tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post8800969447782915287..comments2024-03-29T03:30:25.637-07:00Comments on Metacrock's Blog: Life in Christ has higher meaningJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-61419190586791385692016-07-15T21:00:34.249-07:002016-07-15T21:00:34.249-07:00Don't really know him firsthand. Seems pretty ...Don't really know him firsthand. Seems pretty dark tho, especially his literary writing ...<br /><br />"Founder of several journals and literary groups, Bataille is the author of a large and diverse body of work: readings, poems, essays on innumerable subjects (on the mysticism of economy, poetry, philosophy, the arts, eroticism). He sometimes published under pseudonyms, and some of his publications were banned. He was relatively ignored during his lifetime and scorned by contemporaries such as Jean-Paul Sartre as an advocate of mysticism, but after his death had considerable influence on authors such as Michel Foucault, Philippe Sollers, and Jacques Derrida, all of whom were affiliated with the journal Tel Quel. <br />(Wiki)"<br /><br />Kinda sucks to be discovered posthumously, I guess...<br /><br />"according to Bataille's theory of consumption, the accursed share is that excessive and non-recuperable part of any economy which is destined to one of two modes of economic and social expenditure. This must either be spent luxuriously and knowingly without gain in the arts, in non-procreative sexuality, in spectacles and sumptuous monuments, or it is obliviously destined to an outrageous and catastrophic outpouring in war."<br /><br />This is something Derrida would have liked, no? Sort of like, that emptiness at the top or hidden somewhere, not easily speakable... But I also remember similar ideas, somewhat toned down, in the psychologist Heller's book from around 2000 or so, "A Terrible Love of War"....<br /><br />Mike Gerowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14630695728013930638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-75913621402581613432016-07-15T14:34:32.319-07:002016-07-15T14:34:32.319-07:00I've never heard of him Mike. Tell ,me ,more a...I've never heard of him Mike. Tell ,me ,more about him?Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-11830983386776580632016-07-14T09:53:40.216-07:002016-07-14T09:53:40.216-07:00The writer who has surpassed Sartre in contemporar...The writer who has surpassed Sartre in contemporary theo-philosophical interest from that era is named 'Georges Bataille', whose brand of existentialism did not translate so easily into programs and actions in the world as did Sartre's, but, more like, lingered in the meaninglessness, pondering it ...<br /><br />... an apophatic existentialism? ... Sartre criticized it as 'mystical'.Mike Gerowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14630695728013930638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-26005136860683853312016-07-13T13:35:27.108-07:002016-07-13T13:35:27.108-07:00I don't what to make of questions where I have...I don't what to make of questions where I have to supposes whist God might feel. If God beyond our understanding...you know. we are also told that God doesn't change. But I think I get your point.<br /><br />I think i proposed not speaking of objectivity but of universality or something, God's valuations of moral motions are all trooped in love that wont change. they transcend subject object dichotomy since God is universal mind.<br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-66371745144948575952016-07-13T07:47:20.521-07:002016-07-13T07:47:20.521-07:00I would take issue using he term objective only be...<b>I would take issue using he term objective only because it doesn't capture the true important nature of God's favor. </b><br /><br />I was implying a similar thought when I asked (somewhere in that comments thread) why we should care about such an account of value. Suppose at one time, God values Lucifer more than all other angels, but later values Lucifer less than other angels. Doesn’t it follow from the view of objective value you propose (rooted in the eternality of God’s valuing) that Lucifer was never <i>objectively</i> more valuable than other angels? I smell an instance of the Euthyphro dilemma here.<br />Eric Sotnakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06162425851889399481noreply@blogger.com