On 10/3/04 10:13 AM, "Trevor Joyce" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Though my hackles still rise at 'numinous', though I know that's the
> accepted language. Otto looms too large for me there, with Eliade in
> close attendance.
I admit I hesitated over the word. Still, I couldn't think of a better one
at the time.
All these words trail such clouds of tattered glory, but it seems
counterproductive to simply abandon them. (I just made an obscene typo
there... hmmm... might think about that one.) I think I'd rather take a
carpet basher to them and pummel out all the dust. It sure does create a
big cloud, though, with people coughing all over the place...
> I suppose I can express my distaste most easily by saying I don't
> accept any sacred / profane dichotomy.
Me neither, though again that dichotomy has created many beautiful tensions.
I think that's where I have problems with Peter's division between numinous
and libidinous desires -
Best
A
Alison Croggon
Editor, Masthead
http://www.masthead.net.au
Home page
http://www.alisoncroggon.com
Blog
http://alisoncroggon.blogspot.com
|