I really liked your connection of the rhizome with St. Maximus. It seems to me that systematic writing is kingly, whereas rhizomatic writing is prophetic. Would you agree?
I thought of the act of writing itself as priestly, since it involves a kind of sacrifice: the determination (sacrifice) of the page by the ink. I have to say I can't get the patterns I read about in Patitsas' fifth chapter out of my head, so I'm very influenced by that. I mean that every thing is called to be accomplished in a priestly way and that the three roles are intertwined.
Or maybe a third type of writing could be narrative/myth? But I have no justification for why it would be priestly, just an idea I thought I'd share. Anyways, love your writings and thanks for responding! Merry Christmas!
I really liked your connection of the rhizome with St. Maximus. It seems to me that systematic writing is kingly, whereas rhizomatic writing is prophetic. Would you agree?
I think I see your point, yes. The question then would be, what kind of writing is priestly?
I thought of the act of writing itself as priestly, since it involves a kind of sacrifice: the determination (sacrifice) of the page by the ink. I have to say I can't get the patterns I read about in Patitsas' fifth chapter out of my head, so I'm very influenced by that. I mean that every thing is called to be accomplished in a priestly way and that the three roles are intertwined.
Or maybe a third type of writing could be narrative/myth? But I have no justification for why it would be priestly, just an idea I thought I'd share. Anyways, love your writings and thanks for responding! Merry Christmas!
Merry Christmas, Kevin! Yes, Patitsas's ideas have a way of mesmerizing one.