<<..Hannah Arendt observed :

“The genius can start something new, but in order to communicate it, this novelty must be described in terms that others can perceive”.>>

OHH BOY DONT THAT JUST RING A BELL

<<>>So we are back to Kant’s recommendation: one should employ one’s natural “capacity to think by oneself, without referring to an exterior authority, be it a prince or tradition”.>>

i have said this often/not as well.but thus know why it cant be done
[not that i can tell you why..in light of the next reply
yet that wont stop me from giving it a try.

the thing is education..[thus teachers]..are experts at recalling
they can recall names dates places faces..works deeds glories and disgraces..[my term is rote learning/they have instant recall]
but..kant was a thinker..and thinking is developed..EARLY..IN THE DEVELOPMENT..of any specialty..[ITS INVENTION..INVOLVES DEFINING THE VISIONS THEY ARE REALIZING INTO BEING.

but once the idea if formed..there comes in this thing/fixation..of peer review/again not clear thinking but specialists..in recalling the detail..of how strictly the thought follows its bloodlines

<<..However, I see no reason why I should not consult peer review before formulating my own opinion - whatever the subject.>>

that of course..is science METHOD..and MAKES SENSE
but we all have fears hates bias..and your looking for the peers 're'-vieuw..[or something like that]

george is excellent at clearly defining..the logical progression
your SKILLED at the summation..for me..i wade in before i loose my reaction..to the thought.,mainly because i have limited recall..of that which..others learned off/by heart..thus can reel oFF/note by note..BY instant recall..or ROTE.

SOME SEE the flowers..others draw their SCENT in..others draw their IMAGERY..or colour onto paper..its not really that which is..that is the focus..but what it sets off in the observer...AFTER THEY EXPERIENCE..ITS WAY OF REVEALING...damm caps..that last point wasnt that strongly felT..it was a ripple in the stream of conscious/thats all.

Dear david f,

I agree that “evil” is a theological word, or perhaps better, a biblical word: (my KJV version of the Old and New Testaments found 571 occurrences of “evil”). However, it is often used in everyday language, and there I would be more cautious with the use of this heavily loaded word. Like, “infinity” being a word with a clear (at least since Cantor) mathematical meaning, which is also used in everyday language, often as an exaggeration, where “large number” would have sufficed.

A also concede that you did not associate that word with Christianity only with one of its “founding fathers”.

Thanks for the extensive quotes that certainly show that Paul’s understanding of sexual matters, attitudes towards women etc were not up to standards as we understand them today. As I said above, I do not know how they compare with the views and habits of his contemporaries, or how would the West have evolved in these respects if not Christianity (undoubtedly influenced by Paul’s writings) but Judaism or the Roman civilisation became or remained the main cultural determinants for the centuries to follow. Or, for that matter, if Islam’s attitudes prevailed. In particular, I do not know to what extent did different attitudes to, and treatment of, women play a role in Christian “controversies” with the pagan world, medieval Jews or Moslems.

Nevertheless, I agree that the West, to much extent shaped by Christianity and hence by Paul, developed a much more neurotic attitude to sexuality (and sex) than, say, Indian or Chinese cultures. Both the chastity belt and pornography (in distinction to eroticism) are exclusively western deviations from “normality”, but here I am certainly not an expert.
(ctd)

(ctd)

However, unlike in natural science, we cannot experiment, not even mentally (like e.g. Einstein in the free-falling elevator), for instance by removing Christianity (or Paul) from the shapers of Western culture in order to see what we would get, Dark Ages with or without Enlightenment, or oriental-like stagnation or what. The most we can is to look at other civilisations, the Indian or Chinese already mentioned, that had a healthier attitude to sex (I am not sure whether this applies also to their attitude to women) but did not arrive at an Enlightenment, modern science and technology.

I am also not sure that not having priestesses like the pagans did was necessarily a step backwards. As you might remember, I am a fan of the yang-yin complementarity (of the abstract male-female) which is perhaps more explicit in the Catholic version of Christianity, than in some other religions: God is seen as “male” but He chose a female human to incarnate Himself, and Mary is more visible in the Catholic (and Eastern Orthodox) versions of Christianity than in others.

I once asked a theologian where came the female complement to the “male” God in Judaism, and I was given two examples: Israel is His “daughter”, and the Spirit of God (ruach Jahweh?) is of female gender in Hebrew. Well, you would know better.

Dear Banjo,

Again, expressing reservations about the use of the word "poor" does not imply that I have also reservations about everything else you wrote about the subject.

Thanks for the quotes from J.P. Keynon whom I did not know of. They illustrate what I wrote, namely that unlike in mathematics there are differing professional views on what constitutes and what not “proper” historiography: you favour Keynon, I favour Butterfield.

Please note also, that I did not write “you should leave” (the appraisal of their professional quality to the community of professionals) but “I would leave”.

.

Dear George,

.

You wrote :

« … you favour Keynon, I favour Butterfield. »

I do not favour Keynon. I had never heard of him. Neither had I heard of J.H.Hexter. I simply discovered on the internet that they were two eminent historians, peers of Herbert Butterfield, who happened to have expressed a professional opinion on the latter's work.

As you indicated (page 19) that as regards ” … judging historical facts by professional historians … I would leave the appraisal of their professional quality to the community of professionals”, I thought you might be interested in what these two gentlemen had to say about the work of Herbert Butterfield.

.

Dear Banjo,

I thanked you already for the quote from Kenyon though forgot about Hexter.

Yes, I was interested although I can judge neither Butterfield nor Kenyon nor Hexter, and certainly would not dare to say which one of them is the greater authority, since not only is/was historiography not my field, but I have read nothing from the three except for the quotes I and you gave here.

(By the way, a respectable professor of mathematics would hardly say about a Cambridge professor of mathematics that his “wide-ranging prestige” was “balanced on a tiny platform of achievement” or about his research that he was tempted to “view it as a somewhat primitive piece”. That is not the language they use to criticise their colleagues. But then, as I said, the situation in mathematics is different.)

So I correct myself about our differences on this: I found insightful the opinion expressed in the quotes from Butterfield that I got from Weinberg, and you did not.

I think we should leave it at that.

Dear George,

You may find the following interesting. In Jewish theology God is given feminine attributes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shekhinah

Shekinah, Shechinah, Shechina, or Schechinah is the English spelling of a grammatically feminine Hebrew name of God in Judaism. The original word means the dwelling or settling, and denotes the dwelling or settling of the Divine Presence of God, especially in the Temple in Jerusalem...

Like Jesus Paul was not a Christian. He lived before Christianity was other than a Jewish sect. The split between Judaism and Christianity was still in the future. Paul’s horrible attitudes towards sex and women existed in Judaism. Fortunately there were healthier trends. However, Paul’s influence prevailed at that time.

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/books/20214/who-was-paul

A new generation of scholars argues that the apostle long considered the progenitor of anti-Semitism never left his religion.

Paul’s sexist attitudes still exist in Judaism:

Rabbis Gone Wild — About Modesty and (Gasp!) Zumba

By Frimet Goldberger

In recent years, a slew of savvy Orthodox rabbis have taken to condemning women for everything they do. Their brilliant speeches can be found on YouTube and other websites, and have made their rounds on social media. The topics of their impassioned speeches run the gamut: from life challenges to laziness to Zumba to healthy dating — most of which include, at some points, women and their inherently provocative nature.

…Rabbi Zecharia Wallerstein, the founder of Ohr Naava, a Torah center for women and girls, ostensibly for those who are at risk. Rabbi Wallerstein, a true tzadik bestowed with unparalleled wisdom by God, uses his pulpit, err stripper’s pole, to preach to women about sexism and racism, condoning both.

That is exactly what he did last summer when he took the Orthodox world by storm, declaring that Zumba, a dance fitness program that has been the latest craze in gyms across the U.S., is for monkeys in the jungle. Zumba, whose kosher version for kosher women was recently reported in the Wall Street Journal, lure modest women into a trap, sometimes leading to divorce, loss of one’s children, or worst yet, prostitution, Rabbi Wallerstein said.

Read more: http://blogs.forward.com/sisterhood-blog/196355/rabbis-gone-wild-about-modesty-and-gasp-zumba/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Weekly%20%2B%20Daily&utm_campaign=Weekly_Newsletter_Friday%202014-04-11#ixzz2ycUZ16jx