Silliness: [Creatures of metaphorical make-believe] invite ‘silly questions’ probing areas the make-believe does not address, e.g. we know how big the average star is, but where is it located? You say you lost your nerve, has it been turned in? Do you plan to drop-forge the uncreated conscience of your
race (edit. ethnicity) in the smithy of your soul?
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Just read it. Not familiar with the subject (can I say that?) one from the English literary gods on twitter.
Its somewhat over- dramatic like a 12th century wild man. Or really it matches what I have drawn from looking at the narrative history absent any wider philosophical understanding.
I would look at it more in its social, political, cultural function; a historical/ anthropological perspective. Social organization.
Wild man a narrative device used to order history or a dramatic form being road tested by an administrative system (in its historical aspect).
Prophetic aspect is part, not the whole. But its uses never escape the political, highly popular form of narrative, with a long life in print on a massive scale.
Still alluring, not using names as I only look at one side of the narrative, don’t want to waste time having to deal with the ‘knights of yore’ front of house aspect. Not trying to sell the subject, rather understand it.
Allure here and the easy sell are issues. Its a dramatic subject.
This is very much my own idea. Not explored it as fully as a should as its well of the page/ not in an academic institution. I need to write it up to get a full sense. Not been motivated to do so, academics make me nervous, often seems knowledge is not the goal.
Also had an outstanding dramatic issue with memory that had to be resolved.
The statement also seems to reflect the making of this sign
Which was a very real and personally moving thing. Regaining my balance. May read absurdly, serious thing.
I have the same problem with memory and the wildman, working with source, past, present future, seem vital in understanding the subject as its most literary, when it enters the historical record (I think but these are very much my own ideas).
I thought I had better check what more modern theories look like, I find relating, past, present, future, was a new or central idea in the subject.
Uncomfortable match between the 12th century and the present. I like to stay as theory light as possible and arrive at it retrospectively (which would be now) .
Is it Prof. Lovejoy who brought up this issue, same conclusion different methods?. No that is Mr Orangutan Vampire I think.
Edinburgh philosopher who name eludes me (I hope).
p.s going by subject rather than personal appearance or inclination with my naming convention. Had this issue in a class inadvertently referring to lecturer as “Neanderthal Man”