• Next message: Hardy M. Cook: "Re: Lady Macbeth's Death"
• Previous message: Hardy M. Cook: "Re: Lists"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ]

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0264  Monday, 7 February 2000.

[1]     From:   Seán Lawrence <seanlawrence@writeme.com>
        Date:   Friday, 04 Feb 2000 10:28:01 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0249 Re: Marx, Religion, and Nobility

[2]     From:   Judith Matthews Craig <je-mc@apex2000.net>
        Date:   Friday, 4 Feb 2000 19:30:38 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0249 Re: Marx, Religion, and Nobility

[3]     From:   Judith Matthews Craig <je-mc@apex2000.net>
        Date:   Friday, 4 Feb 2000 19:30:38 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0249 Re: Marx, Religion, and Nobility

[4]     From:   Judith Matthews Craig <je-mc@apex2000.net>
        Date:   Friday, 4 Feb 2000 19:30:38 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0249 Re: Marx, Religion, and Nobility


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Seán Lawrence <seanlawrence@writeme.com>
Date:           Friday, 04 Feb 2000 10:28:01 -0800
Subject: 11.0249 Re: Marx, Religion, and Nobility
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0249 Re: Marx, Religion, and Nobility

Peter Wilson pointed out that I confused "psychotics" with "psychopaths"
in my last posting.  Please accept my apologies towards anyone with
suffering from this or other mental illnesses.

The sentences in question are as follows:

>A psychotic who lives under the law, according to a psych prof at my
>institution, is just someone who avoids being caught.  Our society may
>be more heavily peopled with psychotics than we wish to believe, but
>their merely tactical subjection to ethics should not, I don't think, be
>taken as normative.

Apologetically,
Seán.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Judith Matthews Craig <je-mc@apex2000.net>
Date:           Friday, 4 Feb 2000 19:04:54 -0600
Subject: 11.0249 Re: Marx, Religion, and Nobility
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0249 Re: Marx, Religion, and Nobility

Tom Reedy writes:

<No one is "passionately" asking you to leave, but it was <you yourself
<who professed ignorance of Marx's works, save hearsay.

Yes, and when I asked for a reference, I didn't get one.  I think I'll
take time off from this topic to dutifully read "Marx on Shakespeare" at
the local library-if it has a copy.  Otherwise, I'll have to order one.
I do have some criticism from the Cultural Materialist school of
criticism-is there anything in particular that you would wish me to
digest?

Judy Craig

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Judith Matthews Craig <je-mc@apex2000.net>
Date:           Friday, 4 Feb 2000 19:24:07 -0600
Subject: 11.0249 Re: Marx, Religion, and Nobility
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0249 Re: Marx, Religion, and Nobility

Dave Knauer writes:

<I don't think we can tell for
<certain where Shakespeare drops all fictive personae and <speaks.

That is true-no one can tell for certain, but what about the irrelevant
grumble in Cymbeline, "(O bill, sore shaming /Those rich-left heirs,
that let their fathers lie/Without monument!) 4.2.225-27 and Ado, "If a
man do not erect in this age his own tomb ere he dies, he shall live no
longer in monument than the bell rings and the widow weeps" 5.2.79-82
and Hamlet, "O heavens!  die two months ago, and not forgotten yet?
Then there's hope a great man's memory may outlive his life half a year:
but by'r lady, he must build churches, then, or else he not suffer
thinking on" 3.2.138-43.  The last two references were supplied by J. M.
Nosworthy in note 225-7 on page 130 of his edition of Cymbeline.

Judy

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:            Judith Matthews Craig <je-mc@apex2000.net>
Date:           Friday, 4 Feb 2000 19:30:38 -0600
Subject: 11.0249 Re: Marx, Religion, and Nobility
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0249 Re: Marx, Religion, and Nobility

Sean Lawrence writes:

<Nor am I saying that Christianity has not also, all too <often,
collapsed
<into a mere metaphysics, but that like all religions, it is <able to
turn
<again to what is at once outside of and constitutive of its <system, to
<be surprised in its comfort.  This is what, I would argue, <the
<Confessing Church strove for.  Demystification strikes me <as an effort
<to avoid anything outside the system of thought, and it <begins, like
out
<debate, with Marx's famous dictum.

Are you saying that Christianity's assumed belief in "God" saves it from
being mere metaphysics?  I am just trying to be clear.

Thank you,
Judy Craig

• Next message: Hardy M. Cook: "Re: Lady Macbeth's Death"
• Previous message: Hardy M. Cook: "Re: Lists"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ]