The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1941 Tuesay, 24 September 2002
[1] From: Robin Hamilton <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 20 Sep 2002 15:00:20 +0100
Subj: Re: SHK 13.1914 Re: The Supernatural and Modernity
[2] From: R. A. Cantrell <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 20 Sep 2002 10:32:46 -0500
Subj: Re: SHK 13.1938 Re: The Supernatural and Modernity
[3] From: D. Bloom <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 20 Sep 2002 12:25:34 -0500
Subj: Re: SHK 13.1938 Re: The Supernatural and Modernity
[4] From: W. L. Godshalk <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Sunday, 22 Sep 2002 13:25:37 -0400
Subj: Re: SHK 13.1938 Re: The Supernatural and Modernity
[5] From: Walter Miale <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 20 Sep 2002 18:43:10 -0400
Subj: Re: SHK 13.1938 Re: The Supernatural and Modernity
[6] From: John E. Perry <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Sunday, 22 Sep 2002 01:00:31 -0400
Subj: Re: SHK 13.1914 Re: The Supernatural and Modernity
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robin Hamilton <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 20 Sep 2002 15:00:20 +0100
Subject: 13.1914 Re: The Supernatural and Modernity
Comment: Re: SHK 13.1914 Re: The Supernatural and Modernity
On 18 September, Martin Stewart posted an extract from Richard Field:
>... the Popes, who may be most prodigiously impious, and worse then
>Infidels; not onely erring in some particular points, concerning the
>Faith, but overthrowing all, as he did, that PICUS MIRANDULA speaketh
>off, who peremptorily denyed that there is any God... And that other hee
>speaketh off, who denyed the immortality of the soule, though after his
>death, appearing to one of them to whome in his life time hee had
>uttered that his impious conceit, hee told him hee now found, to his
>endlesse woe and misery, that soule hee thought mortall to be immortall,
>and never to dye.
>
>Richard Field, THE FIFTH BOOKE OF THE CHURCH... (London 1610), Chapter
>51, "Of the assurance of finding out the Truth, which the Bishops
>assembled in Generall Council have", p.404
I imagine that the natural assumption would be that the "PICUS
MIRANDULA" to whom Field is referring is Giovanni Pico della Mirandola
(1463-1494), author of the [so-called] "Oration on the Dignity of Man",
"Heptaplus", etc.. However, there is also Pico's nephew Gianfrancesco
Pico della Mirandola (1469-1533).
Martin kindly supplied the information that Field has a marginal note to
"Theorem 4". This allowed Stephen Farmer to identify Field's source as
Gianfrancesco Pico's _Theoremata de fide et ordine credendi_.
Gianfrancesco Pico was most commonly known in England through Thomas
More's translation of his short biography of his uncle. Field's
citation of Gianfrancesco Pico is rare, perhaps unique, in being a
(relatively) +extended+ presentation of Gianfrancsco Pico's own writing.
Robin Hamilton.
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: R. A. Cantrell <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 20 Sep 2002 10:32:46 -0500
Subject: 13.1938 Re: The Supernatural and Modernity
Comment: Re: SHK 13.1938 Re: The Supernatural and Modernity
>Is it possible that the universe is only 5 percent complete?
It's complete now, but it will be completer in a nanosecond (or two).
[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: D. Bloom <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 20 Sep 2002 12:25:34 -0500
Subject: 13.1938 Re: The Supernatural and Modernity
Comment: Re: SHK 13.1938 Re: The Supernatural and Modernity
R. Schmeeckle writes:
>There are no universals leads to a contradiction, since it is in
>the form of a universal.
>
>One can try to get out of the can (of worms) by claiming that the law of
>contradiction is not universal, another universal.
Wasn't it Blake who said, "To generalize is to be an idiot"? I hope so,
for the line has given me immense gratification for many years.
(O God, I could be bounded in a can of worms and count myself a king of
infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams)
He also quotes M. Yawney
>>which means you can confess to a priest until you are blue in
> >the face, but the forgiveness given will not apply since it is accepted
> >in bad faith.
and goes on
>This point, made on a different thread, explains why Claudius cannot
>sincerely pray. He is enjoying the fruits of his sinful murder by his
>liason with the widowed queen, and, to be forgiven, he would have to
>give her up. Knowing that, he realizes his prayer is futile.
This is how I have always understood Catholic doctrine on this matter,
but L. Swilley keeps denying it. If Swilley has some sources for his (or
her) view I would like to see them.
Cheers,
don
[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: W. L. Godshalk <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Sunday, 22 Sep 2002 13:25:37 -0400
Subject: 13.1938 Re: The Supernatural and Modernity
Comment: Re: SHK 13.1938 Re: The Supernatural and Modernity
Roger Schmeeckle writes:
>Yes. There are no universals leads to a contradiction, since it is in
>the form of a universal. One can try to get out of the can (of worms) by
>claiming that the law of
>contradiction is not universal, another universal.
Isn't this the Cretan Liar paradox? All Cretans are liars. I am a
Cretan. Therefore, what? I'm lying and therefore all Cretans are truth
tellers? Or perhaps I'm not a Cretan? Or am I telling the truth for
once?
I haven't studied logic for about 50 years, but isn't this a logical
fallacy, perhaps the fallacy of the undistributed middle (or am I misled
by Oedipa Maas)?
Roger also writes:
>In wishing Claudius to go to hell, Hamlet commits the most
>serious sin against charity, regardless of Claudius' guilt and Hamlet's
>concern to avenge it.
I would opt for the sin of pride. Hamlet is attempting to arrogate the
power of the Christian demiurge -- the power to save or damn. He wants
to send Claudius directly to hell, but it is Christ who, in Christian
mythology, comes to judge the quick and the dead -- not Hamlet. Of
course, Hamlet is a Christ figure since he comes to do the bidding of
his father who is in ... well, not exactly heaven.
Yours,
Bill Godshalk
[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Walter Miale <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 20 Sep 2002 18:43:10 -0400
Subject: 13.1938 Re: The Supernatural and Modernity
Comment: Re: SHK 13.1938 Re: The Supernatural and Modernity
....
>Is it possible that the universe is only 5 percent complete?
Which universe? As I recall writing somewhere, "This one over here is
#611b, and we've got only three or four dimensions at this time." And as
I recall reading somewhere, "Until relatively recently, spiral nebulae
were thought to be relatively nearby gaseous swirls."
[6]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: John E. Perry <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Sunday, 22 Sep 2002 01:00:31 -0400
Subject: 13.1914 Re: The Supernatural and Modernity
Comment: Re: SHK 13.1914 Re: The Supernatural and Modernity
H. David Friedberg <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
> writes:
>The odd thing about the Theory of Special Relativity is that the one
>thing in the cosmos that is not relative to anything is the speed of
>light
>
>So it really is the Theory of non-Relativity
Sorry, no. The speed of light is the same relative to _everything_.
John Perry
_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook,
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>
DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.
|
