I mean… I guess that’s a plausible meta-read? But isn’t the essay more a critique of the limits of sense- and meaning-making? That we can’t escape that at the limit, sense fails us? And that this recognition itself is important and resonant?
I mean… I guess that’s a plausible meta-read? But isn’t the essay more a critique of the limits of sense- and meaning-making? That we can’t escape that at the limit, sense fails us? And that this recognition itself is important and resonant?
I mean… I guess that’s a plausible meta-read? But isn’t the essay more a critique of the limits of sense- and meaning-making? That we can’t escape that at the limit, sense fails us? And that this recognition itself is important and resonant?
Sure, but I don't believe spirituality and mysticism is necessary to make that point.
How about art?
Again, helpful but not necessary.
Doesn't art get at something important? Something that's not reachable by other means?
Whatever makes the lumpenproles happy, I suppose.
I see, you’re Enlightened.