Print

Print


--On Tuesday, April 29, 2003 7:03 PM -0400 Nancy Gish - Women's Studies
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Even if those "larger things" were to exist, it would not mean that
> they are more important than the immediate.

  On what do you base this assertion? You don't know what those larger
things are, but you know what their place in the architecture of existence
is?

 Interestingly, if
> Christianity dwells on incarnation (as Eliot did in one key claim),
> then it is very much the immediate and incarnate that matters.

  Yes, well, that is one part of the message of Christianity, isn't it,
interestingly or not.  And it matters, does the incarnate in that view,
quite because it exists in a larger context; or, in that same view, if it
didn't exist in such a context, it wouldn't matter at all; or it would only
matter, i.e. not really "not much," but _not at all_. But because it
doesn't not exist in a larger context, it doesn't matter, so much.

 Ken Armstrong