Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.6 AVERAGE
3.6 AVERAGE
Five stars implies that I agree with everything in this book, which is not how I use stars. This book is delightful, truly.
I live in a community that loves its aphorisms. Chesterton and Wodehouse, everybody holding forth the latest mots like Garrison Keillor on Four Loko.
I've grown to appreciate them, as well as be wary of their reductive potential. I'm also convinced that the value of aphorisms has little to do with the aphorism itself, or whether it's being employed by a good or bad actor, but whether it's appropriate to the situation, whether it's apt.
For instance, "If you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the one that yelps is the one that got hit." This from D.L. Moody, great for homiletics, has come to mean if you were offended you clearly resemble the straw man that you were offended by. But it's a pat answer that obscures the fact that maybe the dog barked because it got hit on the ricochet, or maybe the person who threw the rocks shouldn't be throwing rocks in the first place. Y'know, take up archery or something, give precision a try.
Anyway, back to this book. It's a glorious B.S. book, fully in the ecstatic mode, replete with aphorisms like, "The joyfulness of infinite play, it's laughter, lies in learning to start something we cannot finish." It's like your pot-smoking friend who's really into continental philosophy, if that friend was articulate and succinct.
Wait, did I mention the chiasms? Carse loves them and uses them to end most sections. An example, chosen at random: "For the finite player in us freedom is a function of time. We must have time to be free. For the infinite player in us time is a function of freedom. We are free to have time. A finite player puts play into time. An infinite player puts time into play."
CHILLS - gets me every time.
I read this when I was young and found it be a bit goofy. I've returned to it a few times and am always nervous that I'll discover that I've outgrown it, but I find it more enjoyable each time I revisit it. Richard Rohr and a loss of the feeling that I must identify whether authors are 'good guys' or 'bad guys' has helped considerably.
IT IS A DELICIOUS BONBON BOOK read it if you dare.
I live in a community that loves its aphorisms. Chesterton and Wodehouse, everybody holding forth the latest mots like Garrison Keillor on Four Loko.
I've grown to appreciate them, as well as be wary of their reductive potential. I'm also convinced that the value of aphorisms has little to do with the aphorism itself, or whether it's being employed by a good or bad actor, but whether it's appropriate to the situation, whether it's apt.
For instance, "If you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the one that yelps is the one that got hit." This from D.L. Moody, great for homiletics, has come to mean if you were offended you clearly resemble the straw man that you were offended by. But it's a pat answer that obscures the fact that maybe the dog barked because it got hit on the ricochet, or maybe the person who threw the rocks shouldn't be throwing rocks in the first place. Y'know, take up archery or something, give precision a try.
Anyway, back to this book. It's a glorious B.S. book, fully in the ecstatic mode, replete with aphorisms like, "The joyfulness of infinite play, it's laughter, lies in learning to start something we cannot finish." It's like your pot-smoking friend who's really into continental philosophy, if that friend was articulate and succinct.
Wait, did I mention the chiasms? Carse loves them and uses them to end most sections. An example, chosen at random: "For the finite player in us freedom is a function of time. We must have time to be free. For the infinite player in us time is a function of freedom. We are free to have time. A finite player puts play into time. An infinite player puts time into play."
CHILLS - gets me every time.
I read this when I was young and found it be a bit goofy. I've returned to it a few times and am always nervous that I'll discover that I've outgrown it, but I find it more enjoyable each time I revisit it. Richard Rohr and a loss of the feeling that I must identify whether authors are 'good guys' or 'bad guys' has helped considerably.
IT IS A DELICIOUS BONBON BOOK read it if you dare.
The first paragraph is the best, then it's downhill from there. It's the worst kind of philosophy: definitions. He divides everything into two categories, and does so pretty arbitrarily. It's a cool idea, but I did not think it was worth finishing.
challenging
mysterious
slow-paced
This premise falls apart as soon as he tries to expand it. The section on sexuality is particularly incoherent.
challenging
reflective
challenging
hopeful
informative
reflective
medium-paced
Very interesting material, may need to read again next year
This was either brilliant or a bunch of word games and jibberish. I need to sit with it alot more
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
reflective
medium-paced