Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

3306RE: [thomism] Re: The Inquisitors Manual

Expand Messages
  • CHUA Soo Meng Jude (PLS)
    Oct 6, 2011

      Dear Glenn

      Many thanks for this.  I think I should have a copy here. I thought, while on this topic of misspellings, to share what happened yesterday:

      I  shared my new cartoon and cover of the Manual on my facebook: Of course, beside the Dominican friars with the camera, it reads: “The Inquisitor’s Manual: Photo-semioethic Studies

      A friend wrote back to say:

      I must apologise: when I first glanced at the title, I saw: “Photo Semi-erotic Studies”

      I had a good laugh.  This sounds like what McLuhen was getting at, except that this time the word photography lends itself to associations with nudist erotic ideas, perhaps. 

      Jude

      p.s. on a separate note, what do our thomist friends think of the idea that our grasp of first principles is a kind of abduction?  I’ve been re-reading my Terence Irwin’s Aristotle’s first principles, and he argues strongly for the case that Aristotle had to have a theory of intuition and must rely on that for his account of our knowledge of first principles.  Unlike deduction, abduction is somewhat creative, but at the same time not whimsical.  Natural law theorists like Finnis and George insist that for them, the first practical principles are not data-less intuitions, but grasped from data given in experience.  I’m suggesting that, since this is neither deduction or induction, then it could well be a kind of abduction.  I suggest something like this here: http://inquisitorsmanual.wordpress.com/chapter-3-signs-of-good-and-evil/ but will be developing a lengthier paper on this point.

       

       

      From: thomism@yahoogroups.com [mailto:thomism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of rglencoughlin
      Sent: Thursday, 6 October, 2011 11:56 PM
      To: thomism@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [thomism] Re: The Inquisitors Manual

       

       

      The book you mention, by Marshall McLuhen, was published under the title "The Medium is the Message" and also under the title "The Medium is the Massage.' My brother, an English lit prof, has copies under both names. He thinks it was a joke; the point being that one misreads the title as "The Medium is the Message" because the context or the medium determines that you do so. The misspelling, and the fact that most people automatically misread it so as to correct it mentally, is an example of the thesis of the book, in other words. McLuhan was an English Prof at University of Toronto.
      Glen

      --- In thomism@yahoogroups.com, "CHUA Soo Meng Jude (PLS)" <jude.chua@...> wrote:

      >
      > Dear Friends
      >
      > You might find my www.inquisitorsmanual.wordpress.com<
      href="http://www.inquisitorsmanual.wordpress.com">http://www.inquisitorsmanual.wordpress.com> to be of interest
      >
      > I'll be developing some more thomistic pages in time.
      >
      > Of course comments and suggestions welcome.
      >
      > Any thomists you know write about photography? Recommendations for
      literature much welcome. I know there's a book wrongly titled, The medium is the massage
      >
      > Jude
      > National Institute of Education (Singapore) http://www.nie.edu.sg
      >
      > DISCLAIMER : The information contained in this email, including any
      attachments, may contain confidential information.
      > This email is intended only for the use of the addressee(s) listed above.
      Unauthorised sight, dissemination or any other
      > use of the information contained in this email is strictly prohibited. If
      you have received this email by fault, please
      > notify the sender and delete it immediately.
      >

    • Show all 5 messages in this topic