 |
 |
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