Jim Rockhill:
Quote:From Wikipedia (as a handy reference): "According to Otto the numinous experience has two aspects: mysterium tremendum, which is the tendency to invoke fear and trembling; and mysterium fascinas, the tendency to attract, fascinate and compel. The numinous experience also has a personal quality to it, in that the person feels to be in communion with a wholly other."
And an incorrect reference, as well. Read
The Idea of the Holy, rather than quickly cribbed notes from the Internet, if you really want to understand the concept as Otto intends it. For one thing, the entire idea of the numinous cannot be decoupled from the idea of the sacred or the holy. Where exactly in Campbell's "numinous" fiction do you find this coupling?
Also, if you bother to read Otto, you'll notice that the
fascinans aspect is a later addendum by commentators.
Re. Oxford: I never stated that your entire argument rests upon your reverent citation of the Oxford volume, but if the purpose was not to bolster your view, then why did you refer to it ? Since this appeal to authority obviously
was to bolster your view, it is open to the criticism I have laid.
Quote:Kyberean's pronunciations on this topic have been characterized more by the solemnity with which he presents his opinions than by the quality of evidence he has used to bolster it.
Here, we have the pot calling the kettle black. In addition, Jim seems to have misunderstood the entire nature of the discussion. I have from the outset made clear that I am merely presenting my opinions. I am not trying to "prove" anything, especially something that cannot be proven objectively, such as literary quality or merit. Surely, there's no need to translate
de gustibus, with which I headed yesterday's post, is there?
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 29 Jul 09 | 01:56PM by Kyberean.