Your treatment of Cusanus from the perspective of bourgeois ideology - interspersed with nineteen product placements, appropriately detailed for those keen to make a purchase - was very interesting. Perspectivism, reconciliation, the acknowledgement and acceptance of difference and diversity... True, but why ‘neo-Platonic’ once and ‘Plotinus’ never? Could Inigo Bocken really believe that the reason why Cusanus is known as a mystic is because he had an aptitude for religious paradox? Cusanus was a Christian Neoplatonist. What are you collectively afraid of?
Now that the ideological caravans of modernism and post-modernism have run out of steam, what next? Mysticism? But this is a very hot potato - for two reasons:
- the primary Western form - Neoplatonism - has been treated by generations of academics as the pornography of modern Western philosophy, even as its Siren call has been eagerly responded to, particularly by male philosophers, and its profound influence on their work dissembled about or denied. To explore mysticism in this regard threatens to undermine gods, expose lies, damage careers and lay bare a cultural arrogance and self-delusion that we in the West are the champions of ‘Reason’ while others stare at their navels or are obsessed with filial piety
- as Marx recognised, its contradictory core is nothing but revolutionary. It rings the bell for the passing of all and everything but matter in motion itself - it speaks of a mobile infinity...'in some strange way’
No sooner did you present this genius and humanist to us than you buried him in the very academicism he despised and reacted against. Your speakers have sought to contain and gut the subject and bleed the passion that has inspired so much.
I think of Morawski’s definition of ideology: a system of belief...delimited by interests.
Philip Stanfield
