Dialogics
The world is coming to an end - as we know it! The root problem is that things are too left-brain, this is not to say that too right-brain would be any better. Our working hypothesis is that we are of a dialogical divine human nature, that we are tripartite, which is to say that we are made up of body, mind, and spirit. But the key to the riddle isn't just to strike a balance between right- and left-brain extremes, but rather to stand on the shoulders of these giants and trascend, virtually to grow wings and fly creatively free.
Let me make you a quick sketch of the workings of this book. We start from the fact of recognizing that we live in a broken world that needs fixing. The inquiry is how to go about doing it. Effects have causes, I certainly endorse rationality, so if the present is broken, and given that Western civilization stands on the pillars of the Greek and Judean traditions, we must most definately initiate our quest therein. Our inquiry must ultimately be founded and include,on the one hand,Greek Antiquity starting with Pythogoras and Socrates, and on the other hand,the Hebrew Bible with Genesis 1:1.
Now allow me to provide the kind reader with the actual timeline layout of the discourse, and this may also serve the purpose of a summary of the book. After recognition of living in a crisis situation, the next thing is to search for a key clue as guiding thread to the narrative. Pictorically the hint is found in the American Indian characterization of the invading civilization as "the white man speaks with forked tongue". This comes to symbolize the flaw of our times of what I identify as the malady of the double-monologue mindset culture of modernity. And you might have guessed it from what was just said what will be the philosophy that I will propose, namely, dialogue.
Dialogics is a philosophy, in keeping with using the classical term, though our proposal is more eclectic consisting in a mosaic of; yes pre-Socratic philosophy, Socrates most definately, but also modern science, and additionlly general cultural contributions ranging from a wide spectrum as we'll soon have opportunity to mention. By dialogics we simply mean the logics of dialogue. Our starting point mentions the three classical principles of reasoning, namely, identity, non-contradiction, and the exclusion of the middle term, and does a critique of the set.
When at first I mentioned the left-brain, in part I was referring to there being too many trees and very little forest in our midst. While it is true that we cannot live without information, it is also undeniable that we can not survire either in a world full of data and devoid of concepts, of an infinity of particulars and no universals. So we are back to searching for clues to proceed in our quest. Not surprisingly these I found in the fresco "The School of Athens"(1510) by Raphael and in the painting "The Death of Socrates" (1787) by Jacques-Louis David. The focus shold be on the hands of Plato and Aristotle in the fresco. Supposedly they are holding a conversation as to the nature of reality, in particular, how do we know what the fine is. Not what is fine nor which are fine things, but rather what is the fine. What is the truth or any other category could do equally well, for that matter, the thing being that these two central characters are engaged in a substantive dialogue. Plato's right hand is pointing upwards, as if indicating that we know what the fine is because we have an idea of it from up there, with index finger standing out. Aristotle, taking a contrary view, has his right hand pointing forward with fingers outstretched. Their left hands hold on to a book, "Dialogues" and "Ethics", respectively.
Now we move on to the painting portraying Socrates who is likewise holding a dialogue with his followers as to the nature of life, or perhaps, of reality. Therein he is stretching his right-hand to take the hemlock, with his left-hand pointing upwards with index finger standing out. With what the right hand connects kills us, while whatever is the case with the left hand is what saves us. Living is verily a balancing act between these two forces. We live in a post-Socratic world in crisis, and in the two painting was portrayed the times of Socrates; while we are no longer clueless, we still don't have a grasp of the way out of the maze.
Now comes in Pythagoras, the main character of pre-Socratic times. We as spectators of the paintings are also part of the general drama. My take on the matter is that we are the hypotenuse. That is, the solution lies in the hands of Socrates, and what each connects to, and in what we as stakeholder ought to contribute. From this we put together our dialogics thesis and give it its nuts and bolts.
Now fast forward to the Judaic contribution. Our claim is that Genesis 1:1 ought to read: "In principle,God created dialogue with the heaven(s) and dialogue with the earth"
"1108644292"
Let me make you a quick sketch of the workings of this book. We start from the fact of recognizing that we live in a broken world that needs fixing. The inquiry is how to go about doing it. Effects have causes, I certainly endorse rationality, so if the present is broken, and given that Western civilization stands on the pillars of the Greek and Judean traditions, we must most definately initiate our quest therein. Our inquiry must ultimately be founded and include,on the one hand,Greek Antiquity starting with Pythogoras and Socrates, and on the other hand,the Hebrew Bible with Genesis 1:1.
Now allow me to provide the kind reader with the actual timeline layout of the discourse, and this may also serve the purpose of a summary of the book. After recognition of living in a crisis situation, the next thing is to search for a key clue as guiding thread to the narrative. Pictorically the hint is found in the American Indian characterization of the invading civilization as "the white man speaks with forked tongue". This comes to symbolize the flaw of our times of what I identify as the malady of the double-monologue mindset culture of modernity. And you might have guessed it from what was just said what will be the philosophy that I will propose, namely, dialogue.
Dialogics is a philosophy, in keeping with using the classical term, though our proposal is more eclectic consisting in a mosaic of; yes pre-Socratic philosophy, Socrates most definately, but also modern science, and additionlly general cultural contributions ranging from a wide spectrum as we'll soon have opportunity to mention. By dialogics we simply mean the logics of dialogue. Our starting point mentions the three classical principles of reasoning, namely, identity, non-contradiction, and the exclusion of the middle term, and does a critique of the set.
When at first I mentioned the left-brain, in part I was referring to there being too many trees and very little forest in our midst. While it is true that we cannot live without information, it is also undeniable that we can not survire either in a world full of data and devoid of concepts, of an infinity of particulars and no universals. So we are back to searching for clues to proceed in our quest. Not surprisingly these I found in the fresco "The School of Athens"(1510) by Raphael and in the painting "The Death of Socrates" (1787) by Jacques-Louis David. The focus shold be on the hands of Plato and Aristotle in the fresco. Supposedly they are holding a conversation as to the nature of reality, in particular, how do we know what the fine is. Not what is fine nor which are fine things, but rather what is the fine. What is the truth or any other category could do equally well, for that matter, the thing being that these two central characters are engaged in a substantive dialogue. Plato's right hand is pointing upwards, as if indicating that we know what the fine is because we have an idea of it from up there, with index finger standing out. Aristotle, taking a contrary view, has his right hand pointing forward with fingers outstretched. Their left hands hold on to a book, "Dialogues" and "Ethics", respectively.
Now we move on to the painting portraying Socrates who is likewise holding a dialogue with his followers as to the nature of life, or perhaps, of reality. Therein he is stretching his right-hand to take the hemlock, with his left-hand pointing upwards with index finger standing out. With what the right hand connects kills us, while whatever is the case with the left hand is what saves us. Living is verily a balancing act between these two forces. We live in a post-Socratic world in crisis, and in the two painting was portrayed the times of Socrates; while we are no longer clueless, we still don't have a grasp of the way out of the maze.
Now comes in Pythagoras, the main character of pre-Socratic times. We as spectators of the paintings are also part of the general drama. My take on the matter is that we are the hypotenuse. That is, the solution lies in the hands of Socrates, and what each connects to, and in what we as stakeholder ought to contribute. From this we put together our dialogics thesis and give it its nuts and bolts.
Now fast forward to the Judaic contribution. Our claim is that Genesis 1:1 ought to read: "In principle,God created dialogue with the heaven(s) and dialogue with the earth"
Dialogics
The world is coming to an end - as we know it! The root problem is that things are too left-brain, this is not to say that too right-brain would be any better. Our working hypothesis is that we are of a dialogical divine human nature, that we are tripartite, which is to say that we are made up of body, mind, and spirit. But the key to the riddle isn't just to strike a balance between right- and left-brain extremes, but rather to stand on the shoulders of these giants and trascend, virtually to grow wings and fly creatively free.
Let me make you a quick sketch of the workings of this book. We start from the fact of recognizing that we live in a broken world that needs fixing. The inquiry is how to go about doing it. Effects have causes, I certainly endorse rationality, so if the present is broken, and given that Western civilization stands on the pillars of the Greek and Judean traditions, we must most definately initiate our quest therein. Our inquiry must ultimately be founded and include,on the one hand,Greek Antiquity starting with Pythogoras and Socrates, and on the other hand,the Hebrew Bible with Genesis 1:1.
Now allow me to provide the kind reader with the actual timeline layout of the discourse, and this may also serve the purpose of a summary of the book. After recognition of living in a crisis situation, the next thing is to search for a key clue as guiding thread to the narrative. Pictorically the hint is found in the American Indian characterization of the invading civilization as "the white man speaks with forked tongue". This comes to symbolize the flaw of our times of what I identify as the malady of the double-monologue mindset culture of modernity. And you might have guessed it from what was just said what will be the philosophy that I will propose, namely, dialogue.
Dialogics is a philosophy, in keeping with using the classical term, though our proposal is more eclectic consisting in a mosaic of; yes pre-Socratic philosophy, Socrates most definately, but also modern science, and additionlly general cultural contributions ranging from a wide spectrum as we'll soon have opportunity to mention. By dialogics we simply mean the logics of dialogue. Our starting point mentions the three classical principles of reasoning, namely, identity, non-contradiction, and the exclusion of the middle term, and does a critique of the set.
When at first I mentioned the left-brain, in part I was referring to there being too many trees and very little forest in our midst. While it is true that we cannot live without information, it is also undeniable that we can not survire either in a world full of data and devoid of concepts, of an infinity of particulars and no universals. So we are back to searching for clues to proceed in our quest. Not surprisingly these I found in the fresco "The School of Athens"(1510) by Raphael and in the painting "The Death of Socrates" (1787) by Jacques-Louis David. The focus shold be on the hands of Plato and Aristotle in the fresco. Supposedly they are holding a conversation as to the nature of reality, in particular, how do we know what the fine is. Not what is fine nor which are fine things, but rather what is the fine. What is the truth or any other category could do equally well, for that matter, the thing being that these two central characters are engaged in a substantive dialogue. Plato's right hand is pointing upwards, as if indicating that we know what the fine is because we have an idea of it from up there, with index finger standing out. Aristotle, taking a contrary view, has his right hand pointing forward with fingers outstretched. Their left hands hold on to a book, "Dialogues" and "Ethics", respectively.
Now we move on to the painting portraying Socrates who is likewise holding a dialogue with his followers as to the nature of life, or perhaps, of reality. Therein he is stretching his right-hand to take the hemlock, with his left-hand pointing upwards with index finger standing out. With what the right hand connects kills us, while whatever is the case with the left hand is what saves us. Living is verily a balancing act between these two forces. We live in a post-Socratic world in crisis, and in the two painting was portrayed the times of Socrates; while we are no longer clueless, we still don't have a grasp of the way out of the maze.
Now comes in Pythagoras, the main character of pre-Socratic times. We as spectators of the paintings are also part of the general drama. My take on the matter is that we are the hypotenuse. That is, the solution lies in the hands of Socrates, and what each connects to, and in what we as stakeholder ought to contribute. From this we put together our dialogics thesis and give it its nuts and bolts.
Now fast forward to the Judaic contribution. Our claim is that Genesis 1:1 ought to read: "In principle,God created dialogue with the heaven(s) and dialogue with the earth"
Let me make you a quick sketch of the workings of this book. We start from the fact of recognizing that we live in a broken world that needs fixing. The inquiry is how to go about doing it. Effects have causes, I certainly endorse rationality, so if the present is broken, and given that Western civilization stands on the pillars of the Greek and Judean traditions, we must most definately initiate our quest therein. Our inquiry must ultimately be founded and include,on the one hand,Greek Antiquity starting with Pythogoras and Socrates, and on the other hand,the Hebrew Bible with Genesis 1:1.
Now allow me to provide the kind reader with the actual timeline layout of the discourse, and this may also serve the purpose of a summary of the book. After recognition of living in a crisis situation, the next thing is to search for a key clue as guiding thread to the narrative. Pictorically the hint is found in the American Indian characterization of the invading civilization as "the white man speaks with forked tongue". This comes to symbolize the flaw of our times of what I identify as the malady of the double-monologue mindset culture of modernity. And you might have guessed it from what was just said what will be the philosophy that I will propose, namely, dialogue.
Dialogics is a philosophy, in keeping with using the classical term, though our proposal is more eclectic consisting in a mosaic of; yes pre-Socratic philosophy, Socrates most definately, but also modern science, and additionlly general cultural contributions ranging from a wide spectrum as we'll soon have opportunity to mention. By dialogics we simply mean the logics of dialogue. Our starting point mentions the three classical principles of reasoning, namely, identity, non-contradiction, and the exclusion of the middle term, and does a critique of the set.
When at first I mentioned the left-brain, in part I was referring to there being too many trees and very little forest in our midst. While it is true that we cannot live without information, it is also undeniable that we can not survire either in a world full of data and devoid of concepts, of an infinity of particulars and no universals. So we are back to searching for clues to proceed in our quest. Not surprisingly these I found in the fresco "The School of Athens"(1510) by Raphael and in the painting "The Death of Socrates" (1787) by Jacques-Louis David. The focus shold be on the hands of Plato and Aristotle in the fresco. Supposedly they are holding a conversation as to the nature of reality, in particular, how do we know what the fine is. Not what is fine nor which are fine things, but rather what is the fine. What is the truth or any other category could do equally well, for that matter, the thing being that these two central characters are engaged in a substantive dialogue. Plato's right hand is pointing upwards, as if indicating that we know what the fine is because we have an idea of it from up there, with index finger standing out. Aristotle, taking a contrary view, has his right hand pointing forward with fingers outstretched. Their left hands hold on to a book, "Dialogues" and "Ethics", respectively.
Now we move on to the painting portraying Socrates who is likewise holding a dialogue with his followers as to the nature of life, or perhaps, of reality. Therein he is stretching his right-hand to take the hemlock, with his left-hand pointing upwards with index finger standing out. With what the right hand connects kills us, while whatever is the case with the left hand is what saves us. Living is verily a balancing act between these two forces. We live in a post-Socratic world in crisis, and in the two painting was portrayed the times of Socrates; while we are no longer clueless, we still don't have a grasp of the way out of the maze.
Now comes in Pythagoras, the main character of pre-Socratic times. We as spectators of the paintings are also part of the general drama. My take on the matter is that we are the hypotenuse. That is, the solution lies in the hands of Socrates, and what each connects to, and in what we as stakeholder ought to contribute. From this we put together our dialogics thesis and give it its nuts and bolts.
Now fast forward to the Judaic contribution. Our claim is that Genesis 1:1 ought to read: "In principle,God created dialogue with the heaven(s) and dialogue with the earth"
9.99
In Stock
5
1
Dialogics
Dialogics
eBook
$9.99
Related collections and offers
9.99
In Stock
From the B&N Reads Blog