Giulianzo's Plato’s Academy of Florence and the Confraternity of the Magi discussion

What book did you recently finish and what book did you start/are reading now?

I just finished...
The Night Circus by Erin Morgenstern


I just started...
New York by Edward Rutherfurd

I just started 'The Picture of Dorian Gray' by Oscar Wilde, and finished 'The Fellowship of the Ring' by J.R.R. Tolkien.
The Picture of Dorian Gray
The Fellowship of the Ring

I just finished reading Waking up married. And it was amazing and so cute!! XD
I am now almost done with pride and prejudice and that took me long to finish because it is so hard to understand but once you get it and the book is great!!!

Just finished New York;

Now I'm reading...
Chocolat

I'm reading "The Call of the wild" and "The Road from Home." Both are for school, but I'm still loving them. :)

Lucky, my school chooses terrible books. The only one I liked was A Midsummer Night's Dream but we could've read something more interesting...

Now I"m reading The Birth of Venus (strangely not about the painting) and Coniurationis Commentarium, about the Pazzi Conspiracy which killed Giuliano de' Medici (the first half of Giulianzo) :D

What kind of books did you read in school?

Also, I'm currently reading The War of the Worlds by H.G. Wells and should get going on Crime and Punishment.

Like cheesy books that you wouldn't read otherwise. Ever heard of "Weasel?" Yah I didn't think so...

Haha, you're right. I haven't heard of it. Who is it by, though? If you're referring to the Weasel book I found, the cover looks pretty darn bad.

Yeah is it the the one with the youngish man with a gun and he looks all freaked out but not really?

Exactly that one. (The cover looks kinda dorky)

Yeah it was really bad.

I just started reading this book (this shows how obsessive I can be) and on the back it says that Giuliano de' Medici is in it (everyone loved Lorenzo because he was alive longer - that doesn't mean that Giuliano isn't cool!) and so I began to read it and like the second sentence is "Il Magnifico is dead!" Liaaaarrrsss!!! It's not 'Giuliano de Medici' it's 'Giuliano de Medici, Duke of Neumors' or 'Giuliano di Lorenzo de Medici'!!!! Now Donna Jo Napoli is on my list of people to write lettes to...

Emma wrote: "What book did you recently finish and what book did you start/are reading now?

I just finished...
The Night Circus by Erin Morgenstern
[bookcover:The Night Circus|9..."

Loved the Night Circus! Did you enjoy it

My god it was amazing!!!!!! Every year for Christmas, my family in Seattle sends me a book (my parents get cookies but they have nuts and in allergic) and this past year it was that book. I read it in like 3 nights - I stayed up until like 2 in the morning reading! I hope they make a movie :) it was optioned!!

For school:




For fun:

Tara-- I wish my school would have us read books like that! I have a good chance at good literature this year though because my teacher is pretty cool :)
and I bought the one about Mozart's sister but never read it :P is it any good?

Anyway I'm reading...
Interpreter of Maladies (for school) and The Three Musketeers :)

So far I'm liking it, but I'm not too deep into it. And yes, I really like our school literature this year. We just finished up some Antigone summaries (we'll study that one next year so my teacher couldn't actually teach the book, but he wanted to expose us to it) and now we're launching into The Odyssey. It's kind of crazy how so many books just seem to be retellings of classic stories.

Haha its so true! :D

Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, translated by Max Müller. Voluminous and hard to read, but ... rewarding at the same time. It's a task!

Pelagius wrote: "Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, translated by Max Müller. Voluminous and hard to read, but ... rewarding at the same time. It's a task!"

Ah, big books... I understand the struggle, but I love big books and I cannot lie ^_^

I think the length itself is not so much the "problem" but the density of the content itself... the subject matter and his rigor can be exhausting.

What are you reading right now?

Pelagius wrote: "I think the length itself is not so much the "problem" but the density of the content itself... the subject matter and his rigor can be exhausting.

What are you reading right now?"

I'm currently reading "The Bluest Eye" by Toni Morrison, which is fascinating, but I've been told that it's not as dense as "Beloved," so I'm looking forward to that.

I definitely agree! Especially when works are older and require more research, such as Dickens, it often takes a longer time. But works that are lighter, like Dumas, can be read faster.

Hi :) I'm reading Water for Elephants (a friend bought it for me) and I'm almost done... What to read next, though, is a heavy question.

When choosing "the next book" to read, do you guys follow a certain method, or pure emotion.. or something in between. Aside from schoolwork, of course.

Uhm recently I've been sort of basing it on what were doing in my classes... European history, art history, "world literature"- either something that goes along with it or something that's a contrast.
Usually it's a spur of the moment choice. Other times I've been planning to read books for a while. But if you look on my shelves you'll see "need-to-read" which are books I'm more likely to read next.
I just finished that other one and now an reading The Scarlet Pimpernel. I was inspired by Blackadder actually haha. :)

Pelagius wrote: "When choosing "the next book" to read, do you guys follow a certain method, or pure emotion.. or something in between. Aside from schoolwork, of course."

For the past two years, I've done various reading challenges, which requires me to read books for certain categories. As a result, I'm usually choosing between those books depending on how I'm feeling. What about you?

It's been different through the years. When I was a teenager, I did a lot of more reading for pleasure, fortunately, I had "deep enough" though vane interests, so I got on with Tolkien and Dostoievsky before I turned 16.

Then I lost perspective and would only read exclusively with a very lazy attitude. I would NEVER move towards any topic, and would only read what caught my imagination, that's how I got a bit of Asimov. My present attitude is inverted in this aspect, and a big part of it were a series of books I read which served as mental exercises.

Through my 20s, I sort of reawakened to a meaning in life, and I started reading more and more with the intention of knowing things, or better understanding concepts. This makes me read books I normally would not read for fun. I never waste too much time if I dislike the book, but I do try to scan it well (happened to me with an academic review of the scholarly topics on Magic and Religion last month...).

Unavoidably, it has taken me into philosophy, history and sociology, especially on the edges between the scholarly and the fringe, where the actual "freer" ideas exist. Anything that grows to close to the center tends to be heavily politicized, or too far, for that matter...

So yeah... something like that.... that said, what I most ENJOY, purely for the emotional thrill of it, is esoteric literature, but I am extremely choosy when it comes to that, just as I am when choosing delicious epic fantasy and sci-fi!

But currently, I intuitively choose books along the lines of what I want to understand. The direction is born in me, i only ask for starting points when I am aware that I know absolutely nothing about something in particular. If I think the topic is something touchy, I try to take my time in choosing and will gravitate towards both extremes and try and stay aloof and only gradually develop a view.

I try to read books that don't seem too sappy or anything - which is why I tend to distrust those super popular books, especially here on Goodreads.

Emma wrote: "I try to read books that don't seem too sappy or anything - which is why I tend to distrust those super popular books, especially here on Goodreads."

EXACTLY!
I hear you!
It's not elitism for its own sake, but I am immediately distrustful of anything too popular. That said, I may well try it if a friend recommends it in a certain way...

I was reading Swedenborg's True Christianity and Theresa Of Avila's Interior Castle, but those have been put on hold. I've started reading John Tauler (whom I've already read some of) and Francis Lee's commentary on 4 Ezra. My shelves are open to the public though. Anyone can read my reviews and are free to comment.

Erick wrote: "I was reading Swedenborg's True Christianity and Theresa Of Avila's Interior Castle, but those have been put on hold. I've started reading John Tauler (whom I've already read some of) and Francis L..."

It's like you're reading my mind Tauler and Theresa of Avila's Interior Castle have long been in my list!

The original of the Interior Castle must be in Spanish, though, right? I've only gotten my hands on English versions, strangely enough @@

Im going to Spain this summer :D fortunately I don't speak Spanish otherwise I wouldn't have enough room in my suitcase for the flight home heheh

Pelagius wrote: "The original of the Interior Castle must be in Spanish, though, right? I've only gotten my hands on English versions, strangely enough @@"

If one can read something in the original language, one should certainly do it. John Tauler's works were originally in Middle High German however and many Germans would not even be able to read him today in the original language with full comprehension. I don't figure Spanish has changed that much since the 16th century though. I have two friends that decided to read the Interior Castle with me and they wanted to read it in English even though they're Ecuadorian and could've probably read it in the original. I've read a number of the Spanish mystics and I think the translations in English are probably good enough.

They must be good enough, I am sure.
And I will definitely read Tauler in English, and someday in my life, in German.

I will do my best to find The Interior Castle in Spanish, as I can read Spanish almost s well as I can English...

Thing is, mysticism in literature is a very particular thing... a lot more may be lost in translation because one thing that, as far as I understand, characterizes it, is the displacement of meanings, so that it is very hard to be certain what the original author meant. And in translating we translate meanings, not words, usually, but mystics are not exposing meanings when they write, they are exposing symbols, opaque ones at that, and performing transpositions of them, so to speak; sometimes its not about what is said but how it is said and the impact on the mind of the reader.

Pelagius wrote: "Thing is, mysticism in literature is a very particular thing... a lot more may be lost in translation because one thing that, as far as I understand, characterizes it, is the displacement of meanings, so that it is very hard to be certain what the original author meant."

This is actually equally true even reading it in the original; as many translators of works by Eckhart and others, will profess. In many cases even in the original language the meaning is incredibly ambiguous. Reading mystical works is similar to reading poetry and yes, there is a danger that meaning will be lost, but here is the thing: mystical literature is primarily a spiritual writing, therefore, it is an intuitive undertaking. When enough of the nuance is there and it is exposed to the right individual, the spirit will transcend the boundaries of everyday language, because it is not just an undertaking of reading comprehension and bare semiotics.

Pelagius wrote: "...but mystics are not exposing meanings when they write, they are exposing symbols, opaque ones at that, and performing transpositions of them, so to speak; sometimes its not about what is said but how it is said and the impact on the mind of the reader. "

Let me address your point here. I do agree that Christian mystics use symbolic language, but if by opaque symbols you mean the meaning is relative and not at all objectively and substantively meaningful, I don't necessarily agree. What is required is that the person interpreting the symbols has had, or is at least capable of having, an analogous spiritual experience. Words are symbols and context gives symbols/words clarified meaning. Spiritual experience is also contextual and only someone who has had similar experiences will fully understand what is being described. The meaning is spiritual primarily, not semiotic, is the point I'm making.

!!!!!!!!!!!

Now that you put it that way, it makes complete sense. It was a sort of undecided issue for me, but you are right, in mysticism, the language should matter even LESS, not more.

Thank you.

Erick wrote: "Pelagius wrote: "...but mystics are not exposing meanings when they write, they are exposing symbols, opaque ones at that, and performing transpositions of them, so to speak; sometimes its not abou..."

Ah, no, I do not think that meanings are relative, but that words and whole expressions are not necessarily intended to mean what they originally do, at times. And that the use of impact, such as expressing apparent paradoxes, is prominent. It is opaque in the sense that we do not "see through to the clear meaning", but that the impact of the first impression is important.

I am also not talking about Christian mystics alone, although here we are referring primarily to them. And in any case, you are definitely much more knowledgeable than I am.

Pelagius wrote: "Ah, no, I do not think that meanings are relative, but that words and whole expressions are not necessarily intended to mean what they originally do, at times. And that the use of impact, such as expressing apparent paradoxes, is prominent. It is opaque in the sense that we do not "see through to the clear meaning", but that the impact of the first impression is important."

Thank you for clarifying. I agree.

Pelagius wrote: "I am also not talking about Christian mystics alone, although here we are referring primarily to them. And in any case, you are definitely much more knowledgeable than I am. "

The Christian Mystics are what I am well read in; so that is the only kind of mysticism I am knowledgeable about. I wouldn't speak about people like Gurdjieff, Blavatsky and Crowley because other than the first name, I think they were all disturbed pseudo-mystics. There is actually a difference though between mysticism and esotericism/occultism. This is often not fully appreciated by people exploring those subjects. Someone like Gurdjieff I wouldn't consider a mystic personally, although I might find some things of philosophical value in his writings.

Pelagius wrote: "!!!!!!!!!!!

Now that you put it that way, it makes complete sense. It was a sort of undecided issue for me, but you are right, in mysticism, the language should matter even LESS, not more.

Thank you."


You are welcome. I am often worried that I am not making myself understood.

The Christian Mystics are what I am well read in; so that is the only kind of mysticism I am knowledgeable about. I wouldn't speak about people like Gurdjieff, Blavatsky and Crowley because other than the first name, I think they were all disturbed pseudo-mystics. There is actually a difference though between mysticism and esotericism/occultism. This is often not fully appreciated by people exploring those subjects. Someone like Gurdjieff I wouldn't consider a mystic personally, although I might find some things of philosophical value in his writings.

I think occultism/obscurantism is a very delicate topic, and like other, more "underground genres", I think it has hidden gems, but needs to be approached with caution, discernment, and some willingness to get a little lost, as long as one has a "safe route back".

There is a component of mysticism in it, but I wouldn't say that obscurantism/occultism is itself encapsuled under the first.

Personally, I do not think Blavatsky considered herself a mystic, although other people may. I also distinguish her greatly from the likes of Crowley, who seems to me too bent on showmanship for me to be interested seriously in him, even though he was obviously versed in the "mental exercise" of it all.

I'd say that a crucial difference between Christian mysticism and obscurantism is the degree of mental/spiritual danger, the enormous amount of bullshit one has to ignore, aside. I mean the nonsense authors, not the "nonsense" of the good authors, which is the mystic technique taken to overdrive, as you say, perhaps PSEUDO MYSTICISM, which is a nice descriptor, but I do not see why it should necessarily be negative if one knows how to use it.

I've never read Gurdjieff, but I've read/heard the name.

I've also been meaning to read St. John of the Cross, what do you make of him? would you recommend him?

Pelagius wrote: "I've also been meaning to read St. John of the Cross, what do you make of him? would you recommend him?"

I've read his Dark Night Of The Soul a couple of times and I like him very much. He's on my favorite writers list in fact.

When I wasn't a Christian I took occultism more seriously. I now think it's mostly a bunch of smoke and mirrors and impressive language that hides nihilism and pseudo-spirituality. That was my experience of it and I am convinced it's correct. Some Christian mystics after the renaissance and the reformation became more influenced by esoteric disciplines and this, unfortunately, often tainted Christian mysticism, it didn't make it better. I like Boehme, Paracelsus, Weigel etc, to a degree, but their writings suffer from an over indulgence in, and an over dependence on, esotericism. In most of these writers I may find things of philosophical value, but not always of spiritual value, unfortunately.

I agree on the overindulgence.

however, I do not place a superior value on Christian tradition itself, as it itself arises from older ones.

For instance... have you given time to ancient Indian scripture? It strikes me as far more mature and developed than the Christian ideas of black-and-white, God as father-protector, etc. If you haven't, please do, if you read it without taking Christianity as dogma, that is, that you won't reject different ideas out of hand, then I am convinced that you may perceive great sense in it.

I actually think that the biggest accomplishment of Christian mysticism was, at times, transcending this idea of the simple personal God, and they did a better job at it than the rationalist Aristotelianism of Aquinas, who tries to explain and rationalize the unexplainable as if it were a "matter of fact" thing.

I find that despite the overindulgence, the attempt of the "smoke and mirrors" (because in most the cases, that's actually what they are), are to go beyond the limitations of human beings, in the sense that Kant explained them.

Nihilism doesn't bother me, as long as one does not stay inside nihilism, which doesn't do anything. Nihilism is good insofar as it creates a blank slate, and sets you in a position whence you can observe bare surfaces, and dogmas can be under inspection, instead of dictating what you SHOULD believe (they cease to be dogmas and they become possibilities to be evaluated against what we CAN know).

Pelagius wrote: "however, I do not place a superior value on Christian tradition itself, as it itself arises from older ones."

Yeah, Judaism.

Pelagius wrote: "For instance... have you given time to ancient Indian scripture? "

Yes, I have. It is totally different than Christianity. It's spiritual ambivalence is incompatible with Christian tradition. Nevertheless, there are people that do violence to both traditions by trying to mix them. The result is an ugly frankenstein monster. The attempt to mix them is disrespectful to both. I loathe attempts to do so.

Pelagius wrote: "...have you given time to ancient Indian scripture? It strikes me as far more mature and developed than the Christian ideas of black-and-white, God as father-protector, etc. If you haven't, please do, if you read it without taking Christianity as dogma, that is, that you won't reject different ideas out of hand, then I am convinced that you may perceive great sense in it."

I do disagree it's more mature. In the West people have a tendency to romanticize exotic traditions. Hinduism is one of the most notable examples of this. It influenced theosophy and, more notably, the New Age movement. In genuine Hinduism, the gods are often morally and ethically ambivalent and Hinduism itself instituted prejudice with a caste system. Once again, totally at odds with Christianity. I do strongly disagree that it's more mature. I have seen some things of philosophical value in it, not of spiritual value.

Pelagius wrote: "I actually think that the biggest accomplishment of Christian mysticism was, at times, transcending this idea of the simple personal God, and they did a better job at it than the rationalist Aristotelianism of Aquinas, who tries to explain and rationalize the unexplainable as if it were a "matter of fact" thing."

Genuine Christian mysticism balances apophatic theology with kataphatic theology. To lose the balance is to lose the point. Transcendence by itself is no better than atheism; imminence by itself is only a mundane animism/pantheism.

Pelagius wrote: "I find that despite the overindulgence, the attempt of the "smoke and mirrors" (because in most the cases, that's actually what they are), are to go beyond the limitations of human beings, in the sense that Kant explained them. "

Kant was very this worldly; no nonsense. He was an epistemologist and didn't speculate on what noumena can mean in the abstract. You have to turn to the Idealists to find philosophers that were more open to that kind of speculation. German Idealism is my kind of philosophy.

Pelagius wrote: "Nihilism doesn't bother me, as long as one does not stay inside nihilism, which doesn't do anything. Nihilism is good insofar as it creates a blank slate, and sets you in a position whence you can observe bare surfaces, and dogmas can be under inspection, instead of dictating what you SHOULD believe (they cease to be dogmas and they become possibilities to be evaluated against what we CAN know). "

I don't think this follows. Nihilism is based on the Latin "nihilo" meaning "nothing". Nihilism is the belief that everything is meaningless. One cannot start with a negative and hope to get a positive. For one to have a "surface", or in fact a foundation of any kind, one must first admit of something with substance. All possibilities and all knowledge must be founded on something. One does not progress from a simple negative perspective. All practical doubts and negatives must be based on verities and positives. It is not logically possible to do it the other way around; although the very dubious Cartesian method claimed one could.

Although I agree with some of what you say, and learn a lot from some of your remarks, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the whole.

You value faith and are on a very Christian point of view, which is your choice and your path.

I am averse to such unjustified dogmatism.

And I didnt say nihilism contains other things, I said nihilism can be a point of departure.

Read my comment again and you will see the difference.

Pelagius wrote: "I am averse to such unjustified dogmatism."

If that's the way you interpret it, that's fine with me; I have a tendency to interpret your method as relativistic nihilism. But we will have to agree to disagree.

Pelagius wrote: "And I didnt say nihilism contains other things, I said nihilism can be a point of departure.

Read my comment again and you will see the difference.."

Can one depart from nowhere (or nothing)? Hmmm. I would like to see the solution to a problem that goes something like "beginning from nowhere one can get to Albuquerque in [blank] time." Forgive me if it sounds like I am being facetious, I am simply trying to illustrate my point. A "point" or a "departure" must be based on something, not nothing.

Erick wrote: "Pelagius wrote: "And I didnt say nihilism contains other things, I said nihilism can be a point of departure.

Read my comment again and you will see the difference.."

Can one depart from nowhere ..."

Think about it this way:
One goes to "nowhere/nothing" to clear away all preconceptions. (this is the only step that consists of nihilism)

Then one examines what one CAN know. This is not the "knowing" of faith or mysticism, but that of communicable certitude (scientific reproduction, as close minded as it is, it is a safe guideline at first)
(the first step away from nihilism, and in the scientific direction)

THEN, one allows oneself to be exposed to the different currents of interpretations of 'knowable' information. This consists of all metaphysics be it from formal philosophy or theology from any period.
(this is why religion is considered to be a "personal" choice", to be a Christian is not in any way a direct consequence of verifiable truth, it is an intuitive choice more than anything else, and usually a superficially emotional one most of the time)