9 Comments

I feel like you and several others on this site are moving toward a form of discourse where there's so much multiplicity, symbolism, and allusion, that it might as well just take on its true form as philosophical theater.

Expand full comment
author

Very interesting observation! I like the Apollonian/Dionysian synthesis implied by philosophical theatre, but I suspect it is very difficult to pull off (Murdoch never succeeded in writing a popular play). Perhaps the rituals of secret societies offer a model, since their significance emerges from their initiates' deep immersion in symbology and allusion. But what does it mean for a society of open secrets?

Expand full comment

I mean no one can write popular philosophical theater; it's in the nature of the form. For the reasons you say, the secret society as such isn't a model--but even though we can't have real esoteric teachings, we don't have to give up on presence, which is implicit even in closet theater and perhaps has never been more mystical than now.

But really what I meant was much more banal: there's nothing like theater for reconciling a multiplicity of perspectives and ideas at the level of form.

Expand full comment
author

Great points! Lack of presence is certainly a big theme of our times. And I fully agree with you that dialogue is the true lost art.

Expand full comment

I love that Weil quote! And agree vehemently with what you said about MacDonald’s production of waiting for Godot

Expand full comment
author

Thank you!

Expand full comment

Writing like this is exactly what internet publications should look like. Focused but multiple-bodied. Thank you.

Expand full comment
author

Thank you so much!

Expand full comment

Great as always, MJE

Expand full comment