyranny of one over the other. And a prior synthesis or a fundamental arche to the body-soul or form-matter antithesis (I use Kant's word on purpose) is not to be found in Greek or Enlightenment thought (and the Hebrews weren't even Greek!)

112 posted on 02/11/2003 7:36:45 AM PST by cornelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies ]


To: cornelis; Alamo-Girl; beckett; Phaedrus
A body-soul dichotomy, as with any dualism, is a setup for the tyranny of one over the other. And a prior synthesis or a fundamental arche to the body-soul or form-matter antithesis (I use Kant's word on purpose) is not to be found in Greek or Enlightenment thought....

cornelis, thank you for your cautionary statements with respect to dualism. Yet I don't see how the body-soul distinction necessarily must be thought of as constituting polar opposites. I imagine there must be a fundamental arche that unites the two at some level, for these two "aspects" need each other to express a human life; i.e., they constitute a unity. Yet given the limitations of language, to speak of either of the aspects requires us to "intend" one or the other; and intentionality implies a kind of artificial uprooting out of the fuller context in which each of the aspects appears and mutually participates in the other. In this sense, it distorts to some degree the thing we're thinking and speaking about. In this sense, "we murder to dissect." So we have to remember that the separation was an artificial one all along.

Does this make any sense?

113 posted on 02/11/2003 8:21:53 AM PST by betty boop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies ]

To: cornelis; betty boop
Thank y'all for your posts!

cornelis: The first step toward a revision is to abandon the notion that these two actions are in some way a polar opposites. Otherwise we will land ourselves in a horrible dualism--something already intimated in suspicion of passion.

The dualism already exists, the conflict has always been there. It was recognized thousands of years ago by the Hebrew word usage in the Bible. It is at the root of Theology - from Judeo/Christian to Eastern Religions. Freud confirmed at least in part – the Id and Superego. Both sides practice tyranny within us as we exercise our free will – do I watch the soap opera or play with the kid?

IMHO, if we truly wish to communicate - we must tailor the message to the recipient. If it’s an English audience, we don’t speak Spanish. We don’t sell ice to Eskimos. And if the audience is particularly sensitive to an issue, that’s the one you raise - play the race card to win an acquittal for O.J.

Likewise here – conservatism doesn’t appeal to the carnal man, the nephesh - so I suggest we speak to the neshama. In other words, why not exploit the difference which already exists to further conservatism?

I do not, and cannot, address the philosophical issues you raise. I only speak to the practical ones – how to get the conservative message a fair hearing.

114 posted on 02/11/2003 8:37:10 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson