Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

percy-l - Re: [percy-l] In and About the world

percy-l AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Percy-L: Literary, Religious, Scientific, and Philosophical Discussion on Walker Percy

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Ken Armstrong <armstron AT ohiou.edu>
  • To: "Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion" <percy-l AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [percy-l] In and About the world
  • Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 19:28:20 -0400


Jim, Steve, Karey,

This is a terrific discussion, especially this post from Jim. I'm wondering if I can add a complication that is hopefully not a confusion. It seems to me, too, that the event Percy is dealing with in his triadic relationship is symbolization. Jim makes good points about what the ability to symbolize does in giving us distance from and therefore some measure of power over what it is that we symbolize. But what is mysterious about it or what keeps it mysterious is that we get "distance from" while even more "participating in" the event symbolized. In this respect, it is we, too, who are symbolized in the actualization of a triadic event. It is one of those things that might be seen as contradictory or as paradoxical: by gaining distance from and knowledge of something, we participate in it more deeply. Or maybe deeply is not the right word. Problem come when one aspect or the other is emphasized to the diminishment or exclusion of the other (the old culture vs. science contretemps). But as Jim notes, we know that we know (thus the beaming smile on the young child in Percy's example when he says the word "ball!"). I think Peirce's problem with transubstantiation might (I emphasize "might") have been his concentrating on the leverage gained over physical events and the expectations raised to the exclusion of the event of communion.

Steve said "This is also, I believe, why humans are so unique among the beasts -- our ability to use language in this particular way."

Hmm. I seem to be stuck in Steve's blue font. Oh well. Steve, I'm not sure I'm quite following your statement quoted above as it follows your quick outline of conception. It seems to me as though in your example it is not we who are using language, but God. That is just an observation. What I think Percy and many others say about language is that it is a human activity; the beasts don't have language. Period. BTW, I think this is only a phenomenological judgement, not a value judgement, tho it is not untied to the reason human beings have dominion over the beasts. Speaking of which, mine won't stop barking, so adieu for now.

Ken Armstrong





At 02:57 PM 8/17/2003 -0400, you wrote:
Dear Folks,

I think Percy talks a bit about the notion of having a world and the distinction between an event occuring "in" the world vs talking "about" or symbolizing such an event. Granted symbolizing occurs in part as an event "in" the world but symbolizing is also a way of stepping back from the world and talking "about" events that are merely "in" (and not one step back so to speak) from the world. The question is: How does this seeming ability to partially transcend the world arise and what are its theological, philosophical and psychological implications.

Fundamental to this discussion is of course the distinction between the nature of an event which is merely "in" the world vs an event such as symbolizing which is "about" events in the world. That these are in principle two fundamentally different kinds of events is (it seems to me) one of the first and main points Percy attempts to get across and is a theme he repeatedly returns to in both his essays and novels.





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page