http://karl.polanyi.fr/wiki/index.php?action=history&feed=atom&title=To_Michael_%2829_February_1956%29 2026-11-03T22:17:10Z Revision history for this page on the wiki MediaWiki 1.46.0 http://karl.polanyi.fr/wiki/index.php?title=To_Michael_(29_February_1956)&diff=17111&oldid=prev 2019-11-05T00:15:49Z

<p></p> <table style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122;" data-mw-interface=""> <col class="diff-marker" /> <col class="diff-content" /> <col class="diff-marker" /> <col class="diff-content" /> <tr class="diff-title" lang="en"> <td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td> <td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">Revision as of 00:15, 5 November 2019</td> </tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l1">Line 1:</td> <td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 1:</td></tr> <tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>[[File:KPA 57-08, 23.jpg|550px|thumb]]</div></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>[[File:KPA 57-08, 23.jpg|550px|thumb]]</div></td></tr> <tr><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="−"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>{{Page |n°=23}}<del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">&lt;ref&gt;The person who copied the letter wrote [[1956]], but I think it's wrong and it's [[1946]].&lt;/ref&gt; </del>Notes on Notes as a Hint on Big Subjects: your “M. of M.” is ingenious, precise and, in my view, correct. A conjuncture of &lt;u&gt;the&lt;/u&gt; two passions of the modern age: science and morality makes Marxist dialectics auto-reinforcing. However, your formula merely shows why it can be so. In other words, you describe the double aspect of &lt;u&gt;all&lt;/u&gt; effective faiths, not the specific effect of the Marxist one. Your problem has been to my knowledge solved by the Princeton (theologian Jewish), Taubes, author of Abendländische Eschatologie.&lt;ref&gt;[[1947]]… &lt;/ref&gt; Speaking on an obscure West European Jewish antinomian ghetto sect of the 17th (?) cty he rightly linked salvational movements with antinomianism (Expectation of change of the world is necessarily disappointed; the religious soul - redeedem&lt;ref&gt;Sic. Redeemed? &lt;/ref&gt; - reacts by rejecting the unredeemed Law that has reasserted itself. This rejection differs only in degree, according to the depth of the basic salvational impact. I heard him speak in these terms at a Chicago conference on religion (sociologists plus theologians), End of November. In applying his insights (he used historical, literary - talmudic - and dogmatic material of hagiology), to my own life-experience, I recognized the universality of this. All reformers (revolutionaries) are bound to be antinomian, the important cases on record being the 16th cty Anabaptista and the Bolsheviks (the latter, perhaps the only non sexualistically antinomian ones). Now, to my own thoughts. {{Question}} In the [[Great Transformation]] (or Origin of our Times) in their later editions, I discourse not only on Robert Owen's peculiar rejection of Christianity, but also (at the very end) on the three revelations, the third of which came to our own time. The transcendance of the moralistic passion of the 18th-20th cties A.D. is achieved in the discovery of society, as I call it, - not therefore in a move towards “idealism”, but towards “realism”, as referred to in the phrase “reality of society”. Let us talk about that, if you feel like it, my dearest brother, K.  </div></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>{{Page |n°=23}} Notes on Notes as a Hint on Big Subjects: your “M. of M.” is ingenious, precise and, in my view, correct. A conjuncture of &lt;u&gt;the&lt;/u&gt; two passions of the modern age: science and morality makes Marxist dialectics auto-reinforcing. However, your formula merely shows why it can be so. In other words, you describe the double aspect of &lt;u&gt;all&lt;/u&gt; effective faiths, not the specific effect of the Marxist one. Your problem has been to my knowledge solved by the Princeton (theologian Jewish), Taubes, author of Abendländische Eschatologie.&lt;ref&gt;[[1947]]… &lt;/ref&gt; Speaking on an obscure West European Jewish antinomian ghetto sect of the 17th (?) cty he rightly linked salvational movements with antinomianism (Expectation of change of the world is necessarily disappointed; the religious soul - redeedem&lt;ref&gt;Sic. Redeemed? &lt;/ref&gt; - reacts by rejecting the unredeemed Law that has reasserted itself. This rejection differs only in degree, according to the depth of the basic salvational impact. I heard him speak in these terms at a Chicago conference on religion (sociologists plus theologians), End of November. In applying his insights (he used historical, literary - talmudic - and dogmatic material of hagiology), to my own life-experience, I recognized the universality of this. All reformers (revolutionaries) are bound to be antinomian, the important cases on record being the 16th cty Anabaptista and the Bolsheviks (the latter, perhaps the only non sexualistically antinomian ones). Now, to my own thoughts. {{Question}} In the [[Great Transformation]] (or Origin of our Times) in their later editions, I discourse not only on Robert Owen's peculiar rejection of Christianity, but also (at the very end) on the three revelations, the third of which came to our own time. The transcendance of the moralistic passion of the 18th-20th cties A.D. is achieved in the discovery of society, as I call it, - not therefore in a move towards “idealism”, but towards “realism”, as referred to in the phrase “reality of society”. Let us talk about that, if you feel like it, my dearest brother, K.  </div></td></tr> <tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td></tr> <tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>== Editor&#039;s Note ==</div></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>== Editor&#039;s Note ==</div></td></tr> </table>

Santiago Pinault http://karl.polanyi.fr/wiki/index.php?title=To_Michael_(29_February_1956)&diff=17103&oldid=prev 2019-11-05T00:02:48Z

<p>Santiago Pinault moved page <a href="/wiki/index.php?title=To_Michael_(29_February_1946)" class="mw-redirect" title="To Michael (29 February 1946)">To Michael (29 February 1946)</a> to <a href="/wiki/index.php?title=To_Michael_(29_February_1956)" title="To Michael (29 February 1956)">To Michael (29 February 1956)</a> over redirect</p> <table style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122;" data-mw-interface=""> <tr class="diff-title" lang="en"> <td colspan="1" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td> <td colspan="1" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">Revision as of 00:02, 5 November 2019</td> </tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-notice" lang="en"><div class="mw-diff-empty">(No difference)</div> </td></tr></table>

Santiago Pinault http://karl.polanyi.fr/wiki/index.php?title=To_Michael_(29_February_1956)&diff=17101&oldid=prev 2019-11-04T23:57:46Z

<p></p> <table style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122;" data-mw-interface=""> <col class="diff-marker" /> <col class="diff-content" /> <col class="diff-marker" /> <col class="diff-content" /> <tr class="diff-title" lang="en"> <td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td> <td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">Revision as of 23:57, 4 November 2019</td> </tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l1">Line 1:</td> <td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 1:</td></tr> <tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>[[File:KPA 57-08, 23.jpg|550px|thumb]]</div></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>[[File:KPA 57-08, 23.jpg|550px|thumb]]</div></td></tr> <tr><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="−"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>{{Page |n°=23}}&lt;ref&gt;The person who copied the letter wrote 1956, but I think it's wrong and it's [[1946]].&lt;/ref&gt; Notes on Notes as a Hint on Big Subjects: your “M. of M.” is ingenious, precise and, in my view, correct. A conjuncture of &lt;u&gt;the&lt;/u&gt; two passions of the modern age: science and morality makes Marxist dialectics auto-reinforcing. However, your formula merely shows why it can be so. In other words, you describe the double aspect of &lt;u&gt;all&lt;/u&gt; effective faiths, not the specific effect of the Marxist one. Your problem has been to my knowledge solved by the Princeton (theologian Jewish), Taubes, author of Abendländische Eschatologie. Speaking on an obscure West European Jewish antinomian ghetto sect of the 17th (?) cty he rightly linked salvational movements with antinomianism (Expectation of change of the world is necessarily disappointed; the religious soul - redeedem&lt;ref&gt;Sic. Redeemed? &lt;/ref&gt; - reacts by rejecting the unredeemed Law that has reasserted itself. This rejection differs only in degree, according to the depth of the basic salvational impact. I heard him speak in these terms at a Chicago conference on religion (sociologists plus theologians), End of November. In applying his insights (he used historical, literary - talmudic - and dogmatic material of hagiology), to my own life-experience, I recognized the universality of this. All reformers (revolutionaries) are bound to be antinomian, the important cases on record being the 16th cty Anabaptista and the Bolsheviks (the latter, perhaps the only non sexualistically antinomian ones). Now, to my own thoughts. {{Question}} In the [[Great Transformation]] (or Origin of our Times) in their later editions, I discourse not only on Robert Owen's peculiar rejection of Christianity, but also (at the very end) on the three revelations, the third of which came to our own time. The transcendance of the moralistic passion of the 18th-20th cties A.D. is achieved in the discovery of society, as I call it, - not therefore in a move towards “idealism”, but towards “realism”, as referred to in the phrase “reality of society”. Let us talk about that, if you feel like it, my dearest brother, K.  </div></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>{{Page |n°=23}}&lt;ref&gt;The person who copied the letter wrote <ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">[[</ins>1956<ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">]]</ins>, but I think it's wrong and it's [[1946]].&lt;/ref&gt; Notes on Notes as a Hint on Big Subjects: your “M. of M.” is ingenious, precise and, in my view, correct. A conjuncture of &lt;u&gt;the&lt;/u&gt; two passions of the modern age: science and morality makes Marxist dialectics auto-reinforcing. However, your formula merely shows why it can be so. In other words, you describe the double aspect of &lt;u&gt;all&lt;/u&gt; effective faiths, not the specific effect of the Marxist one. Your problem has been to my knowledge solved by the Princeton (theologian Jewish), Taubes, author of Abendländische Eschatologie.<ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">&lt;ref&gt;[[1947]]… &lt;/ref&gt; </ins>Speaking on an obscure West European Jewish antinomian ghetto sect of the 17th (?) cty he rightly linked salvational movements with antinomianism (Expectation of change of the world is necessarily disappointed; the religious soul - redeedem&lt;ref&gt;Sic. Redeemed? &lt;/ref&gt; - reacts by rejecting the unredeemed Law that has reasserted itself. This rejection differs only in degree, according to the depth of the basic salvational impact. I heard him speak in these terms at a Chicago conference on religion (sociologists plus theologians), End of November. In applying his insights (he used historical, literary - talmudic - and dogmatic material of hagiology), to my own life-experience, I recognized the universality of this. All reformers (revolutionaries) are bound to be antinomian, the important cases on record being the 16th cty Anabaptista and the Bolsheviks (the latter, perhaps the only non sexualistically antinomian ones). Now, to my own thoughts. {{Question}} In the [[Great Transformation]] (or Origin of our Times) in their later editions, I discourse not only on Robert Owen's peculiar rejection of Christianity, but also (at the very end) on the three revelations, the third of which came to our own time. The transcendance of the moralistic passion of the 18th-20th cties A.D. is achieved in the discovery of society, as I call it, - not therefore in a move towards “idealism”, but towards “realism”, as referred to in the phrase “reality of society”. Let us talk about that, if you feel like it, my dearest brother, K.  </div></td></tr> <tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td></tr> <tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>== Editor&#039;s Note ==</div></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>== Editor&#039;s Note ==</div></td></tr> </table>

Santiago Pinault http://karl.polanyi.fr/wiki/index.php?title=To_Michael_(29_February_1956)&diff=17087&oldid=prev 2019-11-04T02:06:01Z

<p>Santiago Pinault moved page <a href="/wiki/index.php?title=To_Michael_(29_February_1956)" title="To Michael (29 February 1956)">To Michael (29 February 1956)</a> to <a href="/wiki/index.php?title=To_Michael_(29_February_1946)" class="mw-redirect" title="To Michael (29 February 1946)">To Michael (29 February 1946)</a></p> <table style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122;" data-mw-interface=""> <tr class="diff-title" lang="en"> <td colspan="1" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td> <td colspan="1" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">Revision as of 02:06, 4 November 2019</td> </tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-notice" lang="en"><div class="mw-diff-empty">(No difference)</div> </td></tr></table>

Santiago Pinault http://karl.polanyi.fr/wiki/index.php?title=To_Michael_(29_February_1956)&diff=17086&oldid=prev 2019-11-04T02:04:25Z

<p></p> <table style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122;" data-mw-interface=""> <col class="diff-marker" /> <col class="diff-content" /> <col class="diff-marker" /> <col class="diff-content" /> <tr class="diff-title" lang="en"> <td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td> <td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">Revision as of 02:04, 4 November 2019</td> </tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l1">Line 1:</td> <td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 1:</td></tr> <tr><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="−"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>{{Page |n°=23}} Notes on Notes as a Hint on Big Subjects: your “M. of M.” is ingenious, precise and, in my view, correct. A conjuncture of &lt;u&gt;the&lt;/u&gt; two passions of the modern age: science and morality makes Marxist dialectics auto-reinforcing. However, your formula merely shows why it can be so. In other words, you describe the double aspect of &lt;u&gt;all&lt;/u&gt; effective faiths, not the specific effect of the Marxist one. Your problem has been to my knowledge solved by the Princeton (theologian Jewish), Taubes, author of Abendländische Eschatologie. Speaking on an obscure West European Jewish antinomian ghetto sect of the 17th (?) cty he rightly linked salvational movements with antinomianism (Expectation of change of the world is necessarily disappointed; the religious soul - redeedem&lt;ref&gt;Sic. Redeemed? &lt;/ref&gt; - reacts by rejecting the unredeemed Law that has reasserted itself. This rejection differs only in degree, according to the depth of the basic salvational impact. I heard him speak in these terms at a Chicago conference on religion (sociologists plus theologians), End of November. In applying his insights (he used historical, literary - talmudic - and dogmatic material of hagiology), to my own life-experience, I recognized the universality of this. All reformers (revolutionaries) are bound to be antinomian, the important cases on record being the 16th cty Anabaptista and the Bolsheviks (the latter, perhaps the only non sexualistically antinomian ones). Now, to my own thoughts. {{Question}} In the [[Great Transformation]] (or Origin of our Times) in their later editions, I discourse not only on Robert Owen's peculiar rejection of Christianity, but also (at the very end) on the three revelations, the third of which came to our own time. The transcendance of the moralistic passion of the 18th-20th cties A.D. is achieved in the discovery of society, as I call it, - not therefore in a move towards “idealism”, but towards “realism”, as referred to in the phrase “reality of society”. Let us talk about that, if you feel like it, my dearest brother, K.  </div></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">[[File:KPA 57-08, 23.jpg|550px|thumb]]</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>{{Page |n°=23}}<ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">&lt;ref&gt;The person who copied the letter wrote 1956, but I think it's wrong and it's [[1946]].&lt;/ref&gt; </ins>Notes on Notes as a Hint on Big Subjects: your “M. of M.” is ingenious, precise and, in my view, correct. A conjuncture of &lt;u&gt;the&lt;/u&gt; two passions of the modern age: science and morality makes Marxist dialectics auto-reinforcing. However, your formula merely shows why it can be so. In other words, you describe the double aspect of &lt;u&gt;all&lt;/u&gt; effective faiths, not the specific effect of the Marxist one. Your problem has been to my knowledge solved by the Princeton (theologian Jewish), Taubes, author of Abendländische Eschatologie. Speaking on an obscure West European Jewish antinomian ghetto sect of the 17th (?) cty he rightly linked salvational movements with antinomianism (Expectation of change of the world is necessarily disappointed; the religious soul - redeedem&lt;ref&gt;Sic. Redeemed? &lt;/ref&gt; - reacts by rejecting the unredeemed Law that has reasserted itself. This rejection differs only in degree, according to the depth of the basic salvational impact. I heard him speak in these terms at a Chicago conference on religion (sociologists plus theologians), End of November. In applying his insights (he used historical, literary - talmudic - and dogmatic material of hagiology), to my own life-experience, I recognized the universality of this. All reformers (revolutionaries) are bound to be antinomian, the important cases on record being the 16th cty Anabaptista and the Bolsheviks (the latter, perhaps the only non sexualistically antinomian ones). Now, to my own thoughts. {{Question}} In the [[Great Transformation]] (or Origin of our Times) in their later editions, I discourse not only on Robert Owen's peculiar rejection of Christianity, but also (at the very end) on the three revelations, the third of which came to our own time. The transcendance of the moralistic passion of the 18th-20th cties A.D. is achieved in the discovery of society, as I call it, - not therefore in a move towards “idealism”, but towards “realism”, as referred to in the phrase “reality of society”. Let us talk about that, if you feel like it, my dearest brother, K.  </div></td></tr> <tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td></tr> <tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>== Editor&#039;s Note ==</div></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>== Editor&#039;s Note ==</div></td></tr> </table>

Santiago Pinault http://karl.polanyi.fr/wiki/index.php?title=To_Michael_(29_February_1956)&diff=17083&oldid=prev 2019-11-04T01:08:44Z

<p></p> <table style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122;" data-mw-interface=""> <col class="diff-marker" /> <col class="diff-content" /> <col class="diff-marker" /> <col class="diff-content" /> <tr class="diff-title" lang="en"> <td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td> <td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">Revision as of 01:08, 4 November 2019</td> </tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l7">Line 7:</td> <td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 7:</td></tr> <tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>== Letter Informations ==</div></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>== Letter Informations ==</div></td></tr> <tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>&#039;&#039;&#039;Reference&#039;&#039;&#039;:&lt;br /&gt;</div></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>&#039;&#039;&#039;Reference&#039;&#039;&#039;:&lt;br /&gt;</div></td></tr> <tr><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="−"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>'''KPA''': [[57/08]], <del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">29-30</del></div></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>'''KPA''': [[57/08]], <ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">23</ins></div></td></tr> </table>

Santiago Pinault http://karl.polanyi.fr/wiki/index.php?title=To_Michael_(29_February_1956)&diff=16537&oldid=prev 2019-08-31T19:21:28Z

<p></p> <table style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122;" data-mw-interface=""> <col class="diff-marker" /> <col class="diff-content" /> <col class="diff-marker" /> <col class="diff-content" /> <tr class="diff-title" lang="en"> <td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td> <td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">Revision as of 19:21, 31 August 2019</td> </tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l1">Line 1:</td> <td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 1:</td></tr> <tr><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="−"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>{{Page |n°=23}} Notes on Notes as a Hint on Big Subjects: your “M. of M.” is ingenious, precise and, in my view, correct. A conjuncture of &lt;u&gt;the&lt;/u&gt; two passions of the modern age: science and morality makes Marxist dialectics auto-reinforcing. However, your formula merely shows why it can be so. In other words, you describe the double aspect of &lt;u&gt;all&lt;/u&gt; effective faiths, not the specific effect of the Marxist one. Your problem has been to my knowledge solved by the Princeton (theologian Jewish), Taubes, author of Abendländische Eschatologie. Speaking on an obscure West European Jewish antinomian ghetto sect of the 17th (?) cty he rightly linked salvational movements with antinomianism (Expectation of change of the world is necessarily disappointed; the religious soul - redeedem&lt;ref&gt;Sic. Redeemed? &lt;/ref&gt; - reacts by rejecting the unredeemed Law that has reasserted itself. This rejection differs only in degree, according to the depth of the basic salvational impact. I heard him speak in these terms at a Chicago conference on religion (sociologists plus theologians), End of November. In applying his insights (he used historical, literary - talmudic - and dogmatic material of hagiology), to my own life-experience, I recognized the universality of this. All reformers (revolutionaries) are bound to be antinomian, the important cases on record being the 16th cty Anabaptista and the Bolsheviks (the latter, perhaps the only non sexualistically antinomian ones). Now, to my own thoughts. In the [[Great Transformation]] (or Origin of our Times) in their <del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">latter </del>editions, I discourse not only on Robert Owen's peculiar rejection of Christianity, but also (at the very end) on the three revelations, the third of which came to our own time. The transcendance of the moralistic passion of the 18th-20th cties A.D. is achieved in the discovery of society, as I call it, - not therefore in a move towards “idealism”, but towards “realism”, as referred to in the phrase “reality of society”. Let us talk about that, if you feel like it, my dearest brother, K.  </div></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>{{Page |n°=23}} Notes on Notes as a Hint on Big Subjects: your “M. of M.” is ingenious, precise and, in my view, correct. A conjuncture of &lt;u&gt;the&lt;/u&gt; two passions of the modern age: science and morality makes Marxist dialectics auto-reinforcing. However, your formula merely shows why it can be so. In other words, you describe the double aspect of &lt;u&gt;all&lt;/u&gt; effective faiths, not the specific effect of the Marxist one. Your problem has been to my knowledge solved by the Princeton (theologian Jewish), Taubes, author of Abendländische Eschatologie. Speaking on an obscure West European Jewish antinomian ghetto sect of the 17th (?) cty he rightly linked salvational movements with antinomianism (Expectation of change of the world is necessarily disappointed; the religious soul - redeedem&lt;ref&gt;Sic. Redeemed? &lt;/ref&gt; - reacts by rejecting the unredeemed Law that has reasserted itself. This rejection differs only in degree, according to the depth of the basic salvational impact. I heard him speak in these terms at a Chicago conference on religion (sociologists plus theologians), End of November. In applying his insights (he used historical, literary - talmudic - and dogmatic material of hagiology), to my own life-experience, I recognized the universality of this. All reformers (revolutionaries) are bound to be antinomian, the important cases on record being the 16th cty Anabaptista and the Bolsheviks (the latter, perhaps the only non sexualistically antinomian ones). Now, to my own thoughts. <ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">{{Question}} </ins>In the [[Great Transformation]] (or Origin of our Times) in their <ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">later </ins>editions, I discourse not only on Robert Owen's peculiar rejection of Christianity, but also (at the very end) on the three revelations, the third of which came to our own time. The transcendance of the moralistic passion of the 18th-20th cties A.D. is achieved in the discovery of society, as I call it, - not therefore in a move towards “idealism”, but towards “realism”, as referred to in the phrase “reality of society”. Let us talk about that, if you feel like it, my dearest brother, K.  </div></td></tr> <tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td></tr> <tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>== Editor&#039;s Note ==</div></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>== Editor&#039;s Note ==</div></td></tr> </table>

Santiago Pinault http://karl.polanyi.fr/wiki/index.php?title=To_Michael_(29_February_1956)&diff=16536&oldid=prev 2019-08-31T19:13:46Z

<p></p> <table style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122;" data-mw-interface=""> <col class="diff-marker" /> <col class="diff-content" /> <col class="diff-marker" /> <col class="diff-content" /> <tr class="diff-title" lang="en"> <td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td> <td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">Revision as of 19:13, 31 August 2019</td> </tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l1">Line 1:</td> <td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 1:</td></tr> <tr><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="−"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">{{English to re-read}}</del></div></td><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-added"></td></tr> <tr><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="−"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></del></div></td><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-added"></td></tr> <tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>{{Page |n°=23}} Notes on Notes as a Hint on Big Subjects: your “M. of M.” is ingenious, precise and, in my view, correct. A conjuncture of &lt;u&gt;the&lt;/u&gt; two passions of the modern age: science and morality makes Marxist dialectics auto-reinforcing. However, your formula merely shows why it can be so. In other words, you describe the double aspect of &lt;u&gt;all&lt;/u&gt; effective faiths, not the specific effect of the Marxist one. Your problem has been to my knowledge solved by the Princeton (theologian Jewish), Taubes, author of Abendländische Eschatologie. Speaking on an obscure West European Jewish antinomian ghetto sect of the 17th (?) cty he rightly linked salvational movements with antinomianism (Expectation of change of the world is necessarily disappointed; the religious soul - redeedem&lt;ref&gt;Sic. Redeemed? &lt;/ref&gt; - reacts by rejecting the unredeemed Law that has reasserted itself. This rejection differs only in degree, according to the depth of the basic salvational impact. I heard him speak in these terms at a Chicago conference on religion (sociologists plus theologians), End of November. In applying his insights (he used historical, literary - talmudic - and dogmatic material of hagiology), to my own life-experience, I recognized the universality of this. All reformers (revolutionaries) are bound to be antinomian, the important cases on record being the 16th cty Anabaptista and the Bolsheviks (the latter, perhaps the only non sexualistically antinomian ones). Now, to my own thoughts. In the [[Great Transformation]] (or Origin of our Times) in their latter editions, I discourse not only on Robert Owen&#039;s peculiar rejection of Christianity, but also (at the very end) on the three revelations, the third of which came to our own time. The transcendance of the moralistic passion of the 18th-20th cties A.D. is achieved in the discovery of society, as I call it, - not therefore in a move towards “idealism”, but towards “realism”, as referred to in the phrase “reality of society”. Let us talk about that, if you feel like it, my dearest brother, K.  </div></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>{{Page |n°=23}} Notes on Notes as a Hint on Big Subjects: your “M. of M.” is ingenious, precise and, in my view, correct. A conjuncture of &lt;u&gt;the&lt;/u&gt; two passions of the modern age: science and morality makes Marxist dialectics auto-reinforcing. However, your formula merely shows why it can be so. In other words, you describe the double aspect of &lt;u&gt;all&lt;/u&gt; effective faiths, not the specific effect of the Marxist one. Your problem has been to my knowledge solved by the Princeton (theologian Jewish), Taubes, author of Abendländische Eschatologie. Speaking on an obscure West European Jewish antinomian ghetto sect of the 17th (?) cty he rightly linked salvational movements with antinomianism (Expectation of change of the world is necessarily disappointed; the religious soul - redeedem&lt;ref&gt;Sic. Redeemed? &lt;/ref&gt; - reacts by rejecting the unredeemed Law that has reasserted itself. This rejection differs only in degree, according to the depth of the basic salvational impact. I heard him speak in these terms at a Chicago conference on religion (sociologists plus theologians), End of November. In applying his insights (he used historical, literary - talmudic - and dogmatic material of hagiology), to my own life-experience, I recognized the universality of this. All reformers (revolutionaries) are bound to be antinomian, the important cases on record being the 16th cty Anabaptista and the Bolsheviks (the latter, perhaps the only non sexualistically antinomian ones). Now, to my own thoughts. In the [[Great Transformation]] (or Origin of our Times) in their latter editions, I discourse not only on Robert Owen&#039;s peculiar rejection of Christianity, but also (at the very end) on the three revelations, the third of which came to our own time. The transcendance of the moralistic passion of the 18th-20th cties A.D. is achieved in the discovery of society, as I call it, - not therefore in a move towards “idealism”, but towards “realism”, as referred to in the phrase “reality of society”. Let us talk about that, if you feel like it, my dearest brother, K.  </div></td></tr> <tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td></tr> </table>

Santiago Pinault http://karl.polanyi.fr/wiki/index.php?title=To_Michael_(29_February_1956)&diff=16535&oldid=prev 2019-08-31T19:13:28Z

<p></p> <table style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122;" data-mw-interface=""> <col class="diff-marker" /> <col class="diff-content" /> <col class="diff-marker" /> <col class="diff-content" /> <tr class="diff-title" lang="en"> <td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td> <td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">Revision as of 19:13, 31 August 2019</td> </tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l1">Line 1:</td> <td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 1:</td></tr> <tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>{{English to re-read}}</div></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>{{English to re-read}}</div></td></tr> <tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td></tr> <tr><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="−"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>{{Page |n°=23}} Notes on Notes as a Hint on Big Subjects: your “M. of M.” is ingenious, precise and, in my view, correct. A conjuncture of &lt;u&gt;the&lt;/u&gt; two passions of the modern age: science and morality makes Marxist dialectics auto-reinforcing. However, your formula merely shows why it can be so. In other words, you describe the double aspect of &lt;u&gt;all&lt;/u&gt; effective faiths, not the specific effect of the Marxist one. Your problem has been to my knowledge solved by the Princeton (theologian Jewish), Taubes, author of Abendländische Eschatologie. Speaking on an obscure West European Jewish antinomian ghetto sect of the 17th (?) cty he rightly linked salvational movements with antinomianism (Expectation of change of the world is necessarily disappointed; the religious soul - redeedem&lt;ref&gt;Sic. Redeemed? &lt;/ref&gt; - reacts by rejecting the unredeemed Law that has reasserted itself. This rejection differs only in degree, according to the depth of the basic salvational impact. I heard him <del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">peak </del>in these terms at a Chicago conference on religion (sociologists plus theologians), End of November. In applying his insights (he used historical, literary - talmudic - and dogmatic material of hagiology), to my own life-experience<del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">.</del>, I recognized the universality of this. All reformers (revolutionaries) are bound to be antinomian, the important cases on record being the 16th cty Anabaptista and the Bolsheviks (the latter, perhaps the only non sexualistically antinomian ones). Now, to my own thoughts. In the [[Great Transformation]] (or Origin of our Times) in their latter editions, I discourse not only on Robert Owen's peculiar rejection of Christianity, but also (at the very end) on the three revelations, the third of which came to our own time. The transcendance of the moralistic passion of the 18th-20th cties A.D. is achieved in the discovery of society, as I call it, - not therefore in a move towards “idealism”, but towards “realism”, as referred to in the phrase “reality of society”. Let us talk about that, if you feel like it, my dearest brother, K.  </div></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>{{Page |n°=23}} Notes on Notes as a Hint on Big Subjects: your “M. of M.” is ingenious, precise and, in my view, correct. A conjuncture of &lt;u&gt;the&lt;/u&gt; two passions of the modern age: science and morality makes Marxist dialectics auto-reinforcing. However, your formula merely shows why it can be so. In other words, you describe the double aspect of &lt;u&gt;all&lt;/u&gt; effective faiths, not the specific effect of the Marxist one. Your problem has been to my knowledge solved by the Princeton (theologian Jewish), Taubes, author of Abendländische Eschatologie. Speaking on an obscure West European Jewish antinomian ghetto sect of the 17th (?) cty he rightly linked salvational movements with antinomianism (Expectation of change of the world is necessarily disappointed; the religious soul - redeedem&lt;ref&gt;Sic. Redeemed? &lt;/ref&gt; - reacts by rejecting the unredeemed Law that has reasserted itself. This rejection differs only in degree, according to the depth of the basic salvational impact. I heard him <ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">speak </ins>in these terms at a Chicago conference on religion (sociologists plus theologians), End of November. In applying his insights (he used historical, literary - talmudic - and dogmatic material of hagiology), to my own life-experience, I recognized the universality of this. All reformers (revolutionaries) are bound to be antinomian, the important cases on record being the 16th cty Anabaptista and the Bolsheviks (the latter, perhaps the only non sexualistically antinomian ones). Now, to my own thoughts. In the [[Great Transformation]] (or Origin of our Times) in their latter editions, I discourse not only on Robert Owen's peculiar rejection of Christianity, but also (at the very end) on the three revelations, the third of which came to our own time. The transcendance of the moralistic passion of the 18th-20th cties A.D. is achieved in the discovery of society, as I call it, - not therefore in a move towards “idealism”, but towards “realism”, as referred to in the phrase “reality of society”. Let us talk about that, if you feel like it, my dearest brother, K.  </div></td></tr> <tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td></tr> <tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>== Editor&#039;s Note ==</div></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>== Editor&#039;s Note ==</div></td></tr> </table>

Santiago Pinault http://karl.polanyi.fr/wiki/index.php?title=To_Michael_(29_February_1956)&diff=16534&oldid=prev 2019-08-31T18:24:58Z

<p></p> <table style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122;" data-mw-interface=""> <col class="diff-marker" /> <col class="diff-content" /> <col class="diff-marker" /> <col class="diff-content" /> <tr class="diff-title" lang="en"> <td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td> <td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">Revision as of 18:24, 31 August 2019</td> </tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l1">Line 1:</td> <td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 1:</td></tr> <tr><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="−"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">{{English to type}} </del>{{English to re-read}}</div></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>{{English to re-read}}</div></td></tr> <tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td></tr> <tr><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="−"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>{{Page |n°=23}} <del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">…Your </del>“M. of M.” is ingenious, precise and, in my view, correct. A conjuncture of &lt;u&gt;the&lt;/u&gt; two passions of the modern age: science and morality makes Marxist dialectics auto-reinforcing. However, your formula merely shows why it can be so. In other words, you describe the double aspect of &lt;u&gt;all&lt;/u&gt; effective faiths, not the specific effect of the Marxist one. Your problem has been to my knowledge solved by the Princeton (theologian Jewish), Taubes, author of Abendländische Eschatologie.</div></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>{{Page |n°=23}} <ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Notes on Notes as a Hint on Big Subjects: your </ins>“M. of M.” is ingenious, precise and, in my view, correct. A conjuncture of &lt;u&gt;the&lt;/u&gt; two passions of the modern age: science and morality makes Marxist dialectics auto-reinforcing. However, your formula merely shows why it can be so. In other words, you describe the double aspect of &lt;u&gt;all&lt;/u&gt; effective faiths, not the specific effect of the Marxist one. Your problem has been to my knowledge solved by the Princeton (theologian Jewish), Taubes, author of Abendländische Eschatologie. <ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Speaking on an obscure West European Jewish antinomian ghetto sect of the 17th (?) cty he rightly linked salvational movements with antinomianism (Expectation of change of the world is necessarily disappointed; the religious soul - redeedem&lt;ref&gt;Sic. Redeemed? &lt;/ref&gt; - reacts by rejecting the unredeemed Law that has reasserted itself. This rejection differs only in degree, according to the depth of the basic salvational impact. I heard him peak in these terms at a Chicago conference on religion (sociologists plus theologians), End of November. In applying his insights (he used historical, literary - talmudic - and dogmatic material of hagiology), to my own life-experience., I recognized the universality of this. All reformers (revolutionaries) are bound to be antinomian, the important cases on record being the 16th cty Anabaptista and the Bolsheviks (the latter, perhaps the only non sexualistically antinomian ones). Now, to my own thoughts. In the [[Great Transformation]] (or Origin of our Times) in their latter editions, I discourse not only on Robert Owen's peculiar rejection of Christianity, but also (at the very end) on the three revelations, the third of which came to our own time. The transcendance of the moralistic passion of the 18th-20th cties A.D. is achieved in the discovery of society, as I call it, - not therefore in a move towards “idealism”, but towards “realism”, as referred to in the phrase “reality of society”. Let us talk about that, if you feel like it, my dearest brother, K. </ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div> </div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">== Editor's Note ==</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div> </div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">&lt;references /&gt;</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td></tr> <tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>== Letter Informations ==</div></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>== Letter Informations ==</div></td></tr> <tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>&#039;&#039;&#039;Reference&#039;&#039;&#039;:&lt;br /&gt;</div></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>&#039;&#039;&#039;Reference&#039;&#039;&#039;:&lt;br /&gt;</div></td></tr> <tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>&#039;&#039;&#039;KPA&#039;&#039;&#039;: [[57/08]], 29-30</div></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>&#039;&#039;&#039;KPA&#039;&#039;&#039;: [[57/08]], 29-30</div></td></tr> </table>

Santiago Pinault