File spoon-archives/lyotard.archive/lyotard_2001/lyotard.0106, message 74

Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 13:45:16 +0100
Subject: Re: Tantalizing times - arguing for atheism....

Hugh, Gel, Eric etc

Religion has occupied a particular place within our social, political and
economic institutions for as far back as into the depths of indo-european and
indo-iranian myth. It's importance lies in its durability and historical effect,
my uncertainty lies in the contemporary, that is post-enlightenment changes, I
personally believe that this derives from the dominance of capitalism and most
recently the growth in consumer capitalism...

To narrow the focus of the sublime to religious myths - from god, Ron L'Hubbard
and Crystals through to Gaia is to reduce the sublime from the breadth given to
it by Lyotard in 'the lessons on the analytic...'



Glen Fuller wrote:

> Hi Hugh,
> > Maybe we should say "understand the sublime, or the unknown," rather than
> > religion.
> What do you define as the sublime?
> Is it predominately experiential?
> Is there a unitary definition that incorporates subjective interpretations
> of that which is generating the experience?
> Is that which you call sublime sort of like an acutely affective experience
> (i.e. that which does not require the binary logic of the social for some
> level of understanding)?
> >So let us imagine ourselves "outside" the so-called real world, Cosmos,
> >Universe(s), observing all that "is" - Including all that is to scientists,
> >deists,
> >atheists - the "facts" we obey to survive
> But we cannot escape everyday life, there is no panoptic point of view.
> We can only reference ourselves relative to the world around us. Like in
> astrophysics and how they place the Earth, for there is no centre to the
> universe (or if there is no one has told me:).
> >From Nietzsche's point of view, there is no exit from the labyrinth of
> >interpretation; everything is 'interpreted through and through'.
> There is only essential relativism, that is what is shared across all of
> humanity. Perhaps, then that is why  the focus on the 'sublime'? For it is
> (normatively) a trans-cultural experience... it doesn't need to be
> referenced, for it can't be communicated, only experienced. It can't be
> communicated because the boundaries of language can only communicate about
> the experience, rather than the experience itself.
> Yes? Perhaps? Um?
> Glen Fuller


Driftline Main Page


Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005