Print

Print


From: Ken Armstrong

 BTW, I never recovered from Tillich's metaphysical rendering of
"symbol," what it is and how it works. I understand that he came in for
much criticism from contemporary and succeeding philosophers and
theologians, but I've not come across anything to disabuse me of his
understanding of symbol as something that   participates in the reality
it symbolizes.
============================================
PM>That sounds pretty compatible with the Catholic definition of sacrament.
KA> I don't think McLuhan much cared for Tillich ....
PM>McLuhan wasn't very happy with anything protestant. In personal chat
   with him, he confessed to me as to having very negative feelings on the
subject.
   When it came to discussions of symbols, I think he generally cast his
mind back to Symons.

Cheers,
Peter