look at something with the eye of flesh
- Thread starter RESPA
- Start date
Καλώς ήρθες, Respa
Μήπως μπορείς να δώσεις λίγο περισσότερο συγκείμενο; Ρίξε όμως και μια ματιά εδώ, στον Ιωβ 10-4, και στο πρωτότυπο ελληνικό του, εδώ: ἦ ὥσπερ βροτὸς ὁρᾷ καθορᾷς ἢ καθὼς ὁρᾷ ἄνθρωπος βλέψῃ;
Μήπως μπορείς να δώσεις λίγο περισσότερο συγκείμενο; Ρίξε όμως και μια ματιά εδώ, στον Ιωβ 10-4, και στο πρωτότυπο ελληνικό του, εδώ: ἦ ὥσπερ βροτὸς ὁρᾷ καθορᾷς ἢ καθὼς ὁρᾷ ἄνθρωπος βλέψῃ;
...
Tα παρακάτω ίσως να σε βοηθήσουν:
"For this triple vision, man was endowed with a triple eye, as explained by Hugh of St. Victor: the eye of flesh, of reason, and of contemplation; the eye of flesh, to see the world and what it contains; the eye of reason, to see the soul and what it contains; the eye of contemplation, to see God and that which is within Him."
— St. Bonaventure [born Giovanni di Fidanza] (1217-1274)
http://metaphors.lib.virginia.edu/metaphors/18101
256. Mysticism of St. Bonaventure. -- Intimate union with God is the term of all knowledge (De Reductione Artium ad Theologiam). It is achieved by a process with several distinct stages, all of which are described by St. Bonaventure, on the lines of the Victorine mysticism, in a comprehensive work entitled Itinerarium Mentis in Deum. Besides the eye of the flesh (oculus carnis) and the eye of reason (oculus rationis), there is also in every man an eye of contemplation (oculus contemplationis) (198).
http://maritain.nd.edu/jmc/etext/homp256.htm
In Eye to Eye: The Quest for a New Paradigm, Ken Wilber* argues for “a ‘transcendental paradigm,’ meaning an overall knowledge quest that would include not only the ‘hard ware’ of physical sciences but also the ‘soft ware’ of philosophy and psychology and the ‘transcendental ware’ of mystical-spiritual religion” (Garden City, NJ: Anchor-Doubleday, 1983). In answering the question of whether or not higher philosophical truths can be adequately validated, the author proposes three modes of attaining knowledge — each appropriate to a particular type of knowledge quest. He calls these modes: the eye of flesh, eye of reason, and the eye of contemplation.
The eye of flesh is employed in the study of subjects capable of detection by the five human senses. This is an empirical mode perceiving the external world of space, time, and objects. The eye of reason, or mind, is a rational mode and is a subtle realm participating in a world of ideas, images, logic, and concepts. This includes, but transcends, the sensory field. The eye of contemplation is a transcendental mode. It transcends the mental realm and results from “the contemplation of the Immutable, of the Self which is Reality, Consciousness, and Bliss.” Wilber goes on to explain that all humans possess each eye; each eye has its own objects of knowledge (sensory, mental, and transcendental); a higher eye cannot be reduced to nor explained in terms of a lower eye; and each eye is valid and useful in its own field, but commits a fallacy when it attempts to fully grasp, by itself, higher or lower realms. The author calls this fallacy a “category error.”
...
http://www.ahpweb.org/~ahpweb/images/stories/pub/perspective/june2002/apr2002spiritualinquiry.html
*THREE EYES OF THE SOUL
St. Bonaventure, a favourite philosopher of the mystics, taught that men and women have at least three modes of attaining knowledge- "three eyes," as he put it: the eye of flesh, by which we perceive the external world of space, time, and objects; the eye of reason, by which we attain a knowledge of philosophy, logic, and the mind itself, and the eye of contemplation, by which we rise to a knowledge of transcendent realities.
Now that particular wording - eye of flesh, mind, and contemplation - is Christian; but similar ideas can be found in every major school of traditional psychology, philosophy, and religion. The "three eyes" of a human being correspond, in fact, to the three major realms of being described by the perennial philosophy, which are the gross (flesh and material), the subtle (mental and animic), and the causal (transcendent and contemplative). These realms have been described extensively elsewhere, and I wish here only to point to their unanimity among traditional psychologists and philosophers.
...
Αν είμαι σε σωστό δρόμο, αναζήτησε και αυτά: cogitatio, meditatio, contemplatio.
Περαιτέρω δεν μπορώ να συνεισφέρω τώρα· είναι έξω από τα χωράφια μου και δεν προλαβαίνω να το μελετήσω.
Τα ματάκια μου έχουν να δουν ακόμα πολλούς υπότιτλους μέχρι το πρωί, both the eyes of flesh and those of reason.
Και καλωσήρθες. :)
Tα παρακάτω ίσως να σε βοηθήσουν:
"For this triple vision, man was endowed with a triple eye, as explained by Hugh of St. Victor: the eye of flesh, of reason, and of contemplation; the eye of flesh, to see the world and what it contains; the eye of reason, to see the soul and what it contains; the eye of contemplation, to see God and that which is within Him."
— St. Bonaventure [born Giovanni di Fidanza] (1217-1274)
http://metaphors.lib.virginia.edu/metaphors/18101
256. Mysticism of St. Bonaventure. -- Intimate union with God is the term of all knowledge (De Reductione Artium ad Theologiam). It is achieved by a process with several distinct stages, all of which are described by St. Bonaventure, on the lines of the Victorine mysticism, in a comprehensive work entitled Itinerarium Mentis in Deum. Besides the eye of the flesh (oculus carnis) and the eye of reason (oculus rationis), there is also in every man an eye of contemplation (oculus contemplationis) (198).
http://maritain.nd.edu/jmc/etext/homp256.htm
In Eye to Eye: The Quest for a New Paradigm, Ken Wilber* argues for “a ‘transcendental paradigm,’ meaning an overall knowledge quest that would include not only the ‘hard ware’ of physical sciences but also the ‘soft ware’ of philosophy and psychology and the ‘transcendental ware’ of mystical-spiritual religion” (Garden City, NJ: Anchor-Doubleday, 1983). In answering the question of whether or not higher philosophical truths can be adequately validated, the author proposes three modes of attaining knowledge — each appropriate to a particular type of knowledge quest. He calls these modes: the eye of flesh, eye of reason, and the eye of contemplation.
The eye of flesh is employed in the study of subjects capable of detection by the five human senses. This is an empirical mode perceiving the external world of space, time, and objects. The eye of reason, or mind, is a rational mode and is a subtle realm participating in a world of ideas, images, logic, and concepts. This includes, but transcends, the sensory field. The eye of contemplation is a transcendental mode. It transcends the mental realm and results from “the contemplation of the Immutable, of the Self which is Reality, Consciousness, and Bliss.” Wilber goes on to explain that all humans possess each eye; each eye has its own objects of knowledge (sensory, mental, and transcendental); a higher eye cannot be reduced to nor explained in terms of a lower eye; and each eye is valid and useful in its own field, but commits a fallacy when it attempts to fully grasp, by itself, higher or lower realms. The author calls this fallacy a “category error.”
...
http://www.ahpweb.org/~ahpweb/images/stories/pub/perspective/june2002/apr2002spiritualinquiry.html
*THREE EYES OF THE SOUL
St. Bonaventure, a favourite philosopher of the mystics, taught that men and women have at least three modes of attaining knowledge- "three eyes," as he put it: the eye of flesh, by which we perceive the external world of space, time, and objects; the eye of reason, by which we attain a knowledge of philosophy, logic, and the mind itself, and the eye of contemplation, by which we rise to a knowledge of transcendent realities.
Now that particular wording - eye of flesh, mind, and contemplation - is Christian; but similar ideas can be found in every major school of traditional psychology, philosophy, and religion. The "three eyes" of a human being correspond, in fact, to the three major realms of being described by the perennial philosophy, which are the gross (flesh and material), the subtle (mental and animic), and the causal (transcendent and contemplative). These realms have been described extensively elsewhere, and I wish here only to point to their unanimity among traditional psychologists and philosophers.
...
Αν είμαι σε σωστό δρόμο, αναζήτησε και αυτά: cogitatio, meditatio, contemplatio.
Περαιτέρω δεν μπορώ να συνεισφέρω τώρα· είναι έξω από τα χωράφια μου και δεν προλαβαίνω να το μελετήσω.
Τα ματάκια μου έχουν να δουν ακόμα πολλούς υπότιτλους μέχρι το πρωί, both the eyes of flesh and those of reason.
Και καλωσήρθες. :)
Ευχαριστώ και τους 2. Είναι κριτική του Chesterton και μιλάει για τους πολιτικούς της εποχής εκείνης και τις πρακτικές κρατικής διαφθοράς. Πόσο επίκαιρο!!
Σε κάποιο σημείο λέει: If it fell to our lot to behold (with the eye of flesh) what seemed to be Mr Lloyd George (άγγλος π/θ των αρχών του προηγούμενου αιώνα) lying in a hammock and smoking a costly cigar, we should know that the expenditure would be divided between the X Department and the Z Report.
αν μας λάχαινε (σε μας τους απλούς πολίτες) ν' αντικρίσουμε (με ανθρώπινη ματιά/ απλά/ στην καθημερινότητά μας) κάποιον που φαινόταν νάναι ο κ. Λόυντ Τζωρτζ ξαπλωμένο σε αιώρα να καπνίζει ακριβά πούρα, να ξέρουμε/ πρέπει να ξέρουμε ότι η δαπάνη αυτή βαρύνει εξ ημισίας το ... και το ...
Σε κάποιο σημείο λέει: If it fell to our lot to behold (with the eye of flesh) what seemed to be Mr Lloyd George (άγγλος π/θ των αρχών του προηγούμενου αιώνα) lying in a hammock and smoking a costly cigar, we should know that the expenditure would be divided between the X Department and the Z Report.
αν μας λάχαινε (σε μας τους απλούς πολίτες) ν' αντικρίσουμε (με ανθρώπινη ματιά/ απλά/ στην καθημερινότητά μας) κάποιον που φαινόταν νάναι ο κ. Λόυντ Τζωρτζ ξαπλωμένο σε αιώρα να καπνίζει ακριβά πούρα, να ξέρουμε/ πρέπει να ξέρουμε ότι η δαπάνη αυτή βαρύνει εξ ημισίας το ... και το ...
Καλωσήρθες, Respa. Καλά το έχεις καταλάβει. Ο Τσέστερτον εννοεί τα απλά, καθημερινά μάτια μας, τα σάρκινα μάτια μας, αυτά που έχουμε κάτω από τα φρύδια — όχι τα μάτια του νου ή τα μάτια της ψυχής ή όποια άλλα μάτια μπορεί να υποθέτουμε ότι υπάρχουν. Άρα εννοεί να δούμε στην πραγματικότητα και όχι στη φαντασία ή στο όνειρό μας. Προτείνετε έναν ταιριαστό δικό μας ιδιωματισμό. Μήπως «με σάρκα και οστά»;
Παρατηρησούλες:
... ξαπλωμένος σε αιώρα ... εξ ημισείας ...
Γιατί όχι «ένα ακριβό πούρο»;
Παρατηρησούλες:
... ξαπλωμένος σε αιώρα ... εξ ημισείας ...
Γιατί όχι «ένα ακριβό πούρο»;