This is so good, thank you for sharing this! Marion is perceptive to catch that theology gets turned into the study of maximals, and that the math itself completely underdetermines the number of maximals. Also makes me think of putting the peculiar 'shape' of the open-field into set-theoretic terms. Although that might be a category error lol records just aren't sets 🤔 I'll return to this one, thanks again!
“I remember what military life looked like before the military acknowledged that pagan service members existed and had legitimate religious needs.” https://t.co/3q4TXBOYDU
For those who are curious, we must not infer that because not all rainbow cereal belongs to the category of lunch, that therefore none of it does. On the contrary, its propriety is inversely proportional to the routineness of circumstances. However, provided that circumstances are unordinary, it must not be an excess of indulgences of which liberties have already been taken.
I felt on the edge of a philosophical breakthrough this afternoon, among my dimly lit books and statues. But, alas, I was redirected toward settling a dispute over whether we could have rainbow cereal for lunch.
I think nowadays we're raised to think of the world in impersonal, inanimate ways. This prompts us to reduce things. Clouds, for example, are clusters of molecules. Stars are plasma blobs. Numbers are abstracta.
Coming to an animist view can have you looking at everything more like a biologist than a theoretical physicist.
(And clouds, for the record, are noumenal hot spots)
Some of y'all don't even know that I'm doing philosophy with you in between sets with my toddlers playing drums to stuff like this
https://t.co/MjGXBAZSqK
I think it was Emma Restall Orr who, in her 'Living with Honour: a Pagan Ethics', defined a God as what can kill you--I'll have to check. But I was thinking about that, and what it is in a God that is fearful and awesome. Negatively, I think it is ultimate irreducibility.
I've been thinking lately that the true opponent of polycentricity is not monocentricity or atheism or the like. It's error theory. Polycentricity is what stops theological discourse from systematic error.
@avicennaquinas That's a good way of putting it. We want closure. There's a more general pattern of what is going on here wherein we 'find' closure by just erasing the periphery, thereby 'making' ours the view from nowhere.
It seems the typical complaint against so-called Continental philosophy has to do with its language: it's unintelligible. I think the Continental is like a 'monster', in this respect: his intellect and the vocabulary it takes live in flaunting autonomy of dominant ontologies.
@avicennaquinas Cheers! This was great. Do you think Yes, No and Amen could be moments of any truly divine reality, or that they are constituitive of specific divine identities (for lack of a better term)?
@timmodryoid Makes me think of Badiou's whole thought that what becomes possible never was, but that with fidelity, the Subject can make it so. The development of Christianity is actually a stellar illustration of his process.