tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1824261000607570706.post5116566633009303151..comments2023-07-03T11:49:37.837+01:00Comments on Theologies: Theology WinsMarikahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02613745498284783614noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1824261000607570706.post-89791560519710456202012-05-30T20:32:44.474+01:002012-05-30T20:32:44.474+01:00I agree. At this point it just sounds nonsensical ...I agree. At this point it just sounds nonsensical to me; I'm interested to see how Milbank fleshes it out. But it does seem to me to be related to one of the things that most troubles me about Milbank's work: not just that he thinks there is a good metaphysics, a discourse of non-mastery that can master all other discourses, but that he thinks that <i>he has access to that discourse.</i> I mean, surely if you spend a whole book talking about how theology has screwed things up, you should at least be prepared to consider the possibility that you, too, are screwing things up rather than solving all the problems?Marikahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02613745498284783614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1824261000607570706.post-131408667285164862012-05-28T21:24:31.673+01:002012-05-28T21:24:31.673+01:00Dark Horizon remains silent, it seems, and so I ha...Dark Horizon remains silent, it seems, and so I have a reflection.<br /><br />It occurs to me that my basic problem with Milbank's project is expressed perfectly in that sentence that you quote: how can one 'assert' a discourse of non-mastery without thereby betraying that discourse? When you get to part four, in his discussion of Derrida, you find Milbank arguing that in Derrida there is this presupposition that all repetition is betrayal - so that differing that one always finds in the move from signified to signifier is construed as a kind of betrayal, rather than a faithful repetition with difference. But I find something a little bit similar to be going on here: the only way for 'non-mastery' to really appear in its peaceableness is being assertion as the REAL master narrative. <br /><br />I guess one could always invoke paradox here, but I am suspicious of that. I think that a discourse of non-mastery has to pay the price for being what it is, and be mastered - or appear to be mastered, or else rendered mute - by master discourses.<br /><br />Of course, I realise that Milbank has in a great many ways argued that metaphysics is a) unavoidable; and b)in harmony with the Christian ethic of peace, etc. And I haven't worked out exactly yet why I don't buy this. But it seems to me that there is something wrong in that sentence, and it's something that goes quite deep into his thought.Stuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17538468339036886047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1824261000607570706.post-20189447526671089952012-05-16T13:36:55.775+01:002012-05-16T13:36:55.775+01:00Any chance you could elaborate on that a little? W...Any chance you could elaborate on that a little? What sort of things have I missed?Marikahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02613745498284783614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1824261000607570706.post-32431048168203701012012-05-15T20:30:27.473+01:002012-05-15T20:30:27.473+01:00you may want to reread the introduction as, judgin...you may want to reread the introduction as, judging from your synopsis, you seem to have missed a great deal....The Dark Horizonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1824261000607570706.post-63121842405565599872012-05-10T11:39:01.876+01:002012-05-10T11:39:01.876+01:00Help me, Obi-One-Theology, you're my only hope...Help me, Obi-One-Theology, you're my only hope!Gabriellenoreply@blogger.com