> But the implications are considerable. How should we then live? And
> that continues to be my torment. Does one choose or accept a vocation. In
my
> naughty mechanistic terms I'd say it was genetic and I can't do anything
> about the matter, other than comply if I am to have a chance of an
> "authentic" life.
>
Eek. The implications are, indeed, 'considerable'. I'd balk though at the
term 'genetic', I think any geneticist of honesty would admit that the
predication of a cultural behaviour such as the writing of poetry by genetic
inheritance is, at least, unprovable. I'd often prefer to borrow the costume
of a Greek tragedy and mutter darkly about 'fate', especially when
contemplating my bank-balance, but I'd rather the synonym for vocation,
'calling', with its implication of that which is heard and chosen in the
without and ahead, rather than weigh to the side of determined inevitables.
regards
david bircumshaw
----- Original Message -----
From: Chris Hamilton-Emery <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 10:00 PM
Subject: Re: unfashionable thought
> > I think it _is_ a vocation.
>
> I've troubled over this. And the "almost" of my post reflects my
continuing
> exploration of what that might mean. I believe that you're almost
certainly
> right. But the implications are considerable. How should we then live? And
> that continues to be my torment. Does one choose or accept a vocation. In
my
> naughty mechanistic terms I'd say it was genetic and I can't do anything
> about the matter, other than comply if I am to have a chance of an
> "authentic" life.
>
> What times is it over there, by the way. You must be up very early!
>
> All best
> C
|