I don't have direct thoughts on this issue right now, but I have,
ago, considered the dichotomies scattered throughout Thomas, much
above. In the article on this (which isn't yet out in print),
suggest that these dichotomies are not as fixed as most
and so do have some trouble with what I think is a too-neat
The last sentence is a valuable caveat. Too much "neatness" of
any sort (about dichotomies, or anything else) should trigger a
caution light in the back of one's mind. Such efforts are not
always *wrong* but they do invite careful scrutiny. My suggestion
is no exception.
I'd like to offer, however, that the focus of my previous note
was not the presence of dichotomies in GTh, but questions about
whether it is feasible to structure a taxonomy of "cognitive
motifs." The little table I appended to those questions evidently
distracted most people's attention.
So, let me try again:
It seems to me that the process of moving from "not-knowing" to
"knowing" is a prominent theme in Thomas (perhaps it is even the
dominant theme). For lack of better terminology, I labeled this
phenomenon as Acts of Cognition. Sometimes it appears that these
acts are very explicitly described (e.g., 3.5, 5.1, 67, 80 91.1),
where "knowing" is specifically mentioned. In other instances the
cognitive process is only implied (involving acts of discovery,
disclosure, finding, seeing, hearing, etc.).
Somewhat similarly, there are many (implicit) allusions to
"cognitive conditions" which often take the form of "metaphors"
(in quotes 'cause I'm not sure this is the proper word).
Sometimes these "metaphors" seem to be positive (e.g., light,
living, and revelation). In other cases they appear to have a
negative quality (e.g., blindness, drunkenness and mystery).
Taken together, it seems to me, the positive and negative are
referential to the two poles of cognition (gnosia and agnosia).
They are not necessarily intentional dichotomies, except in the
sense that they have some inherent polarities.
The problem I'm having is not so much identifying the material in
which I see these characteristics, but trying to describe what I
see lucidly and cogently by using terminology that is meaningful.
Having described what I see in a rudimentary fashion, the
question I continue to have is whether the terms I have used are
Humble Maine Woodsman