The Bible and Western Culture - Meister Eckhart: From Whom God Hid Nothing
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 авг 2024
- You can find Meister Eckhart's work here amzn.to/3SU2IGT
This is the official RUclips channel of Dr. Michael Sugrue.
Please consider subscribing to be notified of future videos, as we upload Dr. Sugrue's vast archive of lectures.
Dr. Michael Sugrue earned his BA at the University of Chicago and PhD at Columbia University.
Sugrue.. the man.. the myth.. the legend.
Legend, definitely!! He's forgotten more than I'll ever know. What a speaker!
The Man from UNCLE Philosophy.
I like to pour myself a glass of fine brandy & take a sip whenever he picks up his glass and instead of sipping he simply puts it back down! Dedication & perfect timing to manage to always finish at the 45 min mark.
A genial Professor
@@pedrorojascervantes3928 That could be the result of editing, but it's hard to tell, considering, that's his trade.
Meister Surgure -- the man whom philosophy hid nothing
I feel guilty watching the next lecture without reading Eckhart's work, which is an indication of a gifted teacher. Thank you
Been watching one of your lectures at least once a day and it's been much more productive and meaningful during my free time. Thank you so very much for your public domain contribution professor with these deep lectures.
I have read all of Meister Eckhardt's writings repeatedly and I cannot imagine anyone even coming close to Sugrue's penetrating introduction. What a gift!
He couldn't have chosen a better quote to finish the lecture. A gift he was, Dr. Sugrue.
1. Love has no why
2. Divine nature has no name
3. Soul bursting
Grateful ❤
What astounds me is Dr. Sugrue's range of ideas, how in-depth he can speak of these things, as is evident from the backlog of uploads recently--he can go from Plato to the Bible, to world literature to "out-of-the-way" writers like Meister Eckhart. In that way he's like an encyclopedia of human knowledge and wisdom.
Let's not to forget to thank the Teaching Company for bringing us these people. Sugrue, Stalloff, Roderick, Daniel Robinson.
These lectures are amazing. Started with Nietzsche and now I’ve watched every single lecture multiple times!
Thank you professor. Never heard of this man before. What a great lecture and addition to my puny intellect. Bless you professor 👨🏫 👏🏻👏🏻
Love has no why because true love is unconditional.
On wanting to understand Meister Eckhart on a deeper level I found this presentation so highly polished that my curiosities were absorbed after replaying the video in some areas. I want to learn more about him now. I have a religious cult 'knocking on my door' and need to be clear to myself about the meaning of my own inner scintilla (new word for me) so a huge thank you to Sugru 🙏
This was utterly fantastic! Thank you, Professor Sugrue. Perhaps you hear our thanks wherever you are. Many of your great lectures helped open a door to a whole new world for me. Life was so dull and meaningless. Over the last couple years I have read most of the books that you went over in these lectures. It has been life changing.
So you also make difficult things look easy, thence you are a great artist and enormously charismatic 😊
What a beautiful lecture! Thanks Dr Sugrue.
Wonderful. I was reminded that even Aquinas had a mystical side. But we need both Eckhart and Aquinas.
Meister Eckhart becomes easier to understand when you realize he means consciousness when he talks about God or the Godhead.
His message is: loose the idea of self because it is an illusion.
You have done that many, many times, effortless, every time you woke up from a dream.
But somehow you are convinced that the self you experience when you are awake is real.
Consider the possibility that you might be wrong.
As soon as you realize that you are in a dream, your perspective shifts and your attention turns to what you really are, consciousness.
It is like waking up out of a dream but this time you wake up into the dream.
Almost all great saints and mystics are pointing to the self.
But that doesn’t make him easier to understand at all; it just replaces one word with another. The only way to understand Eckhart is to experience what he’s talking about, and how many of us can honestly claim to have _experienced_ (not thought about or imagined) what Eckhart is talking about?
@@CrazyLinguiniLegs Eckhart’s writings resonate very well with what people say they experience on drugs like lsd and shrooms
@@corbannoakes7998 I disagree. Eckhart wrote very much of detaching from all created things, all images, and all beings, being completely detached and empty of all thought, desire, longing, etc-anything that is not the transcendent Godhead. The experiences associated with lsd, shrooms, and other psychedelics are further occupation with objects of perception, albeit objects not perceived during our normal conscious state, but still objects of perception, as opposed to the utter detachment Eckhart emphasized.
This is also fundamental to many sects of Buddhism, who perhaps translate the concept a bit more directly (especially in Tibetan Buddhism)
This is maybe the most interesting Chanel which I found in years.
ive listened to all his lectures and this one to me is his most inspiring. The lack of definition becomes a playground of ideas and reflections. I spent hours driving around thinking about how many of my perceptions and assumptions have been held in my mind as foolish absolutisms. so humbling
Are there more lectures (other than on his channel)?
I agree. This one lecture sticks with me, yet its the one lecture that the idea is not defined
. Thank you professor, we hold you on the highest respect.
These videos might be the greatest education I've ever received. Thank you.
Sugrue is one of the best lecturers I have ever heard. I realize he had at least some outline and practice, but you can tell his mind is honed to a point sharp enough to just slice off his knowledge one piece at a time and deliver it flawlessly to his audience. He is the epitome of excellence as it pertains to ascertaining a deep knowledge and being able to access and articulate it in an fascinating and riveting manner.
Dr. Sugrue's hair on this one is simply amazing
Billy Joel?
I've watched this man's lectures over the years and I keep coming back to his guy. Love his presentation style, ideas, and the way he is obviously excited to speak about these fascinating topics. Thanks for making these available to the public, I really enjoy them.
Your fathers insight into people is still just as keen as ever. He was right, this is exactly what I needed.
After listening this was a truly beautiful and inspiring lecture. I'm an old mystic myself that's literally and figuratively just come out of a long period of extended isolation.
My eye is a window... Nonsense indeed 😅 mystics get to the same place no matter if they use religion, zen koans, victorian occultism or broomsticks.
The reason true teachers speak in riddles is to get you to stop thinking for long enough to just see it. Enlightenment isn't a place you get to. Take it from a man who sat for long periods in a literal cave!
It's imminent. Be be without being. Dwell in the presence of I before it reaches any form, any god head anywhere else. It's always there and it's so simple you actually feel kind of stupid for being a pidgon summoning peanuts, but you need to learn to be a pidgon before you can learn where peanuts really come from.
Your dad's lectures were one of the first things I was really able to engage with. There are some people I really wish I could just sit and talk like men and philosophers just once with, your father is certainly among them.
I'm not sure how old he is now but it'd be great if he could do a live stream on some of these subjects and put some manners on us insolent young pups. We need real elders and he should give if he still feels he wants to .
❤ 13.06 ❤. The word that I couldn't come up with to describe you, sir speaker; "magnetism" . You are a magnet to anyone who is looking for friends but does not have the skills to do so at a party you have organised for the purpose. In this case, the previous men on this earth that we today admire their deep thoughts and inspiration etcetre. You are now also gone, having listened to their messages and then linking us to them by breaking it down the way you do 😢 . As a woman, I thank God for you, late Dallas Willard, my ex-husband, late Jiddu Krishnamurti, my late my father, and Ayn Rand for teaching me how to think.
This man is amazing. Through his dedicated studies of great human beings, he arrives “there” himself.
yo! Yo! YO! an academic into mysticism, speaking in front of an audience... what a memory!
Thank you again, professor.
Poetic metaphor: informs beyond language. Thank you Dr Sugrue for bringing us all this thought: so coherent and connected !!
This is perhaps the finest introduction to Meister Eckhart and Medieval Christian mysticism that I have come across. Thank you, Professor, for these excellent videos.
most impressive teacher i've ever encountered. his speaking style and confidence remind me of steve jobs
This didn't resonate with me like I'd hoped but that final quote made it all worthwhile.
I first became interested in this in graduate school after reading two books by Walter Stace which kindled the fire in me...Time and Eternity and Mysticism and Philosophy. Michael has rekindled the ashes of that fire....
THANK YOU!
This is such a moving and illuminating lecture.
Bravo! Thank you, Dr. Sugrue, and thank you Meister Eckhardt! Very stimulating and inspiring.
This is a piece of knowledge. A truly lesson to understand words. Thanks again Dr Sugrue.
"They take the way , rather than God", the line is too good.
Big thanks to Michael Sugrue for repeatedly explaining what a metaphor is. Truly groundbreaking presentation.
God is a word that speaks for itself!! Master and maestro of the words, thanks professor..
I don't know if the good doctor actually manages this channel, but if you do, please know you have my deepest gratitude for all of this. I came looking to have petty questions answered and you gave me the gift of better questions. God bless you.
Prof Sugrue, you are a gem. Thank you sir.
This sounds very Neoplatonic.
Oh my, that closing quote is so powerful.
Thanks for another good lecture looking forward to many more.
What a ending… standing ovation
A beautiful lecture. Thank you.
I can listen to this over and over again, this mark's my third or fourth time.
"You should not confine yourself to just one matter of devotion, since god is to be found in no particular way. That is why they do him wrong who take god in just one particular way, they take the way rather than god." - Meister Eckhart's defence
Oh Man, I intend to watch 1 lecture video out of curiosity and now I can’t stop watching ALL!
This is a great video one of the best so far of this great mystic thank you
I'd love to hear you talk some more about Meister Eckhart nowadays, seems like the interpretation of this type of stuff would develop throughout life.
Meister Eckhart is basically describing Buddhism/Adveita Vedanta philosophy/religion in western religion terms. He is pointing to the inner you, to the same consciousness in all of us and links that with the God Head. "
When you are one with God, you will ask nothing from this world." - this is basically Ego dissolution and enlightment.
It is the same truth in every religion just described differently.
"Let me see if I can explain to you some of the details of his unsystematic theology in as systematic a way as it allows for." (19:42) A great formulation of the challenge of talking about many wisdom traditions.
Thank you Professor Sugrue for this wonderful lecture. I was born some 88 years ago in Germany to Catholic parents. The first lecture by you I heard was on Nietzsche, and I realized that Nietzsche and I had the same reaction to Christianity. I did not study philosophy but I liked certain of his aphorisms, like : "Den Himmel überlassen wir den Engeln und den Spatzen." I liked it especially, because I could always get a rise out of my mother by reciting it. Coming back to Meister Eckhart, he is also known to have written "it is a lie, all talk of God that is not comforting." What I heard growing up in the Catholic church was so comforting that once I got away from my parents, I decided to never put foot into another church. Eventually I found Buddhism and the Unitarian Universalist church--but I don't take them as a religion. About 20 or so years ago, a friend gave me "Meister Eckeharts Schriften", which she had inherited from her parents. I started to read it, but found it very difficult and was just too lazy to continue. After hearing your lecture on Meister Eckhart a couple of times, I thought: "Meister Eckhart's god is a god I might actually be able to believe in." It seems to me that the orthodox Christian leaders ripped god out of our souls and put him on a throne in heaven where we might meet him after our death if we did everything that these authorities told us to do. I find your talk of Meister Eckhart's god comforting; in fact, it's the most comforting thing I can find online these days. I've been pretty much a "logic-chopping" creature all my life with no room for mysticism or other-worldly stuff (see Nietzsche above) but you are truly inspirational. "Hearing god clearing his throat" is the best way of dealing with the fact that we want to talk about god, but our language is inadequate to deal with divine matters. We do need to find a way to say that without using "his". And here is my idea for what the "why" for love is: it feels good, that's why. I also thought very early in your lecture that Meister Eckhart was a Buddhist. The idea of emptying oneself out and that when one realizes union with god there is nothing more that we want suggests very much the Buddhist idea that we accept what is. I also believe that Meister Eckhart promoted the idea that we have the power and should be active in uniting with god's will rather than just praying for it and waiting for god to act. Thank you again; I will continue to listen to your lecture when I need comforting.
Very grateful for these. RIP
14:42 is the best😇
Appreciate the talk.
Meister Eckhart's Poor Man's sermon is....mind blowing.
"Consciousness is taxation without representation. " -- Sri Baba Ganoush
the fuck you mean sri baba ganush.?? isnt it like a dip z baklazana?
Outstanding.
I watch your videos because i like them .
U have talent at communicating. Rare gift. More power to you. I have heard several of your talks. Given the clarity of your mind one can prophecy that should u decide to partake in the divine totality of ALL ,you will have an easy access.take a leap.there is only one consciousness. That is what we call god. U penetrate others’ minds so well. Penetrate your own and follow ‘that’ that is examining your mind. That is your consciousness that is no other than god. 🔔☯️🆒🥂📢🙈🙊🙉😇
Anybody have access to Dr. Sugrue’s lectures on Nietzsche and Kierkegaard? Hoping he posts them here, I’d be willing to purchase... they were on RUclips once but have been deleted. I love this man’s brain!
Please let me know if you find them Brett, the Kierkegaard and Nietzsche lectures were my favourite too.
My Dad did lectures on Kierkegaard and Nietzsche and Kant and others. They are coming.
@@dr.michaelsugrue thank you for the response, I look forward to seeing them again. I have gotten so much value out of your father’s work, it is truly appreciated by me and so many others.
@@brettlarson3801 I do believe Professor Sugrue's lectures are appreciated by many, many people out there. But I also believe now is a drop in a bucket. I don't remember Sugrue ever mentioning Plutarch, but today for Christmas I got his complete Moralia( everything Plutarch wrote that isn't Lives of the Grecians and Romans).Finding contemporaries of this historian and biographer who even mention him are not there. But today, and for hundreds of years Plutarch remains the most charming, insightful and downright lovable classical writer ever, IMO. He was a favorite of Montaigne, Rabelais, Emerson, and of course the Big Gun, inspiration for Shakespeare. But 2,000 years ago? Where is he mentioned? Professor Sugrue's lectures, I believe, will never die. Even if the visuals are gone after enough time has passed, his commentary on the Ancients to the Moderns is our Legacy, just as history itself is.
@@JamieEHILLS me too 😎
Thank you so very much!
14:10 Started reading the Bible from the beginning and I am so proud that I understood that reference
Blown away
Metaphor and the use of symbols is a means by which the the conscious communicates with the unconscious, also as in the case of dreams.
I love these lectures, but he talks too fast for my poor brain to keep up. So I started playing at 75% speed. Now it's just right and I can keep up with all these amazing new ideas.
“Finger pointing at the moon” - you ask to see God (moon). He is there, luminous, ready to be seen. The mystic’s words are the finger - as long as you fixate on the finger, you will not see the moon. The finger is but to gesture where to look for yourself.
Wonderful lecture. ❤
Great lecture!
44:02
Wow. Just wow.
I really enjoyed your talk.
The words I don't tend to like are theology and thinking or reasoning. This is the western way, but they, as you indicate, can only point at God at best.
I used to pride myself on my ability to reason and think about things.
I have had a moment of grace and all this changed in me. And as you indicate, it is nearly impossible to share this.
I would say think of reasoning or theology as a pole vaulter thinks of the pole. It is very helpful up to a point, but one must let go of it to actually clear the bar.
Thank You!
6.40, 'Love has no why' 😂 This lecture here has made me reflect on a short story that I recently read by Somerset Maugham. Here Sir M Sadgrue emphasizes on the use of language and fir those of us who went to scool and spent a lot of time repelling learning it turns out the that was place to learn about the use of language and how. SM's book Colonel's Lady, is eventuality about a wife who uses poetry to write a masterpiece story on his love affair 10 years ago. The publisher has dispatched the author six coppies and the husband is asked to read one by the wife who has surprising written a book a characteristicfar from the image the husband has settled for in his head about his wife. He makes no head or tails from the poetry used to write it. He later to avoid discussions declares the book good to the auther. It turns out to be a successful book and I wont ruin it for for but why I am tickled by spirit of "poetry. and love has no why" will make sense" ❤ I was forced to learn english at school but now I do leap the fruits. So much eglish literature to live on good and bad but all portraying man.
The final sentence is just 500 IQ. Truly beyond language
Thank you
I think the Godhead's relationship to God is analogous to Plato's form of the good and the demiurge. It sounds a lot like the One in Neoplatonism, the Tao in Taoism, and Brahman in Hinduism.
Yes. And Parmenides' One.
Most Excellent.
Sehr Gut!
Thank you.
I've experienced some seriously weird shit, and words always fail me when I try to describe these things.
Wonderful lecture
Identity, simile, metaphor. Meaningful nonsense. Really lovely lecture Dr. Sugrue. Thank you.
The last sentence says it all: "They took the Way rather than God. It is unfortunate that religious instruction has focused so much on rules and ceremonies. Germans stick 'heit' on some noun or adjective, it makes it into the essence of whatever that word meant. For example, 'krank' means 'sick' and 'Krankheit' means 'sickness'. Adding the 'heit' makes it into a noun and all nouns are capitalized in German; 'wahr' means true, and 'Wahrheit' means 'truth'. So bei putting the 'heit' on a word, it makes it into the essence of the quality that the word was pointing to. Making God into some old man who is sitting on a throne in heaven like a king, is a great disservice to humanity, but it is understandable, because it is difficult for us to imagine something beyond humanness. The idea that God is something that pervades the universe--energy, love, life force--rather than some superhuman sitting on a throne in heaven is becoming more widespread. Meister Eckhart was preaching in German and directly to the common people and suggesting that they could find God on their own did not go over too well with the Catholic authorities; he was lucky to escape being burned at the stake. I personally also think that Meister Eckhart was a Buddhist. The idea of emptying oneself out and that when you finally manage to connect with God--i.e., you have recognized the godness in yourself and have no need to ask God for anything --seems very much like the Buddhist idea of the enlightened person who has been able to let go of all desiring and has thereby ended his suffering. I am basically one of those "logic-chopping people but have to admit, this is a wonderfully inspiring lecture. I wish we could have had Michael Sugrue a little longer.
love love
That which is beyond our words casts a shadow over them.
Sometimes you think you have a pretty good brain and then you listen to Dr. Sugrue...
Do you have a specific translation you recommend for Meister Eckhart's work?
For the most part I am not picky about translators
I have a few translations, but the best seems to be _The Complete Mystical Works of Meister Eckhart_ translated by Maurice O’C Walshe.
Well I don't know but I'm interested too although I have a thought about this lecture being evolved legalese from metaphor and mysticism which is intricate choice of words, cult like fraternal code most likely beginning in secrecy but would have to be taught exclusively for it to make sense then but now it's not so secret having education today they had which most likely evolved into another form that one man's trash is another man's treasure.
My man🙏
"You can take the man out of religion but you can't take the religion out of man" --Mark Twain
GENIUS
Thank you for introducing me to Meister Eckhart. I will give him a good reading. I suspect I have a better understanding of what is suggesting as the difference between god and Godhead... but, expect I will be equally mystified by the end of the reading... ha.
8:18 to 10:21... If Eckhart says that man should ask for Nothing, and he says that Nothing is the Godhead, then that's just asking for the Godhead Himself. Take everything from man and only the Godhead remains, and that's all one could ever ask for. May God shine upon your soul.
Wow👏👏👏🎬
I can be seen through my eye.
"God is on sale for a bargain price" - what a beautiful idea!!
I searched for that quote and came up with nothing, especially without any reference to Eckhart, on the web. So, it really exists but the internet has no reference to it?
Looks like it's a made up quote or just his personal interpretation.. Anyway a good one!
"Love has no why." means that there is no motive behind our actions when we cease to exist psychologically. There is only spontaneous action, without thought, motive, or choice. Then God does His own will through our empty vessel, and our awareness just watches it happen in utter innocence, without thought or commentary. "People love to do God's will, but we should be so little and nothing that God does His own will through us and in us." - Meister Eckhart. As far as Godhead vs God, the early Jews called the Godhead, the unmanifest, the Masculine, and they called the manifest, the creative, the birther of life, the Feminine aspect of God. When Eckhart said, "The eye with which I see God is the same eye with which God sees me." I believe is him saying "I and my Father are one." without saying it, for they would have killed him. "People believe Christ was born only once in Jesus, but this is not true, for God is born in man, as the Christ, in anyone who turns wholly away from creation towards God." Eckhart. Yes, I believe Eckhart turned completely towards God and was Christ himself, or he could have not said this and other things he said. He was much more profound than Paul who said, "Christ lives in me."
Eckhart's statement that the Godhead is the Ground of Pure Being is identical to Shankara's (788-820) Advaita Vedanta. There's God the Creator (Ishwara), and God the Transcendental, Immanent Essence of the universe, what Spinoza called Substance. This Essence is Pure Consciousness "In-Itself". It's directly experiential using nondual meditation methods and various mantras used by the ancient Buddhists and Hindus Not much can be said about "IT", but Shankara uses the terms Sat, Chit, and Ananda or Truth, Consciousness, Bliss. (Aristotle's "Being-In-Itself").
I would like to draw a connection between metaphor and double negatives. Personally, I love metaphor and double negatives. But, the connection that I want to draw between them is that they both are used in a similar manner because they both have a much deeper emotional impact. To say "My eye *IS* a window" is way more exhilarating to say *JUST AS* "I didn't say nothing!" is also way more exhilarating to say than "I didn't say anything!". Therefore, I believe there is a relationship of some kind between metaphor and double negatives.
I think the relation you're feeling is for the fact that each can be used to convey ambiguity of different kinds. Enunciatively, at least in standard written English (SWE), it's been considered mistaken to use a double negative for emphasis since the rapid transition from Middle English. I know Chaucer used double negatives in that style, but Shakespeare would have reserved such expression for more colloquial or lower class characters whose expressions are supposed to convey a lack of education, and I haven't seen that convention altered all that much in modern stories, which is kind of surprising given the greater understanding now that dialects that differ from SWE are certainly not inferior or any more internally contradictory than SWE, though it is still SWE that has the clear dominance. There might be more space for the use of double negative as used for emphasis now, though, than for a long time since.
Anyway, I think I prefer the more coy reading: 'I didn't say _nothing_.' It's more dramatically interesting to me. The ambiguity here, though, is in its slight specificity: it is merely gesturing to the fact that something *was* said, and that it falls to the other speaker to either repeat what was said or proceed in response: it is ushering the other speaker to proceed, which itself implies a kind of eagerness, while at the same time the roundabout nature of the expression suggests an avoidance of the subject along with that oblique interest in whether their interlocutor will proceed. Since it can only be read as synonymous with 'I did say something', and in contrast to the straight-forward expression (which could be held to press its speaker to elaborate) the double-negative serves as a deflection. Something like an implicit '...and if you want to talk about how large or small of a 'not-nothing' it is you're going to proceed first.'
Apologies for the rant, I love drama and narratives in general, and ambiguity is better embraced than avoided for the best of concise writing... I say, after having writing two paragraphs on six syllables of writing. Well... I guess I didn't say nothing.
@@Kelvinian Hmm... that's an interesting interpretation. Although, after reading what I originally said, I think when I wrote that comment I was having trouble expressing what I really meant to say and I think it came out a little bit in not the right way I meant to express it. For example I have no idea why I used the word "exhilarating" because that's not the right word I should have used. I think basically what I was trying to say is the following:
Through the lens of logic "I didn't say nothing" means that something was said.
But through an emotional lens "I didn't say nothing" is like twice of nothing - which emotionally feels like a more forceful denial just like a metaphor is more forceful than a simple comparison/simile. I think that's what I was trying to say originally but couldn't articulate.
@@mmmmSmegma Oh, I did wonder about 'exhilarating', but in the emphatic it seemed to at least be charitably applicable: it is a fun line. Maybe the easiest analogue we have would be to think of the sentence in terms of multiplication or addition: the former would be a negative times a negative, resulting in an ambiguous positive, whereas the latter would be two negatives added to one another, resulting in something beyond a simple negative response and into a somewhat ambiguous compounded negative. There are some fun algebraic break-downs that can be played with around this, but it makes sense that the construct was generally veered away from by people who like hard linguistic contours: the additional negative sends whatever discourse it's applied directly into to an uncomfortable space, since how is the person hearing the statement supposed to interpret a kind of 'beyond negative' other than as sheer hostility? it could easily be considered superfluous, or simply emphatic and destructive as a device in direct speech. At least, it's difficult to imagine a conversation that proceeds smoothly beyond 'I didn't say nothing!'
It still has that interesting ambiguity dramatically, though, and in a less directly conversational context it could be used to describe something in an ambiguous way, with something more poetic: 'The wind ceased twice over: at once both wasn't and unblown.' ...Or something. It is the kind of thing that needs the clarification that you are compounding the negative, or else it will be read multiplicatively with, 'The wind wasn't unblown', which has its own set of interpretive follow-throughs that would sooner default to 'The wind blew [perhaps unexpectedly?]' than to, 'The wind both wasn't and also unblown.' I think your instinct was right, though: the additive double-negative lends itself to a kind of broad metaphorical ambiguity. It's extremely unwieldy, though, and requires clarification to ensure the additive reading.
Ahh, I ranted again: it's been a long time since I thought about additive double-negatives. Probably not since I was reading Chaucer almost a decade ago, but that defunct use always stuck with me precisely because it is so relegated to colloquial and 'mistaken' expression contemporarily. At the same time, though, it clearly has some utility to it. I'll try to make some use of it in my own writing and see if it can be recovered without the coy multiplicative or base exclamative elements.
@@Kelvinian I love how you framed what I was thinking. The multiplicative vs the additive feels like you have helped crystallize the idea in my mind. I can definitely see how there might be some fun algebraic break-downs with this. I can also see (as you point out) that it's gonna be unwieldy. Nevertheless, I'm going to keep it in the back of my mind now looking for examples where that unwieldyness (not sure if that's a word lol) can be taken advantage of.
@@mmmmSmegmaI was thinking about what you mean and I thought when people explain themselves other's usually would disagree and people can express themselves with a look without saying nothing but people who are intuitive would have noticed and could respond to a look with a look like saying you can tell what people are thinking, it's all in the eye's.
It surprises me to hear this lecture now where I had had the impression that you were somewhat dismissive of Heidegger and his methods in an earlier one. Wasn't Heidegger engaged in breaking free from the bounds of logic in order to uncover a deeper essence of existence? Doesn't that make him somewhat of a mystic? This question has been occupying me for some time now.
Excellent lecture! It's unfortunate that many people take Meister Eckhart and assert that since his writing and spirituality is profound and sincere, that he must secretly not have been an orthodox Catholic, and must rather be some pantheist New Age-friendly pseudo-Hindu/Buddhist/Taoist. "He said X because of the mean old Church but really he meant Y." His writings, although unique in personal style and content like many of the Church's spiritual writers, resonate with the previous 1300 years of Catholic mystical/contemplative tradition and the 700 years since. (Not to mention Aquinas's own profound spirituality which many tend to overlook)
Sugr Mike