Good, because I'm not going to be. ;-)
> >> Ascetism is not the same as what Greg calls 'Austerities', which is
> >> a somewhat more specific technical use of the term.
> >Yes, that's exactly my (subordinate) point. What you two were talking
> >were specifically Austerities. And my main point is that austerities
> >in particular and asceticism in general are mystical techniques.
> Not convinced of this at all. Austerities are not, I feel, the same
> as ascetism in general.
I didn't say they were! Indeed I just said I didn't say that -- and I hereby say it again. I said _the case in hand_ was an example of both 'asceticism' and 'Austerities'. (To exemplify the distinction, refraining from a variety of pleasurable activities would be 'asceticism', but not 'austerity', as Greg employs the terms.)
> Which was, in another terminology, exactly what I
> was saying.
The original point was quite different, actually: we seem to have undergone a lengthy semantic diversion, sufficient to drive the original matter ("is asceticism a specifically mystic technique?" (to which the answer is in the affirmative, Greg-terminology-wise)) off into the excess-quote bit-bucket.
> Its a classic literary motif, the uncivilised barbarian type
> surprises the noble protagonists by rescueing party in distress in the
> wilderness, saving their lives many times before returning to civilisation.
> In condescending gratitude they admit that he isn't actually subhuman, and
> may even be a reasonable guy.
And like I said: in the Kralori case, who are these not-actually- subhuman types?
Cheers,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail