Comments on: What comes first?

By: Robert Cheeks

Robert Cheeks — Sat, 23 Jul 2011 17:04:55 +0000

Peter, should you get the opportunity, I would appreciate an evaluation/review of the movie, “Adjustment Bureau.”
Voegelinian in the sense that you’re incorporating an ‘open’ existence in the question, in this instance, of the founding era which gives your analysis a far broader, richer, and more penetrating explication..also, there’s your intimation of the theophanic event which I hope you speak of in the future.

By: Peter Lawler

Peter Lawler — Sat, 23 Jul 2011 13:51:19 +0000

Well, I’m disappointed to see the all caps disappear. I thought they made our blog more manly and emphatic–and certainly not moronic. Bob may be right, but, to repeat, I don’t speak Voegelinian, so I’m not sure.

By: James Ceaser

James Ceaser — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 12:58:15 +0000

I am sure Peter will have more to say about this, tacitly or accidentally, in Seattle, at the upcoming APSA panel on this topic. And just as long as he does not draw all of his sources from his favorite recent television series, the rest of us should be able to follow him. Mark your calendars for this event–it should keep you sleepless in Seattle….JWC

By: Robert Cheeks

Robert Cheeks — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 11:32:05 +0000

Well, we can’t say that any real mud is being thrown around. It’s all very civil, as it should be, however, the implication that the affable Mr. Kienker and the Claremontistas are leaning toward a spiritually purged, secular explanation of the founding era is a bit disappointing.
Peter’s brilliantly differentiated position strikes me as Voegelinian in nature though it may not penetrate to or champion the core values of the olde republic. Perhaps it’s best to identify the position as “Lawlerian” and leave the secular/statist apologetics to the Straussians.

By: What comes first? » Postmodern Conservative | A First Things Blog « Feeds « Church Leadership

Thu, 21 Jul 2011 05:52:30 +0000

[...] [...]