VERY unique slant on Lewis

In article <a6povv0j0r00p39iisejbp0kp9fbfp7isc.TakeThisOut@4ax.com>,
m.TakeThisOut@mooreeffoc.com wrote:

 > [A] lot of
 > PROBLEM OF PAIN Ch 2 describes what we'd call disfunctional
 > relationships. The PoP context may not be as far from the story context
 > as we might assume.
 >
 > Also see Orual's decision to rescue Psyche from a happiness O considers
 > dishonorable. Very little difference between O's reasoning and God's in
 > PoP, iirc....

Interesting comparison, immediately suggesting the very Lewisian moral
(somewhere in MC, IIRC) that doing The Right Thing requires knowledge.
Orual does The Wrong Thing, not because she has evil intent (though as
is later made plain, there _is_ jealousy), nor because she is foolish,
but because her understanding of Psyche's situation is erroneous. Her
reasoning is sound, but her premises are flawed.

Best wishes,
Matthew Collett

--
Those who assert that the mathematical sciences have nothing to say
about the good or the beautiful are mistaken. -- Aristotle<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: VERY unique slant on Lewis 

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 10:46:46 +1300, Matthew Collett
<m.collett.TakeThisOut@auckland.ac.nz> wrote:

 >In article <a6povv0j0r00p39iisejbp0kp9fbfp7isc.TakeThisOut@4ax.com>,
 > m.TakeThisOut@mooreeffoc.com wrote:
 >
  >> [A] lot of
  >> PROBLEM OF PAIN Ch 2 describes what we'd call disfunctional
  >> relationships. The PoP context may not be as far from the story context
  >> as we might assume.
  >>
  >> Also see Orual's decision to rescue Psyche from a happiness O considers
  >> dishonorable. Very little difference between O's reasoning and God's in
  >> PoP, iirc....
 >
 >Interesting comparison, immediately suggesting the very Lewisian moral
 >(somewhere in MC, IIRC) that doing The Right Thing requires knowledge.

Yes, early in MC he talks about difference of knowledge, not of
principle (sometimes L uses the term 'syntersis' in this connection).

 >Orual does The Wrong Thing, not because she has evil intent (though as
 >is later made plain, there _is_ jealousy), nor because she is foolish,
 >but because her understanding of Psyche's situation is erroneous. Her
 >reasoning is sound, but her premises are flawed.

That would make some sense, and it's a long time since I read TWHF. And
Oedipus was punished for action done without knowledge.... But it seems
awfully hard on Orual, if she was in honest ignorance.

She did see a glimpse of the castle. I wonder if Lewis intended this
like the bit in PRINCE CASPIAN where Aslan beckons to a path they don't
want to try.

Also -- Lewis's answer in PoP was that it's ok for God to behave
disfunctionally; under His circumstances, He's doing the best He
can. But maybe Orual could have just minded her own business....


Mary<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: VERY unique slant on Lewis 

In article <sndpvvk62llk6ubs8443icleufc3jg73g7.RemoveThis@4ax.com>,
m.RemoveThis@mooreeffoc.com wrote:

  > >Orual does The Wrong Thing, not because she has evil intent (though as
  > >is later made plain, there _is_ jealousy), nor because she is foolish,
  > >but because her understanding of Psyche's situation is erroneous. Her
  > >reasoning is sound, but her premises are flawed.
 >
 > That would make some sense, and it's a long time since I read TWHF. And
 > Oedipus was punished for action done without knowledge.... But it seems
 > awfully hard on Orual, if she was in honest ignorance.

Well, perhaps not completely "honest", as she herself is brought to
admit at the end of the book. But certainly any deception is
self-deception. Until the end, she does see herself as innocent in the
matter, and unfairly deceived.

 > She did see a glimpse of the castle.

Only too late, IIRC.

 >I wonder if Lewis intended this
 > like the bit in PRINCE CASPIAN where Aslan beckons to a path they don't
 > want to try.

Another interesting parallel. But I think Orual had better grounds for
disbelieving her youngest sister than the elder Pevensey children had
for disbelieving theirs.

Best wishes,
Matthew Collett

--
Those who assert that the mathematical sciences have nothing to say
about the good or the beautiful are mistaken. -- Aristotle<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: VERY unique slant on Lewis 

It's impossible for something to be very unique. Unique means one only and can't
be qualified.


-Barry
========
Web page: http://members.optusnet.com.au/~barry.og
Atheist, radio scanner, LIPD information.
 >> Stay informed about: VERY unique slant on Lewis 

 > Barry OGrady god_freee_jones DeleteThis @hotmail.com writes:


 >It's impossible for something to be very unique. Unique means one only and
 >can't
 >be qualified.
 >
 >
 >-Barry

I disagree, consider: The set of positive integers consists of unique members
but they still have a lot in common, snowflakes are supposedly unique, but
again they vary in predictable ways. Toss in an irrational number (or a hot
coal) and the variation is a good deal greater, ergo "very" unique could apply,
as with different sized infinitys.

In this case the original writer was trying to posit a totally unexpected
approach, so that while a good deal of analsys could be unique (not duplicated)
this came from a much different perspective and was "very" unique.

Daryl



Daryl
And when He knew for certain, only drowning men could see Him.
He said all men shall be sailors then, until the sea shall free them.
(Leonard Cohen)
(remove nopax for e-mail)<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: VERY unique slant on Lewis 

On 24 Jan 2004 16:37:44 GMT, darylgene.TakeThisOut@aol.comnopax (Daryl) wrote:

  >> Barry OGrady god_freee_jones.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com writes:
 >
 >
  >>It's impossible for something to be very unique. Unique means one only and
  >>can't
  >>be qualified.
  >>
  >>
  >>-Barry
 >
 > I disagree, consider: The set of positive integers consists of unique members
 >but they still have a lot in common, snowflakes are supposedly unique, but
 >again they vary in predictable ways. Toss in an irrational number (or a hot
 >coal) and the variation is a good deal greater, ergo "very" unique could apply,
 >as with different sized infinitys.
 >
 >In this case the original writer was trying to posit a totally unexpected
 >approach, so that while a good deal of analsys could be unique (not duplicated)
 >this came from a much different perspective and was "very" unique.

I thought it was sort of ironical.

Mary<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: VERY unique slant on Lewis