I can’t speak for any other subscriber, but this substack has been a true treasure, and I am glad to see that it will continue. Whoever convinced you to start this deserves a bottle of fine wine and 2 box seats to a home game at Camden Yards.
If I may be blunt, I understand it to be sometimes customary (if not common) for writers (such as yourself) to have ‘fans’, people who are interested in ‘the man’ as much as that man’s work; and whilst I deeply admire your work for a great many and varied reasons, I appreciate this substack for reasons beyond just ‘you’ writing it - with that sublime prose accompanied by that vivacious voice.
Here, I have not just been allowed to educate myself about a great many things with which you have written on, but I’ve also learned from a great many others as well (guests you’ve had on, other writers you’ve referenced, and especially the thoughtful comments of many of the fellow readers here).
Quite simply, Mr. DBH, sir, you’ve created a wonderful intellectual and spiritual world (some might say, of Emerald 😉) with this substack, and anyone who stumbles (or valiantly marches!) into this Emerald World may hear ‘Voices’ 😉 which provide a true and sincere comfort, education, and illumination. Here, there is much to feast on and be nourished.
Because of this and more, we are all the better off for this substack, and I am glad that you are as excited for its future as we (the readers) are.
Now if only the O’s can go all the way. Then, this (and that) will be Heaven on Earth.
I expect it will come down to the very end for your Orioles; the Yankees are ever lurking.
I also want to thank you for your work on Leaves in the Wind. The subscription is well worth it. I prefer to do my reading offline, so this is one of the few sites I visit regularly and the only one I profit from with every visit. Judging by the other comments, that sentiment is shared broadly amongst your readership. My best to you going forward. Keep up the excellent work, and I particularly look forward to your foray into the blessed realm of children's literature.
I'd just like to mention that if theism is true, then there aren't really many different topics, because they're all reflections of the One. In that sense, wandering attention is actually focused attention. Perhaps there is something deep that moved some to depict the Christian cross over a circle (in the various ring cross forms, including the Celtic cross).
Thank you for this publication … I’ve gotten so much out of it -mainly expanding my reading thanks to your suggestions. Your enthusiasm and knowledge for literature is so cool to witness… you are appreciated!
Very excited by this mention of Ghost stories! Addison’s collection set me off on another ghost story kick. I’m currently reading Kwaidan again and it’s just perfect.
Well, I should say thank you for your books. It's been quite instrumental in expanding what belief in God is (or what it is not). Very interested in your take on Vedantic Christology. What is your opinion about the Hindu idea of categorizing Christ as just another important avatar leading us to the truth? My recent investigation of the "historical Jesus" is making it quite clear that nothing about Christ seems clear.
One more conversation request: I'd love to hear you talk to Timothy Morton about ecology, poetry, and religion. Here's the relatively short interview that got my attention: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oEnP2hqyAI
I have just seen that you will be coming to Australia. I live and work about 5 hours drive from Sydney, but I will see if I can make it down to one or more of your talks. Reading a few of your books now, I have a lingering question which I really hope to get your opinion on: I used to take for granted that 'the self', as designated by one's name, was an individual reality that was transcendental to the living out of one's life as an occasion of being/knowing (experiencing)/doing. After reading some Buddhist texts and having had some 'mystical' experiences (where, for example, a tree would no longer be presenting itself to me as a separate subject; I had become the occasion where the tree was celebrating itself to itself, standing in its own ontological ground), I am now inclined to think that I am not transcendental to to my lived reality; rather, I am the being, the knowing and the doing. My name is simply designating a particular address, or occasion, of Reality (as being/knowing/doing) doing 'its' thing. Some thoughts prevent me from a full embrace of this: one is my sense of responsibility for my self. But this sense does not, I think, need to be reified into a transcendental self. Another is wondering what the soteriological implications of this might be. David, as you are familiar with both Christianity and Buddhism, what are your thoughts on the issue of selfhood? Also, perhaps other readers here might have something to contribute? Cheers!
Can't wait. I think I am most looking forward to Vedantic Christology; and, I am sure other than the politics, is the topic that will excite the most amount of animosity and hate from some usual suspects. I've been trying to find time to do some reading in Hinduism, and India in general, but have not had much luck: The Wonder that Was India by A.L. Basham, in particularly, unless you have any other recommendations? Since I will be entering into graduate school for theology, I unfortunately don't see where I will find time in the near future. Maybe these articles will inspire me; or can be used as reading during my degree. Anyway, any update on the book on Consciousness?
Congratulations! I finally resolved my password issue months later!
I've always managed to accidentally figure things out late in the night, or early mornings.
It's interesting. Jesus said, "You are gods." I've been fixated on that in recent days and it's made more sense to me than ever before. I'm grateful for your thoughts, although I realize way in advance that I'm often quite the challenge to engage with. Hope all is well.
There is an essay on her in Isabelle Stengers 'Power and Invention: situating science':
'Is there a Women's Science' which I translated many years ago...
'BARBARA MCCLINTOCK is a scientist. Barbara McClintock belongs to a rare species of scientist; for nearly forty years she has carried out her research (which finally "had" to be awarded the Nobel Prize) in semi reclusion, considered as an incomprehensiblenut case by most of her colleagues. Barbara McClintock is a woman.
How should we arrange these three rough pieces of information?
Should we, as is sometimes the tendency in feminist writings, give first place to Barbara,pioneer in the exploration of what might be a women's science, and therefore
scorned and excluded by her male colleagues? Should we think of her story in terms
of the rhythms of science, of "premature" works, misunderstood because they deviated from "normal" disciplinary research and subsequently recognized as precursors
when this research imposes real problems that the consensus had until then defined
as illusory or poorly formulated? Following her example, should we reflect on
the tensions, the choices that set different styles of science apart from and against
each other? Finally, should we see in the passion that inhabits her life a particularly
intense manifestation of the specificity of the "life sciences," of those sciences that
interrogate something that is not exactly an object, separated out from the confusion of things by human understanding, since it, likewise, organizes its interactions with its milieu and only exists by way of the multiple inventions of meaning and coherence that it inherits?
I can’t speak for any other subscriber, but this substack has been a true treasure, and I am glad to see that it will continue. Whoever convinced you to start this deserves a bottle of fine wine and 2 box seats to a home game at Camden Yards.
If I may be blunt, I understand it to be sometimes customary (if not common) for writers (such as yourself) to have ‘fans’, people who are interested in ‘the man’ as much as that man’s work; and whilst I deeply admire your work for a great many and varied reasons, I appreciate this substack for reasons beyond just ‘you’ writing it - with that sublime prose accompanied by that vivacious voice.
Here, I have not just been allowed to educate myself about a great many things with which you have written on, but I’ve also learned from a great many others as well (guests you’ve had on, other writers you’ve referenced, and especially the thoughtful comments of many of the fellow readers here).
Quite simply, Mr. DBH, sir, you’ve created a wonderful intellectual and spiritual world (some might say, of Emerald 😉) with this substack, and anyone who stumbles (or valiantly marches!) into this Emerald World may hear ‘Voices’ 😉 which provide a true and sincere comfort, education, and illumination. Here, there is much to feast on and be nourished.
Because of this and more, we are all the better off for this substack, and I am glad that you are as excited for its future as we (the readers) are.
Now if only the O’s can go all the way. Then, this (and that) will be Heaven on Earth.
You are exceedingly kind. Now if only the Orioles can get Hays and Mountcastle and Means back on the field in top form.
I expect it will come down to the very end for your Orioles; the Yankees are ever lurking.
I also want to thank you for your work on Leaves in the Wind. The subscription is well worth it. I prefer to do my reading offline, so this is one of the few sites I visit regularly and the only one I profit from with every visit. Judging by the other comments, that sentiment is shared broadly amongst your readership. My best to you going forward. Keep up the excellent work, and I particularly look forward to your foray into the blessed realm of children's literature.
The sooner, the better.
I'd just like to mention that if theism is true, then there aren't really many different topics, because they're all reflections of the One. In that sense, wandering attention is actually focused attention. Perhaps there is something deep that moved some to depict the Christian cross over a circle (in the various ring cross forms, including the Celtic cross).
Can I request that "post-mechanistic life-sciences" be moved to the head of the list? I need that now.
Thank you for this publication … I’ve gotten so much out of it -mainly expanding my reading thanks to your suggestions. Your enthusiasm and knowledge for literature is so cool to witness… you are appreciated!
I’m touched. Honestly.
Very excited by this mention of Ghost stories! Addison’s collection set me off on another ghost story kick. I’m currently reading Kwaidan again and it’s just perfect.
Any fan of Lafcadio Hearn is a friend of mine.
I just reread Shadowings yesterday, forgot how much I loved it
Wonderful stuff.
My favorite LH
Well, I should say thank you for your books. It's been quite instrumental in expanding what belief in God is (or what it is not). Very interested in your take on Vedantic Christology. What is your opinion about the Hindu idea of categorizing Christ as just another important avatar leading us to the truth? My recent investigation of the "historical Jesus" is making it quite clear that nothing about Christ seems clear.
Well, to begin with, in Bhaktic thought there’s no such thing as “just another” avatar. But just wait—the series is on the way.
Gotcha. Looking forward to it!
Deo gloria.
I very much enjoy your articles dealing with Christian politics and am looking forward to the forthcoming one.
One more conversation request: I'd love to hear you talk to Timothy Morton about ecology, poetry, and religion. Here's the relatively short interview that got my attention: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oEnP2hqyAI
Hi David,
I have just seen that you will be coming to Australia. I live and work about 5 hours drive from Sydney, but I will see if I can make it down to one or more of your talks. Reading a few of your books now, I have a lingering question which I really hope to get your opinion on: I used to take for granted that 'the self', as designated by one's name, was an individual reality that was transcendental to the living out of one's life as an occasion of being/knowing (experiencing)/doing. After reading some Buddhist texts and having had some 'mystical' experiences (where, for example, a tree would no longer be presenting itself to me as a separate subject; I had become the occasion where the tree was celebrating itself to itself, standing in its own ontological ground), I am now inclined to think that I am not transcendental to to my lived reality; rather, I am the being, the knowing and the doing. My name is simply designating a particular address, or occasion, of Reality (as being/knowing/doing) doing 'its' thing. Some thoughts prevent me from a full embrace of this: one is my sense of responsibility for my self. But this sense does not, I think, need to be reified into a transcendental self. Another is wondering what the soteriological implications of this might be. David, as you are familiar with both Christianity and Buddhism, what are your thoughts on the issue of selfhood? Also, perhaps other readers here might have something to contribute? Cheers!
Many thanks from a very grateful reader. May your life be long!
Congratulations for the award, David ! To many more ahead !
I am so pleased to be on this journey with you, David. Some day I may even understand half of what you write!
Can't wait. I think I am most looking forward to Vedantic Christology; and, I am sure other than the politics, is the topic that will excite the most amount of animosity and hate from some usual suspects. I've been trying to find time to do some reading in Hinduism, and India in general, but have not had much luck: The Wonder that Was India by A.L. Basham, in particularly, unless you have any other recommendations? Since I will be entering into graduate school for theology, I unfortunately don't see where I will find time in the near future. Maybe these articles will inspire me; or can be used as reading during my degree. Anyway, any update on the book on Consciousness?
Congratulations! I finally resolved my password issue months later!
I've always managed to accidentally figure things out late in the night, or early mornings.
It's interesting. Jesus said, "You are gods." I've been fixated on that in recent days and it's made more sense to me than ever before. I'm grateful for your thoughts, although I realize way in advance that I'm often quite the challenge to engage with. Hope all is well.
Fantastico! Looking forward to all those enticing topics - particularly 'mind in nature'. I remember Bateson's book of the same title...
Just came across this:
https://aeon.co/essays/why-did-darwins-20th-century-followers-get-evolution-so-wrong?fbclid=IwAR0ptvdLMrCIWMbNy6aD_wUs8pqXBEkwMM8iEqU3oey4PH-BxEPaU8CpWzE
Shapiro was a student of the great Barbara McClintock, incidentally
There is an essay on her in Isabelle Stengers 'Power and Invention: situating science':
'Is there a Women's Science' which I translated many years ago...
'BARBARA MCCLINTOCK is a scientist. Barbara McClintock belongs to a rare species of scientist; for nearly forty years she has carried out her research (which finally "had" to be awarded the Nobel Prize) in semi reclusion, considered as an incomprehensiblenut case by most of her colleagues. Barbara McClintock is a woman.
How should we arrange these three rough pieces of information?
Should we, as is sometimes the tendency in feminist writings, give first place to Barbara,pioneer in the exploration of what might be a women's science, and therefore
scorned and excluded by her male colleagues? Should we think of her story in terms
of the rhythms of science, of "premature" works, misunderstood because they deviated from "normal" disciplinary research and subsequently recognized as precursors
when this research imposes real problems that the consensus had until then defined
as illusory or poorly formulated? Following her example, should we reflect on
the tensions, the choices that set different styles of science apart from and against
each other? Finally, should we see in the passion that inhabits her life a particularly
intense manifestation of the specificity of the "life sciences," of those sciences that
interrogate something that is not exactly an object, separated out from the confusion of things by human understanding, since it, likewise, organizes its interactions with its milieu and only exists by way of the multiple inventions of meaning and coherence that it inherits?
The answer is yes to all those questions, I suspect.