I don't think dismissing three chapters on the grounds that Berger was indulging himself in self aggrandizement is an acceptable argument,although not unexpected. I would also like to point out that my orginal objection was not that I had trouble following the argument but that there was something peculiar about the way it was framed and pursued. Berger is both subtle and a master of his method,it is some other difficulty that I can perceive but not articulate. Perhaps Miller would like to delve into whatever that might be. KAte Sullivan
In a message dated 1/10/10 12:13:03 PM, [email protected] writes: > > entrepreneurial (Scientology, Landmark Forum, and other self-help > enterprises) > > > > But, still, he's using the same tactics to pursue the same agenda: the > presentation of himself as "one who is supposed to know", ameliorated by > self-mocking. > > Which does not involve an interest in art, except to aggrandize his own > self > image that is preened in hundreds of pages of dense, meandering prose that > offers nothing but his own cleverness. > > Berger imagines that Rembrandt made those self portraits for the same > reason, > which allows him to dedicate so much of this book to the philosophical > and > psychological issues of self representation. > > But that's only because Berger cannot see what Rembrandt actually > achieved. > > Expressing the self and analyzing the self can be two very different -- > and > non-complementary - activitees. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > Small Business Tools > Click here for to find products that will help grow your small business. > http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/c?cp=h_5L_dU90NoS-_WiuJeefQAAJz > 6c > l_zTaptgNR5c8Mer1v9kAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARMQAAAAA=
