AtDDtA(15): A Space No Longer Entirely Readable

[Mark Kohut]

Dave,
   
  From your last posted URL link to Durkheim:
   
  The ways in which the different groups and people explain the world, and the relationship between the spiritual and natural world, will affect the usefulness of the term. If you think that God, or the spirit of the world, is immanent, you will have a world in which the entire world is endowed with spiritual importance. If you describe this idea of ‘spiritual importance’ as the sacred, everything will be sacred, however, the conception of the sacred you will be using will be nothing like that which Durkheim uses, because there is nothing that distinguishes it from the ordinary.
   
  The anthropologists/sociologists 'refute" Durheim's distinction by citing "primitive", aboriginal
  societies......just the kind Pynchon offers as THE GOOD KIND!.......
   
  Do we think----spiritual experts! ---and all, that TRP loves a "world which is [was] [would be] 
  endowed with spiritual importance" for the ordinary?

Dave Monroe <against.the.dave at gmail.com> wrote:
  On 8/6/07, Mark Kohut wrote:

> But he seems to have also read Durkheim..."Sacred and the Profane"

http://www.hewett.norfolk.sch.uk/curric/soc/durkheim/durkw3.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred-profane_dichotomy

http://epress.anu.edu.au/nts/mobile_devices/ch06s03.html

But do post an URL for yr wiki entry, I'm unclear as to how to find it
on my ownsome ...


       
---------------------------------
Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows.
Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20070806/93c7e3d5/attachment-0001.html>