Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 19:54:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re:  LEO ON MODERNISM/POST


Most of what Leo has written in this thread seems pretty pointless
to me.  But there is one interesting comment he made that does
intrigue me and which perhaps could be developed.  On April 6, Leo
summarized the relevance of the Leviathan example.  Most
interesting was the following:

>A break appears in Christian tradition with the appearance of the


>thorough going modernists of Reformed Christianity -- the

>Calvinists. The biblical exegesis of the Calvinists broke with
the

>metaphorical and figurative readings which had dominated

>Christianity since its earliest days, and insisted upon a

>rationalist and literal interpretation. Thus, the leviathan
became

>a whale or a crocodile, and the behemoth an elephant or

>hippomatus.  This is an interesting move, and one which occurs

>entirely from first principles of interpretation which reject any


>hint of mythological figures .............

What Leo concludes from this begins with the following:

>Hobbes feels the need for an extra-rational, extra-logical
element

>to maintain his state of Reason. Even in its most rigorous and

>exacting form, the modernist/Enlightenment opposition between

>reason and myth, logic and rhetoric can not sustain itself.

Leo has much more to say, but I don't believe he proves anything
at all, least of all what follows from the above extracts.

I find it most interesting at a multi-level interpretation of the
Bible (four levels, perhaps?) gives way to a one-dimensional
competition with modern science over literal truth.  Very
interesting.  But the question is: why?  Why would it be necessary
for Bible believers to compete with science in this way?  How
could the modern temper have changed the religious temper in a way
where it itself sees real meaning founded on a literal truth?  Leo
doesn't provide a clue.

As for the distinction between reason and myth, what does the need
of both by Hobbes prove?  First,  it supposes that there is the
world of reason, which doesn't account for the extra-rational
world outside of itself, so one must resort to mythology where the
vast majority of the masses live.  To me this suggests the
mentality fostered by the division of labor and the role of
rationalism as a reflection of it, also the application of reason
in the capitalist system, i.e. to better understand physical
nature with an eye on technology, but to maintain an interest in
the mystification of society.  This is how C.L.R. James and
company saw rationalism in the 1940s.  (See STATE CAPITALISM AND
WORLD REVOLUTION (1950).)  This is how they sum up Cartesian
dualism.  We know that Hegel sought to overcome this opposition,
which he could do only in theory.  In any case, Leo has failed to
explain the opposition or connection between myth and reason in
the overall cultural system either of Hobbes's or our time.  To
say that rationalism alone is a limited point of view on real
human behavior says nothing at all.  I think it is a topic worth
pursuing, but what I have read since this post is a complete waste
of time.

I used to be interested in these questions myself.  Years ago I
read Frank Manuel's biography of Newton and got acquainted briefly
with Newton's religious beliefs, which form part of his cultural
system along with his physics.  Newton himself is an exemplar of
the relationship between one part of the cultural system --
natural science -- and the rest, which he filled up with an
austere, puritanical and authoritarian theological system.  I
think the dynamics are historically important, but Leo is so far
too confused to make any sense out of them.


     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---