Akhenaten and family making offerings
(http:/163.121.10.41/cult-net/3g166.jpg)
From: m.levi@ix.netcom.com (M.Levi)
Subject: Thoughts on Bernal and NES
To: athena-discuss@info.harpercollins.com
Sender: owner-athena-discuss@info.harpercollins.com
Precedence: bulk
Greetings everyone. I'm back. My disconnect request appears to have
been lost in the sea of recent computer gliches. A good thing, too,
because I would not have wanted to miss recent posts by Doug Deals,
PKM, and Peter D. (I just hope I don't see 12 copies of this post in
my mailbox tomorrow.)
As Doug says, there is middle ground in this debate, and Peter's post
"the -centrisms" demonstrates more parties at the table than the
Africa/Not Africa framework suggests. I am in full agreement with
Peter's observations about the clash of myths, the regretable exclusion
of black scholars from academe, and the myopia of classics.
Peter has said that Martin Bernal's important achievement has been to
raise questions about how and why western culture associates itself
with the ancient Greeks. I would like to go a bit further than this
and discuss about Bernal's impact on Near Eastern Studies. I do not
know Bernal personally, and my assessment is in no way tinged by
personal sentiments.
I believe that Bernal's name will figure prominently in
historiographies of Assyriology and Egyptology of the next century, and
that his contribution will be assessed favorably. He will not be
remembered for having established any particular connection between the
east and west. Bernal's great contribution is that he made it possible
to think and to discuss and even to publish an idea that had become
unthinkable and unutterable: that the splendid Greek civilization owed
something to nonEuropeans. For the first time, classicists have been
placed on the defensive, called upon to explain their assumptions and
their closed canon to outsiders.
Bernal's work did not come out of the blue. I was in grad school when
his book was published, and I recall that younger scholars in NES had
been voicing private suspicions for years about the frequency with
which they were encountering east-west parallels. It was well
understood that this line of inquiry was disreputable. One did not
speak of it to professors; one did not voice it in papers. One would
have been ridiculed and challenged to prove mere suspicion, and the
burden of proof required was nothing less than refuting the weighty
consensus of classics, NES, and religious studies.
One could hardly begin to get a handle on the problem in the pre-Bernal
era. What Peter has said about NES being more sensitive to
crosscultural connections is true, but it is not the whole truth. NES
is inherently a crosscultural discipline because the Near East has
always been a hodgepodge of different ethnic groups under a common
umbrella. Egypt stands apart more than any other region, and yet the
Sumerian presence in the delta, Egypt's trade with Nubia, the NK
expansion, the Amarna Age, and Egypt's periodic control over the Levant
in the 1st m. make it impossible to study even Egypt in isolation.
After an initial 3-4 years of bewilderment, the student of NES learns
to juggle cultures. It becomes second nature to run the chronologies
of Greece, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Persia, Anatolia, Southeast Asia and the
Levant in one's head side by side like spinning cherries in a slot
machine; to take in cultural markers at a glance; to cross-reference
linguistic, artistic, and archaeological finds; to work forwards and
backwards and sideways with the variable dialects and languages of the
NE. When the spade turns up a new NE civilization every decade or so,
a closed canon is out of the question.
So the subject matter itself predisposes the NES student to think
fluidly and crossculturally and to be open to new discoveries. In time
this methodology becomes as natural as breathing, but in the pre-Bernal
era one learned early in one's studies that crosscultural perspectives
did not apply to the Mediterranean world and to ancient religions in
general. It wasn't just that east-west connections were regarded as
speculative. Whole areas of inquiry were stigmatized and discredited.
The message inculcated in NES students was that respectable scholars,
scholars who entertained the faintest hope of tenure, didn't dabble in
those areas. Lists of recommended reading in NES -- at least in
religion, my own specialty -- cut off abruptly at about 1945, about the
time when the mythopoeic paradigm was introduced. Earlier comparative
work was dismissed with the pejorative "pan-Babylonist" label; one was
not expected to actually read any of those people, and if one did, one
did not mention it to anybody.
The strictures went beyond ideas. All comparative methodologies that
promised a possible application to religious studies or connections
with classics -- indeed all fields of study that used comparative
methodologies -- were inherently suspect and off-limits to NES
students. The one exception to this rule was the indispensible
linguistics, although the threshold of proof to establish a Greek loan
word was higher than that of any other language. Anthropological
studies, for instance, were frowned upon because anthropologists
surveyed the religions of many cultures with comparative methodologies,
while the history of religion (including that outsider, Eliade, with
his "weird" notions about Mesopotamian religion) was totally beyond the
pale. To even ask one's advisor for permission to take courses in
these areas raised eyebrows. If one wanted to specialize in Mesopotami
an or Egyptian religion, one had to choose between a seminary program
that would impose a biblical framework onto the material or a program
in philology offered in NES, in which one could hone one's linguistic
skills in isolation from current scholarship in comparative religion
and the social sciences. Uttering words like "astral religion" or
"mystery rite" or "shamanistic practice" in Assyriology ranked up there
with admitting an interest in communism to Senator McCarthy.
The stigmatization of earlier scholarship directed attention within NES
away from retracing the early history of the field, and the restriction
on comparative studies directed attention inward. Discussion of
crosscultural issues in the pre-Bernal era was limited for the most
part to reaffirming the desirability of a methodology that excluded
comparative strategies. A student could hardly disagree with the
professors' contention that scholarship needed to be rigorous. The
only indication that surfaced pointing to something that was not quite
right within NES was the puzzling overreaction of professors --
distress, agitation, concern, avoidance -- whenever students referred
to outside scholarship or went beyond a recital of the views of
Jacobsen and Oppenheim.
I was not able to account for this reaction in the early years, but one
event in grad school brought home the truth. I had a NES professor
with whom I enjoyed a warm friendship. She was the one faculty person
I never hid books from, the one professor with whom I could explore
ideas freely. We were having a spirited conversation one day about
Mesopotamian religion, and she remarked with some enthusiasm that she
had written a paper on the very topic we were discussing. When I asked
if I might read it, she stopped abruptly. No, I couldn't read it
because it had never been published, in fact, it had been sitting in
her desk drawer for ten years. I asked what was the problem, did she
not think it was good enough to send out? And she said no, no, it was
by far the best work she had ever done. But she could not bring it out
any time in the forseeable future . . . I would understand these
things eventually . . . some ideas were too dangerous to publish.
Many NES students have a story to tell, something that gives a name to
the odd reactions of professors in the years before familiarity and
collegiality converge to dull one's perception that something is amiss
with NES. It is the realization that one is in a field saturated with
fear. Fear is the guiding principle that determines which subjects are
worthy of study and which methodologies are permissible and which
manuscripts are sent to the publisher.
To this day I do not have a clear picture of the wellspring of this
fear, although I have suspicions. I wish Bernal would turn his
attention to what he does best and give us a close look at the
historiography of NES because we could benefit very much from
understanding how we have gotten where we are. From what I can tell,
at some point in the middle decades of this century, a new generation
gradually took over the reins of Assyriology. Conservatism was peaking
in Classics and theology, and older NES scholars were bearing the brunt
of a backlash. Reaction to the NES reassessment of the Greece miracle
is part of this story, but NES had also called into question the
uniqueness of Christianity and its relationship to other mystery
traditions and to the dying and rising gods of the NE. NES was fast
losing allies. Anthropologists had retreated to the social sciences
and would not take up religious studies again for decades. Liberal
theologians were retiring, some against their will, to make room for
the new conservatives. This fundamentalist backlash within theology
would spark the drive to create secular departments of religious
studies, but these were decades away from being created. Within NES,
religious conservatives such as W. Allbright were rising to prominence.
It was an era when many of the best and the brightest seem to have
been champions of the far right.
The two most influential individuals in this transition were probably
Frankfort and Oppenheim. What is significant to this debate is that
Frankfort co-authored his theory of a mythopoeic mentality in the 1940s
with a student of Greek philosophy, namely, his wife, Mrs. H. A.
Franfort. Thus, it appears that the profound shift from viewing Near
Easterners as creators of sophisticated cultures to seeing them as
creatures devoid of rational thought may have been an idea borrowed
from classics at a point when anti-Semitism was at a peak.
Oppenheim seems to have been skeptical of the mythopoeic mentality but
he also seems to have been fed up with endless antagonisms. He
articulated a passionate message that promised that philologists could
leave their troubles behind and work in peace if they forsook all
comparative and religious studies. It was easy enough to do; Oppenheim
simply declared that Mesopotamian religion didn't exist and that what
was nonexistent couldn't be studied.
My musings are leading up to an important point. Classicists are
confident that there is nothing in the Near Eastern texts to undermine
their position. After all, Assyriologists and Egyptologists have been
reading cuneiform texts for 100 years now and nothing has turned up.
The future seems secure. Bernal will be banished and all will go on as
usual.
Classicists are dead wrong. As I have tried to describe, NES has
operated for fifty years under paradigms that told us that our subjects
had no religions to speak of, even that they were incapable of rational
thought. Our field has been inward-looking, deprived of comparative
methodologies and acquaintance with other traditions and fields of
study. We have read texts by translating them. We have then looked at
the translations for a long time -- say, a week to twenty years -- and
hoped that meaning would drop out of the blue sky on wings of
inspiration. For the most part, it hasn't. Bernal has characterized
Egyptology as more stigmatized than Assyriology, but he is quite wrong
on this point. Assyriology bore the brunt of the backlash;
consequently, it has been far more denuded and battered than
Egyptology. Egyptologists do not doubt that ancient Egyptians had a
religion; they discuss religious concepts freely -- they even utter the
word "paradise" without a visible flinch. Assyriology has a long way
to go before it can enjoy similar liberties.
To this day, most Assyriologists have no idea that people in other
fields have faced difficulties similar to their own, and that others
have devised successful methodologies to overcome initial barriers.
Half a century ago most of the Yogic and Tantric texts were judged to
be pure nonsense; today contemporary Western and Indian scholarship has
established their theological coherance. Secret Tibetan texts,
originally restricted to certain sects, were considered unintelligible
when they were first made public; they have long since been
acknowledged as possessing great theological sophistication. The
anthropologist Victor Turner relates that the generation of field
workers who preceded him regarded African religions as so much
superstitious mumbojumbo. Turner went on to demolish the
preconceptions of the older generation in the 1960s by demonstrating
that so-called "primitive" religions were as complex as the so-called
historical traditions. The methodological tools that worked to unravel
these other traditions have yet to be embraced by Assyriology, but
everything indicates that new possiblities and approaches lie ahead if
we can rid ourselves of the ghosts of Oppenheim and Frankfort.
In conclusion, I must acknowledge a debt to Martin Bernal. My work
has been not been inspired by his ideas, although this is not to say
that I have never found any of his arguments interesting. Something
was already in the air in NES when Bernal came along, not affecting
everyone, of course, but already amounting to an audible undercurrent.
What Bernal did was bring fear and speculation out into the open.
Bernal has given me air to breathe, space to think. It seemed that for
years I bore a little man about three inches tall perched on my left
shoulder. He watched everything I did, and he whispered that
comparative methodologies were wrong, that classicists would not
approve, that what I sensed was unthinkable. He told me to hide my
books, to restrain my thoughts, to abandon reckless and hopeless
inquiries. He told me I could never hope to publish. He said they
would come after me, they would crush me if I pursued forbidden
thoughts. When he whispered, my own voice faltered and chills ran down
my spine.
Several years ago, the little man faded away, and I haven't seen him
since. I think Martin Bernal killed him, and I am glad.
Kate
--------------
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 1996 1:56:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: GLORIA EMEAGWALI
To: athena-discuss@info.harpercollins.com
CC: EMEAGWALI@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU
Message-Id: <960601015608.20227d11@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU>
Subject: For Kate
Sender: owner-athena-discuss@info.harpercollins.com
Precedence: bulk
Kate, my dear, my sympathies are with you. You had to hide your
identity at this present time for reasons which I fully understand.
Eurocentrism is a seamless web of deceit, treachery and misinformation,
sustained by various forms of intimidation and coercion. When your
hand is in the mouth of a lion, you"ve got to take time to pull it out.
I wish you all the best in your struggle against the intellectual
tyranny of eurocentric orthodoxy.
Gloria Emeagwali
------------------
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 1996 15:16:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joycelyn Landrom-Brown
To: Gloria Sampson
cc: athena-discuss@info.harpercollins.com
Subject: Re: WORLDVIEW (Weltanschauung)
In-Reply-To: <199606012117.OAA26128@ferrari.sfu.ca>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-athena-discuss@info.harpercollins.com
Precedence: bulk
Worldview is a very sound and useful concept. There are many concepts,
terms, symbols that have been used throughout history for different
meanings and purposes. Just because symbol or concept has been used to mean
something in the past that was perceived to be negative, does not mean
that the symbol or concept shouldnt be used.
It might be helpful if you explored the psych and cultural anthropology
literature for worldview. Then you might gain a broader understanding of
the concept.
additional note follows below in the body of your response.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Joycelyn Landrum-Brown
"The errors contained in a civilization will be the cause of its own
destruction" - R.A. Schwaller De Lubicz from "Nature Word"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
On Sat, 1 Jun 1996, Gloria Sampson wrote:
>
> >posting was intended to highlight the point that the concept of WORLDVIEW must
> >be unpacked to see what it really means. While psychologists, sociologists,
> >and anthropologists in the U.S. and Canada may be using this concept in the
> >hopes of facilitating cross-cultural understanding, the nature and history of
> >the concept show that, in fact, the concept cannot achieve the goal intended
> >by its users.
It already is achieving that goal. And it works. I have been using it for
years in diversity and race relations training and I works wonderfully in
helping people understand individual, group, institutional,
organizational and cultural differences.
> I think society has the right to expect those of us in the various
> disciplines not merely to enter a particular discipline and simply
> assimilate its concepts, but to question those concepts by digging into
> their origins, history and use and to discard those which thoughtful
> reflection indicates are unsound.
>
>
>
> Gloria Sampson, Associate Professor
> Faculty of Education
> Simon Fraser University
> Burnaby, B. C., Canada V5A 1S6
> e-mail: Gloria_Sampson@sfu.ca
> Phone: (604) 291-4303
> FAX: (604) 291-3203
>
>
-------------------
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 21:09:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joycelyn Landrom-Brown
To: Gloria Sampson
cc: m.levi@ix.netcom.com, athena-discuss@info.harpercollins.com
Subject: Re: WORLDVIEW (WELTANSCHAUUNG)
Gloria,
That was a lot of work that you put into that response. I noticed that
you didnt cite any perspectives other than European on the meaning and
use of the concept of worldview. I also note that you did not cite any
sources that used worldview in a constructive sense. Those cites are out
there as well.
The information you present on worldview doesnt describe the concept as
it is being used in psychology. It is interesting though that you think
that your view of the concept is the one that we all should conform to.
This is your framework, your paradigm...I understand that, however there
are other paradigms and frameworks that are just as valid as yours. This
is another example of a worldview conflict. You see the world one way,
with your references and citations....I see the world another way with my
references and citations. We both appear to have emotional energy behind
our worldviews...and it is apparent that we will not agree on this.
It still might help if you reviewed the psych lit. By the way I believe
Leahy's book attributes the origin of psychology to the Greeks (the book
is in my office....and by the way I took history of psychology from
Leahy...I didnt agree with his assumptions about the origins of
psychology and a lot of other things, then and now). The book is in my
office on campus, but I will check it for the reference if you are
interested.
I stand on my position that a concept, symbol is neutral until we make
it mean something positve or negative within a cultural context. There are
many concepts and terms that mean different things in different communities and
cultures.....To suggest that there is only one way of defining a concept or
understanding the world is very....... shall we say......Biased.
Like for example the swastika....these days because of hitler we
associate it with nazism....however the symbol existed before that time
and has different meanings. I am sure that it will probably be
the symbol for something else again 1000 years from now.
The concept of worldview is useful, has helped people and I will continue to
use it as will many other scholars in many disciplines. Sorry Gloria, I dont
buy your argument...but I think I understand why you feel the way you do
about it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Joycelyn Landrum-Brown
"The errors contained in a civilization will be the cause of its own
destruction" - R.A. Schwaller De Lubicz from "Nature Word"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
On Tue, 4 Jun 1996, Gloria Sampson wrote:
>
>
> In responding to my posting on WORLDVIEW, Joycelyn Landrom-Brown
> has stated that "The concept is being used to facilitate cross-cultural
> understanding regarding diverse ways of being in the world" and that she
> has "been using it for years in diversity and race relations training and
> it works wonderfully in helping people understand individual, group,
> institutional, organization and cultural differences." Kate has responded
> by saying "In the history of religion, worldview has been a standard term
> for about 30 years."
> Moving along in our conversation, I now obviously need to expand
> upon my basic claim THAT WORLDVIEW WAS AND STILL REMAINS A REACTIONARY
> CONCEPT.
> To keep this posting as brief as possible, I shall simply number a
> set of statements that I can expand upon later if anyone wishes. Here's
> the argument.
> (1) Myth explains human motivations, behaviors, and yearnings.
> Myth is humankind's attempt to find meaning in life. Myth takes the form
> of the traditional ancient myths, folktales, proverbs, sayings, rituals,
> religions, poetry, and the fine arts.
> (2) Since the publication of Rene Descartes *Meditations* (1637)
> which provided the philosophy underlying the truth of a mathematical
> representation of the world and Newton's *Principia* (1687) which
> established the mathematical representation of nature as being the most
> truthful representation of nature, humankind's mythic representations have
> been denigrated as irrational and irrelevant to the seeking of truth.
> (3) After the publication of Kant's *Critique of Pure Reason*
> (1781), the question arose as to whether one single scientific method. like
> that used in the physical sciences, was appropriate for the study of all
> objects in the world. The term "objects" here includes poems, works of
> architecture, the economic market, laws, orchestral compositions, fairy
> tales, religious practices, as well as natural objects.
> (4) When Hegel published the *Phenomenology of Mind* and his
> historical works early in the 19th century, it became evident that the
> nature of man was ESSENTIALLY HISTORICAL, and that the methods of the
> physical sciences could not be used to study an entity (human beings and
> the cultural objects they produce) that was temporal in its very nature.
> That is, human beings vary greatly due to their contextualization in
> specific times and in specific places.
> (5) Throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, a debate has raged as
> to whether or not human beings can transcend their temporality.
> Reactionaries said "no." Early anthropology and psychology took for
> granted that so-called "primitive peoples" were caught in their temporality
> and could not escape it and other so-called "advanced" peoples were caught
> in theirs. The different groups were destined "by nature" to be as they
> were. Reactionaries linked temporality to nature.
> (6) The ONLY COUNTERVAILING CONCEPT to the notion that we are
> inextricably imprisoned in our temporality has been provided by the
> Enlightenment notion of UNIVERSAL REASON.
> (7) Here are our two alternatives. WORLDVIEW ALTERNTIVE: We are
> born into a situation in which the language we learn pre-exists us and the
> culture we socialize into pre-exists us. We are merely single atoms in an
> environment which is all-encompassing. We can be trained to TOLERATE
> others who dwell within different systems, but we can never truly
> understand them. We all have a "will to power" (Nietzsche). Whoever has
> the most power gets control over some of the system and can use the system
> to enforce his/her will upon those who are powerless.
> UNIVERSAL REASON ALTERNATIVE: We are born into a situation in
> which the language we learn pre-exists us and the culture we socialize into
> pre-exists us too. But, all human beings are endowed with reason (the
> theory of universal reason). We can use our reason to TRANSCEND the
> particular historical time and place into which we are thrown at birth.
> (8) During the 19th and 20th century, no one was able to develop a
> METHOD powerful enough to permit our reason to figure out HOW to transcend
> our historicity.
> (9) When psychology was invented in the mid-nineteenth century, it
> did not attend to the question of historicity, having unfortunately begun
> with "physcis envy." As Thomas Leahey has said in *A History of
> Psychology, 2nd Ed.* (1987), Prentice-Hall, "The science psychologists
> emulated was physics. . . . . Thus psychologists developed 'physics envy.'
> Psychologists, assuming that physics was the best science, tried to apply
> the methods and aims of physics to their subject matter, and felt
> inadequate when they did not succeed. Physics envy is a hallmark of
> twentieth-century psychology, especially in America."
> (10) "Physics envy" or SCIENTISM takes human beings AS IS. The
> WORLDVIEW alternative takes human beings as is, assuming that what you
> socialize into is what you MUST become. This is a naturalistic position,
> denying free will. It suggests that people mere ACCEPT their birthright,
> rather than questioning it or revising it or even dumping it when it is
> dysfunctional.
> (11) In contrast, those of us committed to UNIVERSAL REASON
> believe that we can develop methods to analyze our mythic systems. The
> methods should not be derived from the physical sciences, but should be
> appropriate to the objects that we study. When we analyze our mythic
> systems (religions, beliefs, poems, laws, etc.) using new, rigorous methods
> appropriate to these kinds of objects, we can then decide what WE want to
> conserve and what needs to be revised. We do not remain locked in a
> prisonhouse of language. We do not remain locked in a prisonhouse of
> culture. We learn, along with others, to transcend our language and our
> culture, and to FUSE HORIZONS with others (Hans-Georg Gadamer, 1989, *Truth
> and Method*, Crossroad). We do not merely tolerate others. Because we all
> work individually to transcend what we have unconsciously absorbed, this
> painful, arduous, never-ending work in common causes us to rise from our
> subjectivity and limited historical state. This work inculcates in all who
> do it a LOVE for all those who also do not merely endure or accept, but
> remake themselves and their societies.
> The UNIVERSAL REASON alternative provides humankind with a way of
> BECOMING. The WORLDVIEW alternative seeks stasis. It keeps people
> literally and metaphorically "in their place". That is why the WORLDVIEW
> philosophy is reactionary.
> Gloria Sampson, Associate Professor
> Faculty of Education
> Simon Fraser University
> Burnaby, B. C., Canada V5A 1S6
> e-mail: Gloria_Sampson@sfu.ca
> Phone: (604) 291-4303
> FAX: (604) 291-3203
>
>
-----------------
From: m.levi@ix.netcom.com (M.Levi)
Subject: Re: WORLDVIEW (Weltanschauung)
To: "Steven J. Willett"
Cc: athena-discuss@info.harpercollins.com
Sender: owner-athena-discuss@info.harpercollins.com
Precedence: bulk
Gloria Sampson said:
>> find it very strange that some African-American scholars,
>> academics, and educators have adopted a philosophy that functioned
>>as a reactionary ideology in both the nineteenth and twentieth
>>century. Nazi ideology, for instance, in this century was based on
>>the "blood and soil link" which is a corollary of WORLDVIEW.
This is ridiculous. It sounds like your curriculum in college included
a lot of philosophy and no social science. "Worldview" is a
commonplace term (and a very useful one) used in anthropology and
religious studies. It describes the "mental maps" of people who are
either religious or nonreligious. Without the concept of worldview,
one falls into the fallacy of assuming that people who are not
religious are "nothing." The present meaning of "wordview" has no
connection whatsoever with Nazi ideology, although Nazi ideology is an
example of a worldview.
Kate
----------------
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 96 12:03 EDT
From: "Mary Lanser"
Subject: Re: WORLDVIEW (WELTANSCHAUUNG)
To: Gloria_Sampson@sfu.ca
Cc: joyland@west.net, m.levi@ix.netcom.com,
athena-discuss@INFO.HARPERCOLLINS.COM
In-Reply-To: Gloria_Sampson AT sfu.ca
-- Tue, 4 Jun 1996 16:08:06 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: owner-athena-discuss@info.harpercollins.com
Precedence: bulk
Dear Gloria: I just finished your synopsis of the 'rise of the modern' and I
still can't for the life of me see a worldview versus reason dichotomy. How
can one be caught in temporality in reality when that temporality itself
implies and offers change as the dominant means of getting 'from here to there'
How can one live a real life or even MAKE a real life if all energies and
resources are consumed in the quest to transcend--to reason each moment--out
of time.
mary lanser
----------------
Report any problems to
Paul Kekai Manansala at a.manansala@attbi.com Sponsored by AsiaPacificUniverse.com