[MD] the Romantic/Classical split

[MarshaV]

Hi John,

It was more the shift from form to experience, but I am just playing 
with the idea.  So maybe synthesize two different forms into experience.


Btw, Luce Irigaray is labeled as a feminist, philosopher, linguist, 
psychoanalyst, sociologist and cultural theorist.  Quite a mouthful.  
I've only just heard of her.  I like what she said about the difference 
in a woman's language.  What she said resonated.  At least it is 
something to think about.  It also made me notice the different way 
that Mark and I handled Adrie's disparaging another poster's 
contribution.  That would be different, not right or wrong.  


Marsha






On Mar 11, 2011, at 3:12 AM, John Carl wrote:

> Marsha,
> 
> I think you're on to something here.  But I don't agree that going from the
> classic/romantic split to the dynamic/static was the key value of Lila
> compared to ZAMM.
> 
> I do agree with the author, that Lila is the more important book,
> philosophically.  But imo, it's because Lila fully encapsulates that
> classic/romantic synthesis whereas ZAMM simply describes it.
> 
> In another thread, I mentioned to Craig that we can't logically prove
> reality is good, but since it plainly is, this is a problem with logical
> proof, not reality.  I think your spinning box sheds more light on the
> subject, gets closer to what I feel is the right way of looking at things,
> than I've read in countless meticulously logical arguments that I've come up
> with.
> 
> So thanks for that.
> 
> John



 
___