昨天宜亨問到
黑澤明的那隻兔子
那隻兔子
藏在那個破折號
而那個破折號
擺在A和B之間
所以問題是
A和B是甚麼
黑澤明的那隻兔子
那隻兔子
藏在那個破折號
而那個破折號
擺在A和B之間
所以問題是
A和B是甚麼
敘事不是navel-gazing是為了找到那隻兔子 (106-6-22)
昨天收到DM修稿其中註三說到敘事
"另外促成一個人「場有」的條件，「敘事」的確是一種方法，但是若落入傳統的「個人主義式」的敘事窠臼，恐難以達成，那麼怎樣的敘事才可促成這種「場有」，會在日後撰文細論。" (p. 24)
"另外促成一個人「場有」的條件，「敘事」的確是一種方法，但是若落入傳統的「個人主義式」的敘事窠臼，恐難以達成，那麼怎樣的敘事才可促成這種「場有」，會在日後撰文細論。" (p. 24)
我是這麼說的 (2017-6-21)
作者依第一位審查者意見 將「場在」改為「場有」 這點殊為可惜
兩個理由 一是海德格的dasein (German: da
"there"; sein "being")
關鍵是在 二是作者顯然原本有意 將「場在」相應於「在場」 對比來做論述 這點依我所見 除用詞上的趣味 正是其創見
如果作者為了忠於其所引用之「場有哲學」
和採納第一位審查者意見
仍決定將「場在」改為「場有」
我會建議作者加註說明這件事
我會希望「場在」vs.「在場」 這一作者的創見 沒有失去
今早起來突然想到敘事是為了找到那隻兔子
而那隻兔子藏在那個有名的estrangement中間
Cf Man in estrangement: A comparison of the thought of Paul Tillich and Erich Fromm, by Guyton B. Hammond, Vanderbuilt, 1965
既然提到Tillich
Paul Tillich
(1886-1965) (106-6-21)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tillich
Paul Tillich and Psychology: Historic and Contemporary Exploration in Theology, Psychotherapy, and Ethics, by Terry D. Cooper, Mercer University Press, 2006 (abebooks ordered 2017-6-22)
book review: Wilder, Courtney (2006) Anglican Theological Review. 88(4): 626+ (questia)
The most significant point of conflict Cooper discusses in the initial comparison of Tillich's position and Fromm's is that "As a psychoanalyst and Marxist, Fromm is one of the most eloquent spokespersons for the position that humanity must heal itself and not rely on a transcendent Source to provide its redemption" (p. 63). In contrast, Cooper writes, "For Tillich, because estrangement invades all dimensions of our being, we can never offer ourselves redemption or healing" (p. 98) (ibid)
see also
Grace for the Injured Self: The Healing Approach of Heinz Kohut, by Terry D. Cooper, Robert L. Rundall, Pickwick Publications, 2014
Paul Tillich and Psychology: Historic and Contemporary Exploration in Theology, Psychotherapy, and Ethics, by Terry D. Cooper, Mercer University Press, 2006 (abebooks ordered 2017-6-22)
book review: Wilder, Courtney (2006) Anglican Theological Review. 88(4): 626+ (questia)
The most significant point of conflict Cooper discusses in the initial comparison of Tillich's position and Fromm's is that "As a psychoanalyst and Marxist, Fromm is one of the most eloquent spokespersons for the position that humanity must heal itself and not rely on a transcendent Source to provide its redemption" (p. 63). In contrast, Cooper writes, "For Tillich, because estrangement invades all dimensions of our being, we can never offer ourselves redemption or healing" (p. 98) (ibid)
see also
Grace for the Injured Self: The Healing Approach of Heinz Kohut, by Terry D. Cooper, Robert L. Rundall, Pickwick Publications, 2014
In 1933 he said
“I had the honor to be the first non-Jewish professor dismissed from a German
university,” and was invited to the Union Theological Seminary in New
York.
(1966). Paul Johannes Tillich 1886-1965. Am. J. Psychoanal., 26(1):98-99
(1966). Paul Johannes Tillich 1886-1965. Am. J. Psychoanal., 26(1):98-99
