New Times, Ancient Shadows

You may also like...

5 Responses

  1. Cartman says:

    Very much appreciated. You articulated ideas that I still only grasp poorly but I can sense the importance of. Many thanks.

  2. Mihai Marinescu says:

    Excellent one.

    I see that what Acquinas says about the eternal begetting of the Son is directly in line with St John of Damascus in his Dogmatics.
    The problem I see: how to actually argue with people who do not grasp neither the essence of the influences acting upon them, nor the metaphysical understanding necessary to repel them?

    In my opinion, reductio ad absurdum using irony and satire are the best solutions on the social level.
    I bring this up because you mention several times the inadequacy of the arguments used in the social sphere.

    • Malić says:

      Well, reductio ad absurdum could be understood as an essence of humor. We laugh at paralogisms and the more perfectly the real infernce is parodied by illusory one, the stronger the laughter gets. There is no defense against satire if it is a real reductio ad absurdum of the wrong inference. The only problem is that people prefer to be flattered rather than satirized and the most destructive social reforms today are those that give, and not take away, something from the people. Its hard to compete with that, especially when you make a claim that the moment when people lose their suffering is the moment they lose themselves.

  3. Robber Chih says:

    Are not labels like masculine and feminine themselves allegorical understanding of yang and yin? Or the two polar opposites which are at work to create existence?

    I replied to this question along the same lines: God is masculine because that’s how we understand the active principle. Not necessarily that He is a biological man, as such.

    Civilization is therefore not the act of “men” but of intelligent activity itself, yang. We just understand that as “patriarchal” but might as well use the word intelligent activity.

    Each being possess yang and yin in differening degrees. Women possees yang and can act constructively in society by this. And vice versa.

    Being caught up in biological (positivist) labels is most misleading. Failing to see the allegorical nature of what rests in the mind confines one to the earth. The mind itself is not of the earth. Why should it’s content be?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *