Joy

KeskusteluLet's Talk Religion

Liity LibraryThingin jäseneksi, niin voit kirjoittaa viestin.

Joy

Tämä viestiketju on "uinuva" —viimeisin viesti on vanhempi kuin 90 päivää. Ryhmä "virkoaa", kun lähetät vastauksen.

1rrp
tammikuu 10, 2013, 6:59 pm

The concept of joy seems to play an important part in religion, and here is a piece in the NYT times which discusses the view of Aquinas and compares it to a recent commentary by Zadie Smith.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/10/the-joy-of-zadie-smith-and-thoma...

But I must admit, I have read it and am still a little baffled. Do you know what they are talking about?

2ambrithill
tammikuu 10, 2013, 7:31 pm

In comparing joy and pleasure (or happiness), I would say that pleasure and happiness tend to rely on the circumstances around you, but that joy can be had even in the worst circumstances. This is what I think Paul is referring to in Philippians 4:11-13:

"Not that I speak in regard to need, for I have learned in whatever state I am, to be content: I know how to be abased, and I know how to abound. Everywhere and in all things I have learned both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need. I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me."

3Lunar
tammikuu 11, 2013, 4:52 am

Unlike pleasures, people and the joy they bring, are irreplaceable. Her concluding thought is that “if we were sane and reasonable,” we would, like animals, always “choose a pleasure over a joy.”

Pleasure is relaxing while joy is exciting. The "choice" described above is no choice at all because you can't replace one with the other. Even if you could put excitement in a pill, the very fact that you could pop a pill on demand can get old and doesn't compare to the scarcer and more varied joys of life. Any other words are just an excuse for adspace masquerading as an article.

4John5918
tammikuu 11, 2013, 5:20 am

>2 ambrithill: pleasure and happiness tend to rely on the circumstances around you, but that joy can be had even in the worst circumstances

I wonder if this has some parallels to St Ignatius' description of "consolation"?

5ambrithill
tammikuu 11, 2013, 7:30 am

>4 John5918: It would appear so to me. I have always thought that Paul's words are the perfect example of what Jesus meant when He said that He came to give us an abundant life. If one can be content no matter the circumstances, that certainly seems like an abundant life to me.

6nathanielcampbell
Muokkaaja: tammikuu 11, 2013, 11:07 am

It seems to me that the fundamental distinction between pleasure and joy is found in the center of the experience: pleasure is inherently self-centered, that is, the point of pleasure is to please the subject who experiences the pleasure. Joy, however, ends up being other-centered, in the sense that its substance is found in the relationship of the joyous subject with the enjoyed object.

This is why Smith ultimately concluded that the club drugs were only simulacra of joy and really ended up being more like pleasures than joys. Real relationships are only had with persons, not with things. When we substitute thing-relationships for personal relationships--whether the things are drugs, or money, or fancy clothes, or sumptuous food--we discover ultimately only emptiness and the shadows of fleeting impermanence. But when we focus on personal relationships rather than material things, we find fulfillment, real happiness, and joy.

Interestingly, Prof. Gutting (whom I have met) chooses to pursue the Thomistic line, when for me, the obvious point of departure would be Augustine's distinction between "using" and "enjoying" (as found in the De Doctrina Christiana). For Augustine, the only proper object of enjoyment (the verb is frui) is God, as God is the source and end (as in "goal", i.e. telelogically speaking) of all being. All other things are to be "used" (the verb is uti) to gain that goal.

Now, this distinction has often been criticized for turning human relationships--which at first blush fall into the "using" rather than "enjoying" category--into harmful acts of exploitation. And indeed, this seems to be what Prof. Gutting alludes to in the final analysis:
Smith might also query Aquinas’s subordination of human to divine love. On the one hand, she could ask where in our experience we encounter this eternal love. On the other hand, she might argue that subordinating our love of one another to love of God undermines the specialness that makes human love so joyful.
To answer this we must take one more step with Augustine to understand how the "twin precepts of charity" (the two commandments as found in, e.g., Matt. 22:37-40) inform this ethical dynamic. The Love of God takes precedence because, as posited above, God is the source and end of all being.

But the Love of God then compels Love of Neighbor. We love our neighbors because we love the image of God we find in them and the person in them that is perfected in the person of Christ. By loving each other through God we come to enjoy God in each other.

Joy, then, is found in being connected in love to others, as it is in the very nature of God to be connected and communicated in love to another.

7PedrBran
tammikuu 11, 2013, 4:41 pm

I look at things slightly differently.

Joy is a mood. It is existential and an orientation to the world at some moment and is less oriented towards an object.

Emotion generally has an object. I am angry at...I am in love with...

Pleasures for me are associated with sensations.

The scent of the first sweet spring zephyr brings me joy...when the world is puddle-wonderful.


"But this, Aquinas will point out, is just what he means by saying that joy, as opposed to mere pleasure, is what satisfies our rational desire — the desire to live as we ought."

Living as I ought brings me no joy whatsoever.

Heidegger has some good discussions on this if you are so inclined.

8jburlinson
tammikuu 11, 2013, 5:01 pm

This topic brings to mind the best thing Joseph Smith (no relation to Zadie) ever said: "men are, that they might have joy." (Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 2:27.

9jburlinson
tammikuu 11, 2013, 5:04 pm

> 7. Heidegger has some good discussions on this if you are so inclined.

By reading Heidegger, would one find joy or pleasure?

10rrp
tammikuu 11, 2013, 8:47 pm

Should I be able to tell, just be experiencing it, how to categorize a particular emotion as either pleasure or joy? We don't seem to have agreement here on how it should be done. I like nathaniel's method; if the pleasure is induced by an inanimate object which cannot react, it's pleasure, if by a person and it is reciprocated it's joy (is that right?).

11PedrBran
Muokkaaja: tammikuu 11, 2013, 9:48 pm

>9 jburlinson:

Sometimes pleasure, sometimes frustration, but joy is a mood IMO, so not that.

12cjbanning
tammikuu 15, 2013, 8:48 am

I'm not 100% sure what the objective of these conceptual analyses are. I'm not a Platonist, so I don't believe that "joyfulness" and "pleasurableness" exist in themselves. Now certainly we can make a distinction between the two in order to make a certain point, but that's stipulating meanings rather than discovering them.

13PedrBran
tammikuu 15, 2013, 2:46 pm

>12 cjbanning:

I agree. My comments were meant more as phenomenological descriptions.

14nathanielcampbell
tammikuu 15, 2013, 2:55 pm

>7 PedrBran:: "Living as I ought brings me no joy whatsoever."

As both Gutting and Aquinas would reply, that means that your concept of "living as you ought" is not in accordance with the rational reality of "living as you ought." Joy is, as you say, an existential orientation to the world. If your orientation to the world does not bring you joy, it is because it is an incorrect orientation.

I'm guessing that what you mean when you say, "Living as I ought brings me no joy whatsoever," is that you find traditional moral codes depressing rather than joyful. The question, from a Thomistic perspective, is then to understand (1) why you find them depressing and (2) whether your perception of joy vs. joylessness is itself flawed. If your expectation of what should bring joy is flawed, then you won't recognize actual joy when it happens and will mistake false things for real joy.

When Aquinas says that living as you ought is what brings joy, he means that living in accordance with the truth rather than in accordance with delusion is what brings joy. Do you disagree?

15jburlinson
tammikuu 15, 2013, 3:31 pm

I have to admit that, for me, joy is the bottom line. It is the kingdom of heaven. It is the fruit of love and it is the seed of love. As Thomas Traherne said, it is "the mistress of all other sciences". "The man of God never rejoices because he is joy itself." -- Meister Eckhart

16PedrBran
tammikuu 15, 2013, 3:44 pm

>14 nathanielcampbell:

I wouldn't even know what 'living as I ought' could even mean, so it can bring me no joy. That was basically my point. As I say on my profile, I think one should choose one's beliefs rationally, but live one's life irrationally.

An interesting exposition of this very point can be found in The Retreat of Reason: A Dilemma in the Philosophy of Life

17nathanielcampbell
tammikuu 15, 2013, 4:03 pm

>16 PedrBran:: "I think one should choose one's beliefs rationally, but live one's life irrationally. "

Although I'm not sure I can really even comprehend your statement that, "I wouldn't even know what 'living as I ought' could mean," since such is one of the central questions of the history of human thought that I both study and teach, I can sympathize with your statement about the relationship between the rational and irrational.

Though I dare say, it's for reasons you would find just as absurd as I find yours! Namely, as I said in the other thread, I'm mostly a Neo-Platonist within both the apophatic and cataphatic traditions. I recognize that the human practice of reason is itself limited by the fallibilities of humanity and mortal existence. God may be Reason Itself, but to human eyes, such Reason often appears irrational, and vice-versa.

Although the irrational is often a mark of flawed and errant thinking, it is just as often the mark of the overabundance of being that flows from the Divine into human nature.

Which brings me back to Joy. When C. S. Lewis described his own life as a series of moments of being Surprised by Joy, it was to indicate the limits of the philosophical reason to which he devoted himself. Joy, for Lewis, marked those moments when Being overwhelmed human limitation.

18PedrBran
tammikuu 15, 2013, 4:16 pm

For example, if one were rational, one would give up one's bias towards oneself. There is no logical reason why my welfare should be preferred over anothers. This is the basis, IMO, for the precept, 'love your neighbor as yourself.' But we are all, without exception, biased towards ourselves and are irrational in that sense.

We are also temporaly biased. We generally have hyperbolic discount functions, and not exponential discount functions. We prefer more now with certainty over even more later with less certainty. This is a basic insight in behavioral economics.

Also, we are biased in terms of our identities. We have the irrational belief that our future shelves will be like our present selves with all the same hopes, dreams, wishes, etc and make choices on that basis...quite irrationally.

19nathanielcampbell
Muokkaaja: tammikuu 15, 2013, 4:21 pm

>18 PedrBran:: Well, yes, a basic finding of western philosophy for more than two millenia is that the default position of human beings is irrational, and that the vocation of the philosopher is to awaken humanity from its irrationality towards the goodness of Reason. According to Plato, that's what Socrates was all about.

20PedrBran
tammikuu 15, 2013, 5:32 pm

Hopefully, not too much rationality. That would drain the joy out of life...at least for me.

As Pericles said, in Athens men "...live exactly as we please."

21nathanielcampbell
Muokkaaja: tammikuu 15, 2013, 8:18 pm

>20 PedrBran:: "Hopefully, not too much rationality. That would drain the joy out of life...at least for me. "

I think it all depends on what you mean by "rationality". There is a strong streak in Western culture, from the Stoics (as in Marcus Aurelius' Meditations) on one end (perhaps, as you say, the less "joyful") to Christian mystics on the other (whose experiences certainly qualify as robustly joyful) that understand Reason as being more than just the dry and uneventful logic chopping of the scholastics.

I've actually given a paper on this before, exploring the ways in which one particular medieval writer--Hildegard of Bingen--envisioned fiery Reason and vital Creativity commingled and united in the figure of Divine Love: Divine Love as both Creative and Rational: The Theophany of Caritas in Hildegard of Bingen's Liber Divinorum Operum.

Rationality need not imply boring or apathetic: in its fuller realization, it is powerful, vital, creative, and refreshing.

22John5918
Muokkaaja: tammikuu 15, 2013, 10:30 pm

>7 PedrBran:, 14 The times when I've probably been unhappiest have been when the way I've actually been living my life has been at odds with something deep inside me. Sometimes I have not been aware of the dynamic, simply that something wasn't right and I was unhappy. Becoming aware of it and bringing the two into some degree of congruence has usually worked pretty well for me.

23rrp
Muokkaaja: tammikuu 17, 2013, 8:06 pm

An interesting discussion; but I am struggling to gain meaning from some of the points.

#14

Joy is, as you say, an existential orientation to the world. If your orientation to the world does not bring you joy, it is because it is an incorrect orientation.

So is joy an "orientation to the world" or the result of a particular "orientation to the world"? What is an "orientation to the world" and how can it be "incorrect"?

If your expectation of what should bring joy is flawed, then you won't recognize actual joy when it happens and will mistake false things for real joy.

How are we supposed to distinguish "false things" from "real joy"?

#16

I think one should choose one's beliefs rationally, but live one's life irrationally.

Isn't the key part of living one's life the choosing of beliefs? So by choosing one's beliefs rationally isn't one living one's life rationally? In what way can one live one's life irrationally without choosing an irrational belief?

For example, if one were rational, one would give up one's bias towards oneself. There is no logical reason why my welfare should be preferred over anothers.

I am guessing you are working from a different definition of rational. It seems to me totally irrational not to "bias towards oneself". If you don't look after yourself, you are in no position to look after others.

#22

The times when I've probably been unhappiest have been when the way I've actually been living my life has been at odds with something deep inside me. Sometimes I have not been aware of the dynamic, simply that something wasn't right and I was unhappy. Becoming aware of it and bringing the two into some degree of congruence has usually worked pretty well for me.

The times when I have been unhappiest have always been when something outside of me throws up a major problem. I don't think these events have changed me; I just do the same as I ever have; work to fix the things I can fix and ignore the rest.

24John5918
Muokkaaja: tammikuu 17, 2013, 10:43 pm

>23 rrp: The times when I have been unhappiest have always been when something outside of me throws up a major problem.

This is probably why people are trying to make distinctions in terms like "happiness" and "joy", although the actual usage of terminology is not necessarily clear or consistent. I think it's also where Ignatius' terms "desolation" and "consolation" are relevant,

I would draw a distinction in my life between external things which crop up which can of course make me unhappy for a while and which I can try to fix, and deep-seated internal dynamics. I would also refer to Anthony de Mello. In his book Awareness he speaks of how one should not allow external forces or people to control one's happiness. What if I can't fix the "something outside" to which you refer? Do I then give it the power to make me unhappy for ever? Or do I come to terms with it, take the power back, and find a way of being happy even in the face of adversity?

25ambrithill
tammikuu 18, 2013, 1:45 pm

>23 rrp: That is also the point Paul is making when he says that he has learned to be content no matter the external situations that might arise. That is the difference between joy and happiness.

26rrp
tammikuu 18, 2013, 2:48 pm

#24 I looked up Anthony de Mello and discovered that the Pope is, officially, not a fan.

With the present Notification, in order to protect the good of the Christian faithful, this Congregation declares that the above-mentioned positions are incompatible with the Catholic faith and can cause grave harm.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_d...

Are you leading us astray?

27PedrBran
Muokkaaja: tammikuu 18, 2013, 11:40 pm

>23 rrp:

Perhaps you are not familiar with the standard definition of rationality in philosophy? For what rational reason are you more important than anyone else...I'm not trying to be provocative...just saying that it would be hard to make a rational case as to why any person should be privileged over any other person except for selfish reasons.

>25 ambrithill: Yes, Paul was a stoic that much is clear that is his basic moral orientation.

I like the story of Hadrian healing a woman who touched the hem of his robe...which is the source of the gospel story of Jesus. I have a Roman coin struck in commemoration of Augustus Caesar illustrating the comet that appeared at the start of his reign with the inscription 'Son of god'. This of course is the source of the gospel narrative. The point was to assert that Jesus was also Augustus and the son of god. It's sad that so many people are ignorant of classical culture. I've looked in vain to find anything in Christianity that is not derivative of Roman culture.

28John5918
Muokkaaja: tammikuu 19, 2013, 12:38 am

>26 rrp: Thanks, rrp. I wasn't aware that de Mello had been condemned by the Vatican. I studied his works back in the early '90s when they were required reading at the US Catholic university where I was doing my Master's, a Jesuit university, some years before this notification. Personally I would not agree with all the points made about de Mello by Ratzinger. It seems to me that some of what Ratzinger says could be extrapolated to condemn the great classics of the mystical and apophatic tradition of the Church. Nathaniel can tell us whether Doctors of the Church such as Hildegaard could fall under the same net. So I would still highly recommend it, with the caveat of course that it might be "incompatible with the Catholic faith" and might cause you "great harm"!

29nathanielcampbell
Muokkaaja: tammikuu 21, 2013, 4:31 pm

>27 PedrBran:: "I like the story of Hadrian healing a woman who touched the hem of his robe...which is the source of the gospel story of Jesus."

Hadrian reigned from 117 to 138 CE. The gospel story of the healing of the hemorrhagic woman is found in Matthew 9:20-22; Mark 5:25-34; and Luke 8:43-48. Pretty much every single biblical scholar worth their salt dates at least one of these "synoptic" gospels, and usually all three, before 100 C.E. The gospel story you refer to here had been in circulation amongst Christians for at least a generation before Hadrian ever became Emperor.

>27 PedrBran:: "I have a Roman coin struck in commemoration of Augustus Caesar illustrating the comet that appeared at the start of his reign with the inscription 'Son of god'. This of course is the source of the gospel narrative."

Wow. You have absolutely no idea about either Roman imperial history/ideology or biblical studies, do you?

The "comet" did not appear at the beginning of Augustus' reign. Rather, it appeared shortly after the death of Julius Caesar, and was interpreted as Caesar's "apotheosis", that is, his being taken up into the heavens as a god. Furthermore, the inscription on that coin is filius divi, based on (1) Caesar's apotheosis and (2) Julius Caesar's claims of being descended, in the gens Iulia, from Iulus / Ascanius, the son of the Trojan nobleman Aeneas, himself the son of the goddess Venus. (See Virgil's Aeneid for this one -- surely, as an expert in Roman history, you've read what is considered the greatest piece of Roman literature ever written?) The whole business of ruler-worship has its roots in the Hellenistic East, and was regarded in Rome with not the least bit of suspicion. Indeed, when Julius Caesar forced the Senate to build a temple devoted to him, it contributed to the backlash that eventually led to his assassination.

"I've looked in vain to find anything in Christianity that is not derivative of Roman culture."

Well, if you make such ridiculously ignorant mistakes as thinking that the gospels were written after Hadrian reigned as Emperor and that the comet appeared at the start of Augustus' reign, then you really haven't done a very good job of looking into the whole "origins of Christianity", have you?

As you yourself say, "It's sad that so many people are ignorant of classical culture."

Do you want to tell us next that the plethora of Hebrew prophecies that are intertwined in the Gospel accounts were derived from Roman culture, too?

30PedrBran
Muokkaaja: toukokuu 8, 2013, 4:02 pm

"The "comet" did not appear at the beginning of Augustus' reign. Rather, it appeared shortly after the death of Julius Caesar, and was interpreted as Caesar's "apotheosis".

The second triumverate did begin soon after his death and all the triumvirs had coins minted soon after Julius' death in 44BC. You are correct that Octavian's imperial reign did not start until 27BC ( although by 36BC his two principal rivals rivals were being dominated by him ) which is the date usually given to mark the commencement of his reign when the senate conferred the title of Augustus.

Julius, his great-uncle, adopted Octavian in his will. The DIVI F coins start showing up after this. The sidus Iulium, to which I was referring, was coined in 19-18BC ( BTW - I collect ancient Roman coins...mainly denarii of the Republican period up through and including Augustus' reign ).

Since Augustus was the adopted son of Julius Caesar, Octavian is quite literally the son of a god. You were thinking that this idea came from the gospels or something? I personally do not think of Jesus, a Jewish terrorist in the vein of Osama bin Laden, who was rightfully executed by the Roman authorities, as a god.

"The Comet became a powerful symbol in the political propaganda that launched the career of Caesar's great-nephew (and adoptive son) Augustus. The Temple of Divus Iulius (Temple of the Deified Julius) was built (42 BC) and dedicated (29 BC) by Augustus for purposes of fostering a "cult of the comet". (It was also known as the "Temple of the Comet Star". At the back of the temple a huge image of Caesar was erected and, according to Ovid, a flaming comet was affixed to its forehead:

To make that soul a star that burns forever
Above the Forum and the gates of Rome."

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesar%27s_Comet.

I just noticed this wiki link.

In terms of the gospels, my point was that this imagery was used by the gospel writers to convey a message about Jesus.

The oldest gospel FRAGMENT dates to 150-200 CE. This is a FRAGMENT. It is pure fantasy to extrapolate back from that to say that every saying of the gospels was found in the original even if parts of it ( or Q ) were originally authored between 60 - 95 CE which is the range given by those advocating an early dating.

Even if you accept the early dating, we have no idea what was in the original canonical gospels since we only have fragments that date to the late second century. We now know ( as Celcus originally pointed out ) that there were hundreds of gospels written by early Christians that were competing for acceptance.

It is quite clear to me that the concern of the gospels is to portray Jesus as 'their' superior god, ie ruler of the 'world'. They did this by adopting some of the imperial symbolism. A good book on the imagery of the Augustan reign The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus.

My Hadrian reference was made to reinforce this point...I suppose you think Roman authors were concerned to make their stories conform to little known Christian ones rather than the other way around? There was plenty of time for a reference to Hadrian to make its way into the gospels in my opinion.

It is sad that so many people are ignorant of classical culture.

31Arctic-Stranger
toukokuu 8, 2013, 5:22 pm

The point was to assert that Jesus was also Augustus and the son of god. It's sad that so many people are ignorant of classical culture. I've looked in vain to find anything in Christianity that is not derivative of Roman culture.

Well, given that it stems from Hebraic and Hellenized cultures, your observation is pretty strange.

32jburlinson
toukokuu 8, 2013, 7:09 pm

> 30. I personally do not think of Jesus, a Jewish terrorist in the vein of Osama bin Laden...

I'd like to understand the basis for your comparison. Is this only because both flourished east of the prime meridian?

33John5918
toukokuu 9, 2013, 10:24 am

>30 PedrBran:, 32 While I've heard Jesus described as a revolutionary, this is the first time I've heard him described as a terrorist. Did he kill lots of civilians in order to bring about political change? I must have missed that bit in the gospels...

34Daithioc
toukokuu 17, 2013, 4:57 am

>33 John5918:....Having said that......he did steal Eve's rib while she was sleeping,impregnate a Palestinian virgin without first consulting her,and send his only son down to be tortured to death and nailed to a cross......(and these are only brief highlights,lol).
I hope no father on this planet is ever that twisted.(completely irrespective of whether or not the sentencing-to-death of your only son was pseudo-allegorical in form and function......bah,humbug!!).

35vy0123
toukokuu 17, 2013, 6:49 am

Revelation:
I personally do not think of Jesus, a Jewish terrorist in the vein of Osama bin Laden, who was rightfully executed by the Roman authorities, as a god.

36aleng
toukokuu 17, 2013, 7:14 am

>35 vy0123: I still don't see how he's a terrorist. Maybe a militant at most, but really, a terrorist?

37Daithioc
Muokkaaja: toukokuu 17, 2013, 8:28 am

>36 aleng:....just a light muse. I suppose there could be no greater terrorization than the prospect of a fiery,excruciatingly painful banishment to the furnace of hell.And possibly for "eternity" at that,lol.

Of course,it need not be so.In the ultimate,my-way-or-the-highway deal ,we are given the choice.
Naturally,we may choose as we wish,the creator loves us with a warm,fuzzy benevolent demeanour and it
seems butter wouldn't melt and all that. However,the man who sent his only son to be tortured to death just to
give us mortals a signal!!!!!.......if that's how he treated his son just to make an allegorical example for us to observe,how do you think he would treat "us" if we don't tow the party line??.....
Scary stuff !!!

Actually,this post was initially typed as a bit of tongue-in-cheek,but,now that I think of it,it really is quite a
gruesome,scary thought,lol.

38Arctic-Stranger
toukokuu 17, 2013, 1:44 pm

Does your keyboard not have a space key?

39jburlinson
toukokuu 17, 2013, 3:28 pm

More important, isn't there a delete key?

40Daithioc
Muokkaaja: toukokuu 18, 2013, 4:44 am

>38 Arctic-Stranger:.. there is so much dark energy and dark matter out there in space-key, it's just a futile exercise sometimes.

Anyways,faced with a comparative study of reading an internet post with correctly delineated spacing versus
the threat of everlasting,fiery torture I think I may well choose a text which may not be entirely comely to
the eye.

By the way,a greater terror than eternal-torture???? Good to see you addressed the real topic of my post
as opposed to asinine pedantry.(I know you wouldn't dream of that).

Same to you,">39 jburlinson:" ,and I'll raise you 2 fiery angels and a fasces!! You gotta love those fiery angels with
torture equipment.

>38 Arctic-Stranger:>>*ps* I gave this post a quite fetching inverted-spacing aesthetic.Note how it moves inward as
it progresses.I quite like the aesthetic myself,lol. Hope this makes you happy.If not,I can easily
accommodate you with bells,whistles and a fasces.

41aleng
toukokuu 18, 2013, 9:15 am

>40 Daithioc: Are you just trying to troll people? And can't you interpret 38-39?

42nathanielcampbell
toukokuu 18, 2013, 10:09 am

>40 Daithioc:: "a fasces"

Just so you know, "fasces" is the plural form. The singular is "fasc" or "fascis".

43Daithioc
toukokuu 18, 2013, 12:20 pm

>41 aleng:...me,a troll? You "are" kidding,right.I merely made a very fair point in post #37 that if one were to think of an
action,or threat thereof,that would terrorize a person I struggle to think of one more severe than the thought
of everlasting torture.I thought it was a fair and valid point considering.Whether or not it is something
everyone would agree on,it is,at least,pertinent to the thread.
The two immediate answers following that post were a wondering on whether or not the space or delete key
on a computer was operative,lol.Of course I can interpret and read between the lines.I just gave a semi-barbed
response,is all.Thanks.

>42 nathanielcampbell: Thanks,you are a superstar.Can I ever be forgiven for such slovenly grammar.

44aleng
toukokuu 18, 2013, 12:49 pm

>43 Daithioc: Then why do you seem to lack so many spaces in your posts? You don't have spaces after commas or periods, which makes your writing difficult to read.

45Arctic-Stranger
toukokuu 18, 2013, 3:51 pm

The problem is that not many people who are on this thread believe in eternal torture. So your comment was pretty irrelevant for the people who are reading, which is why I did not take it seriously.

Do some Christians believe that? Yes. Am I one of them? No.

But if we are playing the non sequitur game, I like the color blue. And Miles Davis's Kind of Blue. And the wind just blew here.

46Mr.Durick
toukokuu 18, 2013, 5:18 pm

I'm here now, and I believe in eternal torture. I expect that it ends with death.

Robert

47aleng
toukokuu 18, 2013, 6:25 pm

>46 Mr.Durick: That's a very nice contradiction you've got there.

49Daithioc
toukokuu 19, 2013, 8:50 am

>44 aleng:. Ah, now I see where you are coming from. I suppose it is the heterodox in me which makes me such
a difficult read. I shall endeavour to become more 'ortho' and drop the 'hetero' if it pleases. Indeed, I have
started here on this very post. :-)

50aleng
toukokuu 19, 2013, 8:55 am

>49 Daithioc: Thank you. So, why do you bring up eternal torture?

51Daithioc
Muokkaaja: toukokuu 19, 2013, 1:53 pm

>45 Arctic-Stranger:.. Well,I don't play, per se, the non-sequitur game. Rather,I just point out instances when other people employ
it in form and function.

Secondly, my referral to eternal torture was a direct response to post # 36 in which the very thought of 'Jesus'
being a terrorist was being mused over. As such, it was not my intention to wonder where people contributing on
this thread themselves stood on the issue. My post # 37 explains the rest.

If, as may be possibly thought, some people on this thread believe in everlasting life and also that god sent his
only son down to be tortured and murdered(with the attendant explanation I gave on post # 37),- may it not be
a logical follow-on that there could just as easily be eternal torture as eternal bliss in heaven???. If so, if the man
called god who is charge of the whole show was ruthless enough to have his only son tortured, I figure he
wouldn't have much pause for thought on punishing "us" beyond imagination.

I don't believe in either eternal bliss "or" eternal torture, so it's water off a duck's vertebrae to moi. But to
any devout theists out there, to conceive and believe in one, but not the other smacks to me of a very
a-la-carte and arbitrary attitude to the bible and theosophy in general.

52Daithioc
Muokkaaja: toukokuu 19, 2013, 1:54 pm

> 50. Good grief, lol.

Go back to post # 36. Honestly,it was simple word association for me. A terrorist, then I though of an act
which would 'terrorize' somebody. I was not shit-stirring. I merely thought (and I still do), that if one were to
take emotion and subjectivity out of an equation and judge it dispassionately, then what could possibly
be more terrorizing than a threat of torture for eternity?

From Gothic fresco's in Rome to oil paintings in Paris to wooden carvings in Bavaria:- the threat of torture has
been an integral part of religion for as long(and longer) than the printing press came into being.

It would be hard to conceive of a fully comprehensive study of the teachings of christianity and its' joy,
without the torture going hand-in-hand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTrEazY_pGo

An episode like the above gives you a flavour.

53quicksiva
toukokuu 19, 2013, 3:27 pm

Josephus on Jesus the terrorist.

Now, as soon as I was come into Galilee, and had learned this state of things by the information of such as told me of them, I wrote to the sanhedrim at Jerusalem about them, and required their direction what I should do. Their direction was, that I should continue there, and that, if my fellow legates were willing, I should join with them in the care of Galilee. But those my fellow legates, having gotten great riches from those tithes which as priests were their dues, and were given to them, determined to return to their own country. Yet when I desired them to stay so long, that we might first settle the public affairs, they complied with me. So I removed, together with them, from the city of Sepphoris, and came to a certain village called Bethmaus, four furlongs distant from Tiberius; and thence I sent messengers to the senate of Tiberius, and desired that the principal men of the city would come to me: and when they were come, Justus himself being also with them, I told them that I was sent to them by the people of Jerusalem as a legate, together with these other priests, in order to persuade them to demolish that house which Herod the tetrarch had built there, and which had the figures of living creatures in it, although our laws have forbidden us to make any such figures; and I desired that they would give us leave so to do immediately. But for a good while Capellus and the principal men belonging to the city would not give us leave, but were at length entirely overcome by us, and were induced to be of our opinion. So Jesus the son of Sapphias, one of those whom we have already mentioned as the leader of a seditious tumult of mariners and poor people, prevented us, and took with him certain Galileans, and set the entire palace on fire, and thought he should get a great deal of money thereby, because he saw some of the roofs gilt with gold. They also plundered a great deal of the furniture, which was done without our approbation; for after we had discoursed with Capellus and the principal men of the city, we departed from Bethmaus, and went into the Upper Galilee. But Jesus and his party slew all the Greeks that were inhabitants of Tiberias, and as many others as were their enemies before the war began.

Josephus, Flavius (2010-10-07). The Complete Works of Flavius Josephus (Kindle Locations 174-183). . Kindle Edition.

54vy0123
Muokkaaja: toukokuu 31, 2013, 10:58 pm

p. 19 Martin Heidegger's What is called thinking?
Beauty is a fateful gift of the essence of truth, and here truth means the disclosure of what keeps itself concealed. The beautiful is not what pleases, but what falls within that fateful gift of truth which comes to be when that which is eternally non-apparent and therefore invisible attains its most radiantly apparent appearance.
p. 91
It is possible, for example, to ascertain historically down to the last detail what Leibniz said about the Being of beings, and yet not to understand in the least what Leibniz thought when he defined the Being of beings from the perspective of the monad, and defined the monad as the unity of perceptio and appetitus, as the oneness of perception and appetite. What Leibniz thought is then expressed by Kant and Fichte as the rational will, which Hegel and Schelling, each in his own way, reflect upon. Schopenhauer names and intends the same thing when he thinks of the world as will and idea; and Nietzsche thinks the same thing when he defines the primal nature of beings as the will to power. That the Being of beings appears here invariably and always as will, is not because a few philosophers have formed opinions about Being. What this appearance of Being as will points to is something that cannot be found out by any amount of scholarship. Only the inquiry of thought can approach it, only thought can do justice to its problematic, only thought can keep it thoughtfully in mind and memory.

55vy0123
Muokkaaja: toukokuu 26, 2013, 2:02 am

p. 181 Steve Fuller's Knowledge Society Newspeak
what may count as an error when performed by a novice or charlatan may pass as a bold initiative of gnomic pronouncement when uttered by a recognized expert. This difference is manifested in the range of responses available to those exposed to the act: one adapts to the pronouncement of an expert, whereas on corrects the mistake of an incompetent and ignores the ramblings of a charlatan.
p. 59 Theodore Roszak's The Cult of Information
'Twas brillig and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe.

56hardiboy
toukokuu 26, 2013, 4:45 am

In getting back regarding existentialism for those who would like to follow this line of discussion which I made earlier, it's really a funny thing to consider this by everyone who is not familiar with this philosophical endeavor that's why I mentioned it earlier that it is crazy as it seems when it comes to dealing with the field of religiousity, arts and humanism wherein the idea of objective proofs and evidences are eradicated to validate the truth that holds within these fields.

Existentialist thinkers, regardless of their religious orientation(theists or atheists), share the idea of the importance of the Subjective Self or the I-Subject. The subjective self as understood is not the sense perceptual activities of our body nor the affirmation of the supremacy of truth held by individuals over each other. On the other hand, the subjective self here as being understood by these existentialists as their starting point of their philosophical endeavor is the self affirmation of one's existence, or the very act of awakening of the one who makes a decision in a particular moment, in a particular situation, that is, the self awareness of the one finding himself in the here and now situation. For them, it has been for a long time that man indulges himself to outwardness, placing so much weight on what is outside him and forgetting the one that makes this action possible.

The following are some of the Existentialist Philosophers and the fragment of their critiques:

1. Friedrich Nietzstche (1844-1900) - For him, there is no such an unchangeable entity, the only unchangeable is the unchangeable itself. this is his critique of the metaphysical arguments. this is against those who use metaphysical arguments to support the existence of god.

2. Soren Kierkegaard (1813 - 1885)- Casting out of social system is necessary if this serves the highest aspiration of life, that is, the highest level of one's existence. For him there are levels of life: the first level is the Aesthetic, the second is the Ethical, and the highest is the Religious. Here, he differentiates the subjective truth from the scientific truth. subjective truth operates on the idea of appropriation while the scientific truth operates on the idea of approximation that is, the quantification of certainty or probability. For the Kierkegaard's discussion of his argument against the classical proofs of the existence of God, this site provides a simple and good presentation: http://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/kierkegaard.html

3. Martin Heidegger (1889 - 1976)- For him, man is "Dasein". This means that the very first moment man discovers himself is the moment of finding himself as "being-there" that is, discovering the very existence of the I at this particular point in the world and at this particular moment in time. It is the purpose of the existence of the subject to unveil the truth which lies in this very act of unveiling. Here, Heidegger is doing his recuperation of the long time forgotten truth and objectivity which the natural and theoretical sciences try to subjugate. it is good to mention that our friend, VY0123 has an entry right above regarding this discussion.

4. Edmund Husserl (1859 - 1938) - He realized the self objectification of the I in relation to the dominating science of our time. For example, finding myself on the hospital bed for operation, the doctors are cutting and making a hole in my body. Indeed, the doctor, as doing their operation, regard my body as no different from other things in the same way they are doing their studies and experiments. However there is a sudden self-awakening that there is much more in the I-Subject than this body they are treating, that is, I am more than this body, beyond the I-object as body these doctors and experimental scientists are dealing with.

5. Jean-Paul Sartre (1905 - 1980) - He is against the determinism innate in the natural and theoretical and experimental sciences. For him, speaking in our present time, science treats the I-subject as already determined somewhat like a robot, wherein movements of this is limited to the programs installed by the maker. The social sciences in the same way, does the stereotyping and enclosing all man's actions into a meaningful factual patterns. But for Sartre, the I-subject transcends the determinism of the science. the I-subject is in constant doing of himself beyond the encapsulating attitude of the sciences. And this constant doing of oneself is the manifestation of the freedom that lies in the very being of the I-Subject.

These are just fragments of their ideas. It is clear that what binds them in their arguments, first is the importance of the self-affirmation of the I-Subject from whom meaningful actions emanate. The second thing is that , these thinkers are barring the logic and the methodology innate in the natural, theoretical, and social sciences to subjugate the mechanism that works in the field of arts and humanism. Using the logic and methodology of these sciences mentioned does not give justice to the immensity of the I-Subject and placing the I-Subject as equal and seeing one of the things in this world. Take note, these thinkers do not disqualify or remove the importance of these sciences in human life, instead, they are showing to us that the nature of logic and method employs in this sciences are not appropriate and lacks legitimacy in pursuing the concept of truth and objectivity in arts and humanism. Hence, this is a change of mindset from a scientistic attitude to a profound, open and higher form of understanding of man.

57vy0123
Muokkaaja: kesäkuu 1, 2013, 10:18 pm


p. 154 Frances A. Yates' The Art of Memory
According to the author of the Asclepius the Egyptians knew how to infuse the statues of their gods with cosmic and magical powers; by prayers, incantations, and other processes they gave life to these statues; in other words, the Egyptians knew how to ‘make gods’.

58vy0123
Muokkaaja: kesäkuu 30, 2013, 5:49 am

p. 168 Martin Heidegger's What is called thinking?
A fragment of Parmenides, which has been given the number 6, begins with these words: χρὴ τὸ λέγειν τε νοεῖν τ᾽ ἐὸν ἔμμεναι· The usual translation of the saying is: “One should both say and think that Being is.”
p. 213
By way of Hegelian metaphysics, Kierkegaard remains everywhere philosophically entangled, on the one hand in a dogmatic Aristotelianism that is completely on par with medieval scholasticism, and on the other in the subjectivity of German idealism. No discerning mind would deny the stimuli produced by Kierkegaard's thought that prompted us to give renewed attention to the “existential.” But about the decisive question—the essential nature of Being—Kierkegaard has nothing whatever to say.

59vy0123
Muokkaaja: elokuu 4, 2014, 9:23 pm


p. 649 Jesse Shera in The study of information, ed. F. Machlup
Data, data everywhere and not a thought to think.
p. 667
In his Turing Award lecture in 1974, Donald Knuth addressed himself to the question of “Computer Programming as an Art.” He clearly disassociated himself from the opinion “that there is something undesirable about an area of human activity that is classified as an ‘art’; it has to be a science before it has any real stature.” (Knuth, 1974a, p. 667.) One of his theses was that programming was also “an art form, in an aesthetic sense.” Programming “can be like composing poetry or music,” it can give aesthetic pleasure to the programmer as well as to the user, it can be “a beautiful thing.” (Ibid., pp. 670, 672.)

60zangasta
heinäkuu 6, 2013, 2:59 pm

>57 vy0123:

Sorry for jumping in in the middle here (I haven't read the thread), but your post reminds me of a talk by historian Richard Carrier ( 56:38) where he talks about some of those Egyptian statues and how they were brought to life.

I found it fascinating.

61vy0123
Muokkaaja: toukokuu 2, 2014, 6:20 am

Viestin kirjoittaja on poistanut viestin.

62zangasta
heinäkuu 9, 2013, 9:00 am

>60 zangasta: "The talk was presented to an audience I would not be of" either. Thank goodness for YouTube, eh?

63vy0123
Muokkaaja: toukokuu 2, 2014, 6:20 am

Viestin kirjoittaja on poistanut viestin.

64zangasta
Muokkaaja: heinäkuu 13, 2013, 4:25 am

>63 vy0123: Exactly. :-)

It is so nice to have things revealed, whether it takes 2 minutes, or 2 millennia.

65zangasta
heinäkuu 13, 2013, 7:22 am

>63 vy0123: Thanks vy, that video is giving me joy indeed. :-))

That there is one of the reasons why I want the bible stamped clearly and unequivocally as fiction.

66vy0123
Muokkaaja: heinäkuu 29, 2013, 5:17 am

p. 58 Machlup's Knowledge and Knowledge Production
Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?


T[homas] S[tearns] Eliot,
The Rock: A Pageant Play
(New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1934), p. 7.
(Emphasis supplied.)
p. 146
Among once widely accepted sciences, or systematic bodies of knowledge, which are now repudiated and in utter disrepute, are astrology, demonology, necromancy, and studies of supernatural phenomena.
p. 149
Let us recall that “one man’s superstition is another’s religion,” that “one religion is as true as another,” and that “superstition may be defined as constructive religion which has grown incongruous with intelligence.”

67vy0123
elokuu 17, 2013, 5:55 am

p. 123 Wakeman's Strangers at the Gate
European Christianity, on the other hand, was only apparently integral, actually embodying two great currents of social thought. The first was conservative and best symbolized by Thomism, which used lex naturae and Aristotelian forms to explain the social system existing outside the City of God. The second was radical, characterized by chiliasm, “generous love,” and bent toward primitive communism. Rome tolerated this second, anti-institutional set of doctrines by creating the monastic orders. But the history of the Catholic Church from the ninth century to the sixteenth century can easily be viewed as a continuing failure to “enclose,” disarm, or destroy the potentially revolutionary beliefs of the sects and heresies: Albigensian, Franciscan, or Taborite. The Church's ultimate defeat occurred with the Reformation.

68John5918
elokuu 17, 2013, 6:28 am

>66 vy0123: Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?


See Kenneth Williams' take on it

69vy0123
elokuu 18, 2013, 8:44 am

p. 34 Lesk's Practical Digital Libraries: Books, Bytes, and Bucks
No one has the time to read an entire library. Everyone must use some method of deciding which items to read.

70Jesse_wiedinmyer
elokuu 18, 2013, 12:07 pm

I Have the World's Largest Collection of Seashells...
...I keep it on all the beaches of the world ... perhaps you've seen it...

71vy0123
Muokkaaja: elokuu 23, 2013, 11:54 pm



p. 323 Heidegger's History of the Concept of Time
Fable of Care
p. 302–303
This old fable is to be found among the fables of Hyginus. It is the 220th fable and bears the title Cura. I would like to share it with you:
Once when ‘Care’ was crossing a river, she saw some clay. Thoughtfully, she took up a piece and began to shape it. While she was meditating on what she had made, Jupiter came by. ‘Care’ asked him to give it spirit, and this he gladly granted. But when she wanted her name to be bestowed upon it, he forbade this, and demanded that it be given his name instead. As they were arguing, Earth arose and requested that her name be conferred on the creature, since she had given it a part of her body. They asked Saturn to be the judge, and he made the following seemingly just decision; “Since you, Jupiter, gave it spirit, you shall have that spirit at its death. Since you, Earth, gave it the gift of body, you shall receive its body. But since ‘Care’ first shaped this creature, she shall possess it as long as it lives. But since there is a dispute among you about its name, let it be called ‘homo,’ for it is made of humus (earth).”

72vy0123
Muokkaaja: toukokuu 2, 2014, 6:17 am

Viestin kirjoittaja on poistanut viestin.

73vy0123
syyskuu 8, 2013, 1:21 am

p. 166 Machlup's Knowledge: Its creation, distribution & economic significance (Volume II)
I have collected a few samples of such statistics in the form of time series and intend to report my findings for various types of colleges and universities in the volume on Education. In my sample study I will disobey the HEGIS format and will not treat philosophy (Code 1509) as coequal with “poulty science” (Code 0106), “hotel and restaurant management” (Code 0508), “photography” (Code 1011) or “clothing and textiles” (Code 1303). Instead, I will rank philosophy with discipline divisions such as “Biological Sciences,” “Physical Sciences,” “Mathematics,” and “History”.

74vy0123
syyskuu 23, 2013, 7:34 am

p. 59 Critchley's Continental Philosophy : a very short introduction
One's reading of a classical philosophical text from the tradition does not so much take the form of a college dinner conversation, as much as a meeting with a stranger from a distant land whose language one is only beginning to undertstand, and with difficulty.

75vy0123
lokakuu 5, 2013, 7:57 am

p. 80   O’Keefe’s  Epicureanism
If it were already true either that “Tim will die from his disease” or “Tim will not die from the disease”, then it would be pointless to deliberate over which of the two to make true.

76vy0123
Muokkaaja: marraskuu 15, 2013, 10:27 am

p. 28 Chang's & Halliday's Mao the unknown story
To be able to eat his fill and read to his heart's content was Mao's idea of the good life.
p. 144
On the March, I was lying in a litter. So what did I do? I read. I read a lot.
p. 315
When the weather got hotter, he decided he wanted a shaddy place to read outdoors, so his bodyguards felled some trees to make pillars, weaving the twigs and leaves into a bower, where Mao read every day, studying English for relaxation.
p. 507
‘The more books you read, the more stupid you become.’ ‘You can read a little,’ he would say, ‘but reading too much ruins you.’
p. 639
When Mao finally found he could not read at all, even with a magnifying glass, he broke down and cried.

77vy0123
Muokkaaja: joulukuu 24, 2013, 5:22 am

p. 45 Editor Li's The Essence of Chinese Civilization
“You have drunk too much, and over-drinking is harmful to your health,” she pleaded in tears. “You should put a stop to it.”
    “That is a good idea,” Liu Ling replied. “But I cannot stop by my own efforts. I need to take an oath before the gods. Get meat and wine ready and we shall use them as sacrifices.” His wife agreed and complied with his request. Then he knelt down and prayed as follows:
Heaven gave me my life
And designated me a drunkard.
A jug I can consume by one swallow;
Fifty jugs later I still remain sober.
An ignorant woman my wife is;
Oh, gods,
Please do not listen to her!
After the prayer, he ate the meat and drank the wine. Once again he was deadly drunk.
    One day he had an argument with a vulgar man who was anything but a philosopher.
p. 80
“A thing is where the mind is,”
p. 115
A drunkard cannot distinguish colors;
p. 94
Why? This is because they do not know the difference between information and knowledge.
p. 87
An object has its essential and non-essential aspects. Likewise an event has a beginning and end.

78John5918
joulukuu 17, 2013, 8:39 am

>77 vy0123: You have drunk too much

"Sir, you are drunk!"

"Madam, you are ugly, but tomorrow I shall be sober."

Attributed to Winston Churchill

79nathanielcampbell
joulukuu 17, 2013, 9:19 am

>78 John5918:: That's always been one of my favorite anecdotes about Churchill...

80John5918
joulukuu 17, 2013, 10:25 am

My other favourite one is when Winston Churchill was dining in fine company, and when asked what piece of chicken he wanted, he requested a breast. A lady upbraided him, saying, "Mr Churchill, in polite society we ask for white meat or dark." The next day Churchill sent her a rose, with a note thanking her for the fine meal and suggesting she might affix it to her "white meat."

81vy0123
Muokkaaja: tammikuu 7, 2014, 4:14 am

|
|
|
,~~~~~
:
;
j
      <><

82vy0123
Muokkaaja: toukokuu 25, 2014, 10:35 pm

Data isn't information.
Information isn't knowledge.
Knowledge isn't wisdom.
Wisdom isn't shit.
Metadata kills. Words kill.
Smoking kills. Embarrassment can kill.

83vy0123
Muokkaaja: elokuu 4, 2014, 9:24 pm

Viestin kirjoittaja on poistanut viestin.

84vy0123
toukokuu 17, 2014, 11:51 am

85vy0123
toukokuu 30, 2014, 6:50 am

p. 83 De Bary's Sources of Indian Tradition
    Knowledge is an affection or feeling — the sense of awareness of an object or thing. Outside me are things, not knowledge; inside me is knowledge, not things.
p. 86
    Now a thing that is not made up of parts is eternal, being unbreakable, indestructable, and indissoluble. The faculty of knowledge, the partless substance whose function is conscious perception, is, then, immortal. As such it is, and may properly be, termed soul.

86vy0123
Muokkaaja: kesäkuu 6, 2014, 11:09 pm


p. 278 De Bary's Sources of Japanese Tradition
        …Words, after speech, reach
Into the silence. Only by the form, the pattern,
Can words or music reach
The stillness, as a Chinese jar still
Moves perpetually in its stillness.¹
   ¹ Burnt Norton, in Four Quartets, p. 7.

87vy0123
heinäkuu 4, 2014, 12:58 am

p. 96 Junhua's Sights and Scenes of Suzhou
Looking in the mirror, I suddenly find myself getting old,

88vy0123
heinäkuu 10, 2014, 9:09 am

p. 90 de Bary's Approaches to Asian Civilizations

89vy0123
Muokkaaja: heinäkuu 15, 2014, 2:48 am

p. 202 de Bary's Approaches to Asian Civilizations
I have never met a Christian missionary who did not refer to Buddhism as a religion, although he might stigmatize it as a “false religion.” Nor have I encountered a Shintoist or Buddhist who questioned the status of Christianity as a religion—even if he deemed it a subversive doctrine.
p. 212
The fire generated on a match is certainly different from the fire radiated from the sun.

90vy0123
heinäkuu 18, 2014, 9:17 am

91vy0123
Muokkaaja: heinäkuu 23, 2014, 12:24 am

p. 35 Gorer's Bali and Angkor
The library contained some very fine hand-painted books; and copies were being made and new records compiled by grave-faced clerks in spectacles; all the older men wore their hair long and twisted in a bun at the nape of the neck, in the Singhalese fashion.
p. 57
Balinese woodcarving, like Balinese painting, has fairly recently undergone a profound modification; the artists are relying more on direct observation and less on interior vision.
p. 75–76
In all religions four functions can be recognised: an ethical system, a mythology, a ritual, and religious experience.
p. 95
The void, which leisure and lack of anxiety, did they arrive to-morrow, would create in our lives, is filled with religion and art which derives from it.
p. 209
perfection — the complete realisation of the aim — strikes us dumb.

92vy0123
heinäkuu 24, 2014, 3:03 am

93vy0123
heinäkuu 26, 2014, 6:18 am



94vy0123
heinäkuu 31, 2014, 12:29 am

p. 44 de Bary's Sources of Chinese Tradition
A man's life on earth is of short duration; it is like a galloping horse rushing past a crack in the wall.”

95vy0123
elokuu 3, 2014, 4:52 am

96vy0123
elokuu 7, 2014, 10:15 pm

97vy0123
elokuu 10, 2014, 5:28 am

98vy0123
elokuu 12, 2014, 7:39 am

p. 256 de Bary’s The Unfolding of Neo-Confucianism
Enlightenment, in either philosophy or poetics, meant much the same thing: the achievement of perfected knowledge of self and of one's objective environment, and the ability to integrate one with the other.

99vy0123
elokuu 18, 2014, 10:19 am


… are limitless.

100vy0123
maaliskuu 26, 2015, 10:16 pm

p. 215 ISBN 0–201–89683–4
Inputting is often called reading, and outputting is, similarly, called writing. The stuff that is input or output is generally known as “data”—this word is, strictly speaking, a plural form of the word “datum,” but it is used collectively as if it were singular (“The data has not been read.”), just as the word “information” is both singular and plural.