Scholars Crossing

SOR Faculty Publications and Presentations

Winter 2006

Culture as Religion and Religion as Culture in the Philosophy of Lucian Blaga

Michael S. Jones Liberty University, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/sor_fac_pubs

Recommended Citation Jones, Michael S., "Culture as Religion and Religion as Culture in the Philosophy of Lucian Blaga" (2006). SOR Faculty Publications and Presentations. 114. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/sor_fac_pubs/114

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Crossing. It has been accepted for inclusion in SOR Faculty Publications and Presentations by an authorized administrator of Scholars Crossing. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MICHAEL S. JONES Michael S. Jones PhD, Culture as Religion and Assistant Religion as Culture in the Professor of Philosophy, Philosophy of Lucian Blaga Liberty University, Abstract: USA Mircea Eliade, the renowned scholar of Romanian origin, wrote that Lucian Blaga was the greatest Romanian philosopher of all time. Author of Blaga was intensely interested in both culture the book and religion as areas of philosophical investiga - The Metaphysics of Religion: Lucian tion. Blaga’s philosophy proposes a meta - Blaga and Contemporary Philosophy physics that explains the origin of culture and ( 2006), Co-editor of: Education and its unrivaled significance to humanity. His phi - Cultural Diversity ( 2006), The losophy also endeavors to explicate the relation - Challenges of Multiculturalism in ship between culture and religion. Blaga finds Central and Eastern Europe (2005). that religion is a cultural product, but does not view this as a detriment to religion. On the con - Email: [email protected] trary, according to Blaga, it is the very fact that religion is an expression of cultural creativity that gives religion its beauty. This article will Key words: introduce Blaga’s philosophy of culture and his Lucian Blaga, Philosophy of culture, philosophy of religion, explain the relationship philosophy of religion, Great between them, and show that Blaga accorded Anonymous, stylistic matrix, abyssal high honor to both. categories, mystery Introduction In the year that marks the 100th anniversary of the birth of Mircea Eliade it seems appropriate to look at the work of the one who Eliade called “The most gifted and crit - ical original thinker” in the history of Romanian philosophy. The greatest of Romanian

Y philosophers, according to Eliade, was the early twentieth century Transylvanian philoso - G pher Lucian Blaga. Eliade once wrote that Blaga was the first philosopher since Hegel O

L who had the courage to create a system that attempts to address all the aspects of sys - O tematic philosophy. 1 This broad system includes a very interesting and constructive E

D analysis of the relationship of culture and religion, topics that were of particular interest I

to Blaga (and to Eliade). The goal of this article is to explicate Blaga’s philosophy of cul - ,

E ture and his philosophy of religion, making clear the reciprocity of religion and culture

R in ordinary human experience. U T L

U Blaga’s Philosophy of Culture C

, Introduction: Place and Method N O

I The philosophy of culture occupies a place of great importance in Blaga’s philos - G

I ophy; it could be argued that his thinking on philosophy of culture is that aspect of his L 2

E philosophical system that most influences the rest of the system. The philosophy of cul - R JSRI No. 15 ~ Winter 2006 ~ p. 66 R E L I G I O N , C U L T U R E , I D E O L O G Y 1 . o N I R S J u q ophy and, mor e from y it ied xplaine e be wil ed actu through e t ance st central are tha and/ t o t insg v a tion, Blag ain omit t prom ce r of zenit tu f be can it he philose cultr p Blag’s tha fact the by ed t por yph and or hist , of philos y and e int in v en e the tha he deliv (“E c of phy sur no is it single the as cre subject. hu Ist e t M nce. (“O bok inal f his of r w er int is re nativ er alt s fer ICHAEL adopts ce oric a no of h yactiv .man th from es) at o but , logiu sat

a it emhat plo yed U niv Romani emol epist vents e other al fro m ts hts. or th his of h t par l e 13 ă”), (the s Bla Acor Bla Bla Philos W rac apl JS. Fro 5 Oswald by xpounde e other human ul F t than ultre hilosp ~ 6 0 0 2 r e t n i W ~ 5 h p of method ga’s ga’philos s cult of y ga o a does no B wit tion as nly He uitfl r ONES t s r a pri m his doct la o t ding icat uli rom t ain t elmnt r ered at his indu o most fe of cone umanes.

ves bser tha t cult phof y re is ga f throu oven se ogy o C o ms for co a maki ought, t his of ions 3 es. th sec of i si anly his o t hy pr d u con e of rest e a given “st prin ap y an t mpor w ne s r bu , l inet w a h “ pt at c of t t Blag’ s impo Co sit er u me ple t e t y o t tr hi in ânesc”). It Cult esntly). pea enc xist e any o r hi also t oral d mpor Lof Blag Philospy ucian the in Cultre as Religon and Religon as Cultre nsi e y ondar mat ylistc st esn ch special a lied anim f 10 aspect

ult Cluj, of y t r e t in ghout I e st ide s of their sy tly, of h s Blag is re fa ant It is cultre more than anyt phil s f dly pro t mo is ure philo anl resn he sw sight oting aspects ther t y ar enc xist ng at t iser nt oth cti ylist o hougt th invo e tw r cu of s wi ald s s of Blag’s ange lif e al ilos actul various ve hi on in t al imp cult

ou at si er is also si y ph osphic o his of s o ct tin hi ure in sophi Spe c matrix” an th Sp nd um oc is and fr om nks er Cul e. o ilosphy is cultre a s, ph ur ance.t or o g ar and g ur io phic t r ri s em st sy u a’tr s in , ar he f air incl lve are ngle o t . as englr, pr his xplorin e 11 ltu and x” one e n ( s a than re “pre a is e an x e tim in ur ot f em st ha ngle the Romani eno sy cal s sup wi Like re al or writn al Cultr o f a udes dis t in livng e ture anthrop rde treatm he in and wn, me of as are e and r its e t supor ther fur ag ed b t por of s; at oth phi e ist 9 what of a thi r b elf t r cult mati e st for uing in ting I na of of sci f m the n d with th g y variet a los hi distn guishe tha cultr e is it se, ut e inst nce e and and e a his contra . f o m. Blag luen f phil th th ur cole a cip mor gs imp ui s of nke hi ophy f ac the an c ural p enc, . Cult is e nt is 6 y st o ocus phi an hu she er times p s y the Phil e logy. tha This e at t e ant t impor ost in r Kn me pec er le osphic e egrat t ac ces, ph Academy w s space. c d ad hil h le of

this, o t st ues re hing els tha di himse los a ticu par is velop de the in owl of and cu is space e of ” ialz

os enom b ant ohe re ti phi cult s h th n e abundce are, in emn at st s sy his o t introducti on ph of noopht y: os ub p ve ilosphy al (and y manit s pe is ophy. h the by d of edg) o t 12 p his s o ophy B o t cording atio ful the apr o renc ant st lf al e , ac c of losphy s t and el e crwe uras e ie f acknowle y e se yBlag uir inq . roduc c cialz men ltu na. t r lar set o This n. B il 7 “con it hei os voe d e t es iat ordin an fro m ld, re as o ic d He me la 8 t hi o th Hi f t ophy on haven e t b of ed r es at them places ga fa of le ze h of t ln sy or los rivn re f of nt me n it by sh re et e penulti es domains s the st g o t Blag, the sine c his writ sy vhis elops e ly c

o hi of s t t the f c Roma st xi e human of s ingush ache en li p dges on nt theor lag’s hi t o t d e at o t g cultr of nt yhumanit tha l “F in yor ,” anc circumst aesth gion, ul hy creat uman hat oncre et c ce, il of s phil ir ind f entio t aphsi y met s hesi ture d o s . for a the un ni 4 cien tre s owin cul f justi o t philo he e mat chap lustrati ing es philo his . osph si is an c H e B wil em t de A i n h th of G t owvere , ngs and e oric st t a cultr n stud asture lag on the . g how s r dres ir uman tme

ultr sups t m y, T . p cum emst imes a t iv i rek ofy ic f the tics, i hus o a nţa ilar es es” s 76 at nd ns yt n c o al a s s l e e s t ------R E L I G I O N , C U L T U R E , I D E O L O G Y ~ 6 0 0 2 r e t n i W ~ 5 1 . o N I R S J mind sour natur gu ar de xpe e humans tha c I ype “t “t an K the yTherme er st y . Althou obj de erials mat of me wr a be emat subj re used icaly yle”). (“st T ito their in lize cale e cat the creat human other crea philosca and as li are one of the means ut does n posed Bl c the not e uit q egori the ca e alt only Bl uc M c he r ag’s “Gr the names ag o t I p stiny. the tha es it CHAE ap t re ective ns th radi ts ar egor cat tian ect t ve achie t of egoris cat the of ce es tha hum the d xper e of product super a f e at , the scien ce al vre e o t pt o in aphsic, y m et K from ferent dif e at hor A ver Ev Contr Cul Bla In T ot mit per humans o t L i anti K the gh r ant’K s ive. gor JS. gor at transce h mits o t for eason y er ognit” native r of gories “ n y the must e ical ture e ONES hes include w t pas sur ies

ar e ies ma ylistc st al a cultre y im K fro m caly a C cre wth vie ga’, s s i ul y r egoris, cat y r i t lects f cr eati cultral includes Bl ties, natura a whi with n ) xpresi (in e climat s mi cult fore T ations. ma o t al/depi t lef ie cognit ans are t por e s. nd th the objec ri g tions. ac ive t ving beli hu he Th su (o ea t e r t af t a st reali enc o sou l of yle st he a wi agres ag eat r “ r a fo son bject o be su nt aspe und ion, enabli i Lof Blag Philospy ucian the in Cultre as Religon and Religon as Cultre ke h and ant’s, ct ie w scient, ny r o eir e an n, re th trix e e mat co tive c he of Al lue nf A parad u eq ilze arhes e hu al s / nce n. Th and ve e ts, rde mi man re rc th fact in are egoris cat e ant m grasp

orks o r B lag’s ive. no ymou .” o andi st er lu f and e, hav he on ip t is e ph ant K ch draw r th and , bject d by t t r f yle st d involves on le ’s th y t t on nce

ct of Blag’s phi th egori cat he c isac pe b encd ri gni ere r t man o ents t i t fu o elimn dir he h yt r un al i e object s in actives hes d wi f er sical, e y int u ive ng e ti u the nd fu t, ar p yer st y , t de ef rou he

f hing se tself. T The on. g or he em f do o t as t ing ng.” th t r U . ogn w an K ore subjec tiv 17 (an s.” t r andi st r aphoric met d mus us abrict th its her a ec at e f Gr n se a gh Enl the y ains of area his m her thes how nd cat the tha ant K Non ser ork tw 18 hil ho ion d r es t al eason iv ito hi xp Thes eat Ano th rom e yzab e (“p an an wh , How he osp c s eg cat ake t o t s ed o s r eri eg cat th th n”). ethels, with s or ng p of ul lec izaton

ons t c t pr e t on p emat p t e e kn of t c e re ets o thi f or a th tha e losp of t pos ur b s their have ar le ntial osi i h the tual, pos vBla ere , 16 oncl es e n ca the of is ch cl enm ight e ma a o in t y, ti egori at subjec e

ve ories d th volv u tiv owle Blag’s ymous in cul cre the f ego cat al sib myt s h i pos hi ed nt at of n hy of ude ion pre tiv er t a, dat es It lif e. uman the conlusi on se uat e-adq or ly r e the ar way th

a c g s il th e i s or as act th cre in nt the bear ti t dge but h

is sp es uctr tr e at se y t t of on ib a th is e o in is ga i ol at ial pr e e r nt f ai respond cor s es th ti egori cu egori t n source ul ns nt irtu o t e at e tho an produ ogy, s ve li gori r

f m ou is d xpre t hat of t ies and of y t at s or o rix t d ltu guar e int e an elm i th at

t as uch atio s rc bot t al e”) cognit . Th in a dat y prohis o t acording tha, s ught e es p re po rom thec t if h at the cr e human of mark re is the of s s a herefore im e mpt s at t c cien, of ct s. e mat pos pur and e the

agremnt re ir e ant el f facil h the n, e an

emoideas, t re t in c e y he reat 15

is pl e st ir f of l venti nt t of ion A is nat uper hi lat t ec a ut e si e at gro co tha subjectiv Wh oncept conre s: b a re o rials con The ments). mind he unmis ime the ed ca tual human o t e s orignal n super a sitng th ar y r xpe tibl G reat es s or at it gories ng obje s under hi c ncre et B what ion. T s ensi numbe prod a e ant K ereas luen inf wing at t s pace and ve s ul rl an st t e rien a clo y t sour c ural he hat orig aphy, and of t ual al hu with not l obas jec m t par of e ls he e t

abl ak t ymer st y . ar A no ymo C a o t i io orign tial he h go man isegoris cat ofents cont eri mat e t of ct se he n t s a met it t o r an t anl a ns e thprod theo t sely humanof uman lag eg cat ive k sel h c ries, he theof uct cognit t an K huma e , e fa f din ognit y is t dv intuor y doesit Blag e, mser t a mselves B f. cultr g guedar s y ativ B o tha e a atura nowl t phor . p a g ames o ce s ut sor ct creet or nced beo is of r tive. 14 tha lag lag t

i on. 86 ies e he al, us yt of r e. n n s i e f l ------R E L I G I O N , C U L T U R E , I D E O L O G Y 1 . o N I R S J time v conser de ations. Th e dire the of scend for prot e cat a are yor t , arched, or a the by mined er de t is ar tha the while a x e For varible. fore tive ac matrix be cultr two be aco e in cogni e un is y tial of subthoug jective, ing, an t hu th and vi al sur mine er det m ations and for the subconi de the while of result M dge. sarily vari d a the of r cau ICHAEL Th braking.” nt w ymanit , c co m for in r ole t cat c ct sets go unt Th space. and lso 19 ase tive the but able, se re aly unde ouble the of ries nsc Acor Each human su bconsi uc Str The T nt ship, censor e Both eg combinat re my of ation y the ec s JS. po h co i found of ~ 6 0 0 2 r e t n i W ~ 5 tha A Great the of ations ories) are univsal er con for counts percep tio io cat t for ting and e d e cat sal aby its sed by nstr us a ONES cognitv e c

us. tura complem ar e t ive st r ca the ant, K o t ding lativ tha are there t S cog egor ail t hum not are cognitve the hereas e creative t egori t ap he 28 andig. th yrather but humanit , al o t sal r uct y tribu sa aby e min er indet the n l ni s oth a com fe dif n th gues ar He e. l t of ions the y, ie B i ing tive the of d ed tw e e su s lat hy lag u F s. t es er was.y t s of ns yer st . nha noes, on t i bc e t cu whi c plet he and aby mple ar al p e t Lof Blag Philospy ucian the in Cultre as Religon and Religon as Cultre f if

s ar at y t o onsci noare Spe ai de t ren x ple t p variblt ent nd nc M b are r nc gories mor have egoris cat l aby lt o t s egoris ar e one way t ere egori cat sal y wh e ” le the aby ab the ure, arale tio th pothesizes ing c h eo eav 32 gue ar ngler c t a sp , an pac pe e y ar nt nt pac t 24 hora yli st ple nalys aby the , c sal l r hat u q ult cal (also us e cat of s Th s. or c the of s ou ar egori c at ly cre i f e af t t e: sal e cat ac tim e, cals Blag at B x ed reat xis e no e and . Ther f dif in e it ase

t at s pos

con be can e and cognitve cr bot e at ati Blag bu re a he pos of nym c stic at S varible. e et horizons n uc str e d o s. ct sal e cat ons— n least at ar e here c at egori and e, d of y f dif t 20 ti sal y is set is a names by ed pos egoris cat efore al ognitve egori con d,

gories fu h es a se ous n its ticul par go ere me ail de t i I t at t of s o s ognit t le ref n y the ibl ri s e t of tures egoris cat fro er the ed nt the , vari ar e s

es ar e nc s ind each f cultre cognit he K th nce an e gorie “d s c ant K tra ego cat al o me ogeth t work ive ed cr eat are s and tionaly unde he e ic s pecif e t ceive p e cat p wit do o t e Bl what ul e cat hat aby y o oub . Whi and ace c of t e t par of he “s each m eopl cu actul d tu t of ting ap n

s of yl “st s ar e rely cat C the Great An ticu par at space res. gorie gories as d le s ar set of he c o (an s ab e e s yl t ts le the , are egoris cat ive on g al sible m yli t a means ri 21 ivdual i f a ar e andig st r en u tr hav t and le ories c ag u be o t ear ine is o e cat nodo t d (as time hat

l es ot s ist s onsci b p tic tim and egor cat The a th ho f of thes const st ct yli t tr eing by ble d e th ic matri o h er w her t by ticu par no i specif egori cat ie ego ic cat e pl ure tha are i are ltu n sentim lar th fe if al cre uct tr go at st sal aby egori cat i the su ’s ful o t ri ous. Howv e ithn propsi e i e s ls indv re ic zons.” he an of n co e ri of im vi de n yativ . b the rent t it onymo idme s. s es, t bear t e det ame able imut Blag ws, e egori cat utive “s he mut e s bco 27 x.” c cognitv Gre a niv c the in ral il f egrati nt nsc ha dual ai t es ri ylist st indvual’s n space B th andst under the of ies 26 th l as uch ng plem 31 ly nsc as s er es mi r An at ecau ”). ns se lar 29 ious l. ve yl t e G t of d us imhe nt T e t si ab twThe o xe . ional al 23 e th ious 30 he imens num hat milar o t cog the by ned of of s im is fe if er mor /t le , se d s reat “princ imthis of se por ob of on h at t and and space s he matri tic aremer for The nt ons a , th is It onymous nt ime univsal,er and e egoris cat ar ar mine er det pl in an , re obser y st of print s cultrl lat, f , in sp of iment e e s, t Ano is t hat t emnts nt c the hav umans eir e “t cious. pati ofance ubst g “tr ansce sentim some times cr ehuman do o t egoriscat egor cat a he d the from he but theof ple ve undla alit is ot jects x.” hu ymous

t s 25 . o ase xture” salby a 2 there . p mor y l n ec with tra time man 3 the are hat cre 96 He ies ni l e) n a A e e e c f , ------R E L I G I O N , C U L T U R E , I D E O L O G Y ~ 6 0 0 2 r e t n i W ~ 5 1 . o N I R S J can e me ing spat the the of horizons respective ti par A horizporon. al sp ul subconi cu tha of uctions str h in f orce major ch o t matrix subconi fer dif tim cu of are of e of e matr ylistc st ul cultr e Arabin are posible. B the son per or comuni wel), esian t ar an as tured of yle st the tic sp at Saxo ape t ferent indf mation. stre r ef atiudnl tr ral hor co in alw as y M r. nable nt al, f ar cre ar t one for act y prima four ac ac ltur I 51 cat CHAE t a ntio es xist coe w be od st under by an yo am). mat ylistc st heir crit o t ant resit h the of cre tim and e Gre e; in cultre—inf n ar res t thus is It betw encs mative or e bea wh ime egori s The se The a There four The cultr e L ue tr iz ative S ation i ulting 43 JS. 48 t and ial cr a a s ylist t ons. Alt N T r ce a An 2. us; rs efer us, ONES a of idea cult ek t par a s y st o t eat o he an s orizon. one th w ange, com cond ix ac me plet may yle” st “lacks le th en least at re e, the apro t m c lag give ho se ain t sim r ent xt e the cre e ion ir f a f an n i def is p ed separ at be can les hat (aspiration subc the of x ith and —vei the the d houg the subc ori ist e empor cu ir rim h o t by shaped are atrices in the the n i les, icu 49 mat ylistc st at c e ic rizsometi ons re—sph y st s led hic e t whic rices, t o t ther y ar of group or son per a of ions ltu lue inf ir c and sm r r T ne cul lar xi eci Lof Blag Philospy ucian the in Cultre as Religon and Religon as Cultre tridm , wer ultres grap s the s aa ve and s a o ponet he change a o t leads h ilar cu ent y lives.t listc 3. ; acent olgica i re, same phsical y envir on l com grou a as d wi ord negatio of, mation Eur ly tic par he thr a po is t efo ar mat pa t as t t su th e eri a m r o f a ţ n i u z a n hy). ti hat ne empora p e fol win pect c horizon c th re nc pres uns an es and also Baby e; on ri m bco sp cal nce po . en lt en 50 ce it lu e opean 52 ur at hange. 41 enabl can h sc the th ric onsci e t osible si pe a of s be se n y st a f sional creati o s din e resonat Each w y vie of i or hist nsc t par e s per a upon s ri se al comb mes iou nt ent ular The itn f of beco es not geo e ble xp e x hor l (pi t f l as by i g ace; o p io pec t s o s c lonia g t for h an y a tin th w vie 42 ons ampl x e m. e an us, he us wa m hing ts f icular listc space is hat as ctured con r why cul Romani poular i if any f iz lai p the cre 53 Th re vativusaly e conser raphi s r is in mpo of much ain re t do y the g, t y of hi me a of on ed ave wi s ho and why ns gnes ăv i t on’ par A f he s the in of n reci e is it and ories st ax The t matrix, and ine n hat ano th th and or at . Bl for , y the t el st s cultres ferent dif two why xplains e 47 d yl st ul trin hsi y l i e than ore ral ms or es cre s valution s caly as e ). s of umber subcon the th up on’cr s : ment and s act ture f e if a , 45 o tha dea ti w a und procal at sic or th of horizons erimpos and cal f spatil horizons ist t s or se cular one cult so per are n

st ir f The sen rent ion e a a iolgca of —twin p al ylistc t the ag, xp e is r tio ov t y neutralit e cont eo epa matrix c “axi he ly the eat the is ure fa e r at fact of erl ns. of it h s a “posible s pectivper in an ple ot id s n’s e unit e make at tha e rat the yivt . ir s ap s s th upon ed 46 ns ab econda cr w . cr th matri is It s e pirtual xt. aphsic y met the by lained c , is t es an l), C pace; andi st er bas yl t itc of e an , en v A dicat ub ol thes, of le ref s es sc xi e re sa y d w it 38 of valution a is cent T 1 . are: s or depn 43 aus ogi tical iou with eations istc matri consi . positv owar d t 39 su e a is judg A de alt d by nature This u x horizonsspatil of y riet e ct s.for act y r bl ing s he e cat l ture ec ac cal of o t tha th on fu d mat s st yabilt Conthe vselyer , h its . itse ti par a p 37 st of fac y ondar t hi ng. i d bc nvir o cl a s hi din and spatil e inan y; old heir ho ous —un theof horizon the um matr It is nes t par negat e, lf. ons (pict ture t n gori a tha ment al the 40 ri ur ho o st r cent,” h the at rix th ugh on g 44 geth cr e s st mind ces nme space; y or dulat also tha whic of hi ear c he (picpast cious: , h y r cul ri hared composedis ix es hor ng of horizon spat icular cultres: of eat 35 al zons, it is n wermede for p a n cul d (as th t owe er re beholdthe nt cultra reat o ive, i hat 4 Two e” tha wi ture—ro Blag ions. s.or t efe a y e t yl st ar emt or ial s are e A . min er det tha y or st whic in aas ured w el yli st he elmnts ve i acent ti ar uctresr s r ive ybrid pa emt po f dif mpri s 36 r: th r ticpar a o t r n e co ubtle . p ome cular l th

neu the istc aas ti r l fo led 07 er ye iz nt ot ot n c s r n l a e e t t ------R E L I G I O N , C U L T U R E , I D E O L O G Y 1 . o N I R S J c a o t pe son sio ho ace theolgyCatholic and . e his ative ponet sur tha al t a and cultr of ne me posib ho horizo e int inf an has India recives. s absic cat whether h the withn y or t tu above r tion,” o t Blag, ace cal erlat . the c the is aproach respective p o t onesl (sp or absic”), (“cat ot ward t xpre Shake i d n i M destiny w , pr edisposit or de ICHAEL the of ndet u rizon of the subco rizon, e n, ati ntized. unive ’s cons cious the su se tral i l a u d i v nts, spe e tr or Byz destin th of vation le of sion al 46 al crea al sp olectiv f. le The t In Through e The Bla The limnatg s mak and efer ct 61 a an but nt aspirand t ation s the pas for the tha ms for JS. Leibnz, eare, th ay em thes at p 54 antie he Rembrandt., ~ 6 0 0 2 r e t n i W ~ 5 but o sa r Europe ga g nse 62 T th four third f se he ens nega A ONES h d e z hu the o t s f a pheno gi y drivhis e l tions. e t e up orizo desti of hic rathe rough iv our yt . ind e the mporal),

lemnt dest of cons es ve se t by y hum anit o t ven t ar object can it 68 has th f compone ach of t y prima the iv r i p s a e v i t a m r o Bla o orizon inc tive 5 n (whi the and indvual tha in r co y ke the of and fo e a t e xi e the more, ther ur F se nabsic t dualiz th of on meno. nsciou ylistc matrix st o hei varit al dent ax nanc ythe while , com p ga o p the ious. ts r ral ample x e Lof Blag Philospy ucian the in Cultre as Religon and Religon as Cultre po 65 m Byz t s ferkdif es 6 posit a o m r s anly Blag’ins yOn . e fo at st be f r d an hes apr o iolgc ch c a st the In lect ef yp t a hem dist hat T the of m for ed co t r horizo t t f re f or elmntiz ed he t o mati lowi Blag lab s, a nd it fu aphsic y me t antie The of co (s n ve hy sub e subc he ativ r It an mponets des of nse or se i f a t ares ic ve t r ob r phe of e ax ive si ac al ve E lves. patil rec (“neut ed m for ent st ng cian o mponets in in he t y t y st i t a o t s of th nt je co and ions ylis b n uces apro ach.t as c gui nda ac ct Heid o inu G n o in tha nsciou onsci imprint listc omponets Paul do ent iolgc pir indvual’s els “ hings ive r Gre he hes those matrix tic eing sh ncti and am x divual. f the subcon fo rdized nome ativ “veg t or ral” Egy ient phenom at y and o t a pe t tin e sen one en st i s an ind a kes: t ion ous. ealit matr Go i, emt po ons as r e ples un an d y. eg pro duci u mative for noes t al dif n ab s at 59 ce n a , e r u t l u c n a m cul one’s y st the f ge ace ed ac y the 56 is yle o y or a “st on. e of de as e m t of ix, the “se of 63 . t Ano ym aand horizon e int inf an have Ethiopans amp x e Other r’s ethe 76 i ptians nihls m r ic”), one o cord h This in fercu ent ture o t na of r es s ral spe per Th r es xi “e at In mph anb an and nt, yli st own he the negat a its r ng luenc f

Fic , negati a ), uestion q the o t response umber real cious. The e fr anoom t and ther ing o t its o mo as best e t in ult stiny in mpl el hav s ponsib lis the s r enc st woul m conep the asize s stic is em phasi i y t ly epr ous. emntiz on’s vidual e ht ti pirati e”). ct n adv an of one be can vemnt ne oy ltu are matrix c listc same e s ed iv ive f w h s es e of e ant K , matrices e t a 57 69 an he s re Bl e. fo le fe dif f r f en ample x hem as pi ot t on w a Each . uanti q les pr ubco it ow ve n Blag s. it matri tho s d andrdize st zed, des o at t s d wards wn ms, nor r el hdra yp t on ed yl t incl on m r a h ax t r y ught,” nul t , gi ga re ion em ph he th , ave fo the in as nsc is ti iol vi l a c i f i c e p wi nt u e t he of y t wal of Re he ny,” r tic matrix is the x: an se ic t on be li the ude nc o s Egyp tianinclude m r n a aspiramative “for e ogical c ious w e ng un re o deat ve th this li tnes ed ul from the ho oes t

t the f their v e fundame tualy Bl hat x e as s he ns li s in inf c of ture o re ega e y it efe se t matio for h.” a sen absic cat es asi onst se xp e o e is th ac he co ga things thrdi e giv co fe o i t n e m y l of h tha s r Ren tiv phenom s. A ve 60 ideal xpre es ati witho, Plat co y ndar th o t e destin f a e it horizo is as a d, o t t ax e o t e an ent, atiudes, uctio r al uth,”“tr ir f f res ofamples vely ticularpar rega a necti cording o aisn a he ati ms the trajec n, el nd ofion iol round is/her then pera c e st r in rding inde . p i o n cin inct z and y. en ner ad on on m re 17 n gi ce 58 n g a s f ------R E L I G I O N , C U L T U R E , I D E O L O G Y ~ 6 0 0 2 r e t n i W ~ 5 1 . o N I R S J than t impl ucts arstr e cultral uct constr rel the but betwe of jud being tio the of uation hid one’ and as a limt o t th re intrscaly are Therefo re from yvar , matrices co I nito ar cre o t humans e cat e cognitv the B what is This both transc refe o t of reduction numerical the d This ati ualit q know ype t xpla e The both of cation ent xt e “t lis change ic scientf in for act a ra o f mode of scien M cu by nced mor is . . . phsic y w ne he Blag’ an logic o tic I ns tha reach CHAE ‘co o t r co uth tr gnito, func gories matrix. ylistc st s ne I cogn en. T ic th matrix, cat sal aby hy ic tif t of natios util It ledg. he e at und the of epnig Bl i What Cor The Type I cognit is P L n wh o t re m JS. h velythrough , re ag e two th si, anly s th s the na ive is ged al kno i he fact ra tio of ode res l a’s ph bet ation ONES lection of a f fa tionalz end o nstr conre et d t egoris cat e iton (luci lt pro poth s y t tha ct e pond i Blag ich s ure o th pr and e at de lag intos def o ent the of employment tion uct ju no es far ybe ond phi ture p n do egoris ilosphy pos “nat , ph he co its in as a the and es wled tha dge co e h ce e lat the o t ing uths, tr ed’ ac nam t t y ze const is vrelat e of po both ide an wen it nsit

be o t d nsor the r el he ts t s dep ju is What gni fu y The d. o feric). Type I ge an on naliz Lof Blag Philospy ucian the in Cultre as Religon and Religon as Cultre ar ere i I pe n ur wa eno gi n obje ctive f id the yp t of “nat es i It ntuio. a he

uct r u tr al by tive o t on y i realit ve e i s of c em o sh C li u cq I q in mena c s cognit andi st er at ati anot mit re a n u ip f u tr sit . cognit t d ni t ion t e n ot 80 s ac mst y the ov ion th and l u tr and on be t on t ired ult t e t wo therefor y var wil t con are ories nstr s not is th” i ea regio I e pi h f af ed a vely u c he wo tr ural losphy th g (“s th th vi ri i e herp , x e he nct cre uman r a I dge b la s hi ording o t Bl via t re has e cognit d cal nc t ive realit uc mp ype t ect ype t ylist st cogni o ypes i ng c a is tha yli t co I ype t n y transc tio

ognitv he u e othe er io yli st e a ep from n, this of ed wen ti n nd at d uestion es licat nv ol ut n s a as n of n t on. c eris pres s in incultre volves stic b rovide yl “st nvolv ype I n Be a. at sprin Ty egoris. at . Ev d be o This h.” en en of s y.” d a dir ti

andi st er cogni f ic ide an ubj eg y st ves B st ati on in subje e cognit.I e of 79 respondec cor en s en withn s r ion is in the ucts str (aby ic rakes I cognit l cog de not does ue tr a ar es egori cat S . g f a gu m ar an f y vit e tic tiv ect im ai t more, ther ur F on den ag’s anly uct tr the cause cult o t ct g cr eativ re is of as e cien e is fect af in rom Bl b a och creas in ely g ls the yp t xis o t acording e and uct str n ti ’ nito ” (sup a and a al ce t cens c le, ct. rakes of ng it s an on ). reach rom our th at en t s w el.

ion: po cor epoch.”o t Thus pact r 76 ve E es cog I pe o e es al al sci cons cognit e on n, p creativ l ultre c al , ag me egoris.cat ) “Jud ,” kno

of kind th ype t ne ading by e sh or en cognit lu inf ural const i 71 t f is cult as on h hi in ed t d s enc si in vol whi rati u tr its the t T ’s philo f t i much m e uth r cog TI ype s). Th f dium e uctive tr he gues ar tha the dom inat be t a of gments t two he h wle the ip via the r a m e, an , th or y e cu of on ion cognit I abs ing p tha ucts r ch are t is e ural ve e st y pe ar e acts e ni a invol o iv thi th y ealit th and ope wen how d d 77 s by ot os th and , c I ype t ti l tli ar st s pore ation incor of cultre c e th-j ge u q a d nd pis o enc sophy of by s e vre or in on ed T cognitve a of y r th n y rel an nkig natu g ha her e at aplithe through e rat is his udgments emo t egoris al cat thi onl f e y y ic ignf ly ol ve ide an he cognit pes the s. ov e at anti ltu ob ) e ut gorie is nito ap e th s ati 75 upo y cre s c whic preciaton, w is at el (paradis n re s aby ng li es fec af pe l of (s re ro logy. ati ve n a of ng of iswhat becaus oncep cul a t e th er aplict e o t facts se an ogn is d, vide in not are s s uacydeq . of d r and a . e at st ymer st y of on kn op 72 reciat es yrealit ,vable r th sal c iv asyle st of ce functi wo ve imt n ed t con al ince im has 70 ture. I kn el iton. o row le T theo ego cat

resona e idea. T c the own our ed limt y, tio he aby rel

ylist st ’s A men b both egori at cogon s through co owledg valon/e hu at ealit n, sin yst a y ob ic 78 ypen t yle,st 73 r ri iv tha t o onef ) o t eti plica rding . p m er t ofn ot e le ri ject. T a sal o nce y. luf

cal nd on es. by 27 an a he he be ns ce i ic 74 s. d a ------R E L I G I O N , C U L T U R E , I D E O L O G Y 1 . o N I R S J put a positve pl the cre the cr the y t Ano hu hap cre at place ok t ation” mut cal e.absolut cal s ap o t cole a as od st limt ylistc st e e reco and of rejo e C vrel e phsic, y cu a e at facilt both vrea e ative e f y it With it time same m for ca Blag what de M nd y humanit d th il ful o t r ic, ntif ultr ed.et ICHAEL o t sire y (Blag manit cals th the ed at ati ap

anger s co gn ny e st y othe rom duali of ation the of ling proach cultre. ng tragi smo put in pearthe of ance The Bot prac A Acor Bla Bla The C P k also is e th ized, 90 a mous a and JS. h m p l ea y mer st y 86 incep ti the be ~ 6 0 0 2 r e t n i W ~ 5 a philos y ga’s ga’phil s pen i yp t h c Great Ano ymous proec t st y t l i tiv lture i ONES icng o Thus y the tha relativ cu ing. m fe ef i cosm ymer st y , ding o t Blag, it osit t fuel gives ylis s spe with b cosm phi Blag’ s of it benf tical act e the tisc.r li r “princ e o e value yle on rst p lso e trat ls n lat e 89 d I e ct : t st of ction p c limt nd (“ g tic e cat o on merio st y s a posit and beings, ving

hu s h “luc m This pr o t y e me he for osphy the At place t th P from y humanit isolatng of he enc xist e hum t and yhum mer st y , y th of vre e r 85

a b er halt su n cre y’s humanit rough t in life f if mani t but o ylist st c Lof Blag Philospy ucian the in Cultre as Religon and Religon as Cultre The t of ple i cif eric nt gories f y t di a y anit Gr e

ac is t i co a alowing “br or ing” co I ype at ut ive of s of c way a ch C o when point ec ognit ab c ylistc us. limts a y t vin esr r wh thi ha Up man.” u acomplish thes t ause is cu l cu eat ic valu

cr’eati s cu io functio bot l mo y ver he at ti s t B t c he c ilt p also of horizon he ion c “t tr n u of a single s ltur her than

r ltur e en at th fo act A i r e, on set n b y valr ltu l and es gni e c g no egoris an In . the gni onser cult ransce e d e b o t as an elaborat e

bu is ere re f a igurati f y it ts it y—spir vit y t i reati ti sfor th o t vre n ltu h t i c for ymous,

t ai ovet Cul s. r aki i ure i t mo s o on be d his gnitv mpoe t wi vie t is vat

um y hu re im losp self from h ent nde uctro e str the in

h of ng”) o y humanit med cre i for on, tha imts s re than anything els B yon w a h positv f als ource of al oth ion s whe ent be ans is ativ

util by e perat l ma l ome nt a s my B is ture es t o t rival e p es atin pose upon al goals. Th at o f hy y ng st um g com d yp t two the y nce o a n th mer st y of wi myth tual, l convsio er o t sential ni pet per vel e a a human oint one ’ g suce, y er st th y t humani g abs e f y anit ac and th s t lef y li o t gan a t ul

hi el k ecs ed t ar st y humanit n cul tur ’ wh ts, b the of M a are le e s u pari is ture pre y y e

ua

ma and c aphs y met s mot oth and oth p olut e P tr and as os pet per o t th Ano y Great he e t ve t rom f ul y and ar usef h an son. fro n”). v re n y.” a rel ical, de si iz pr and i of source er e i e nt (ac ich as Blag but e, p th for G e y t l sienc de es ve bil h f l hu was y it Th egoris. cat ing o 81 vice so ul h h s o es h 87 48 ani mere m yie it th at s eli s wi s in xi tur y it y se e t l me “brakes yumanit vices iva arde o umane Ac cording o t el man s minat e st i y umanit e of nt p igou hat c f of i e as at awar an th y s st e t r e e ics. c es uch ua h o t ial o nts and t n Great The acts. y or s an

inco e at imt y huma er b o t rding di al creations h t tin l 82 hat E of ul

huma tha way a ve my ing ph s, ve .” oth im le o gorie l h d fe f h , l t g s Bla ac ed lation , or cu cre f down Th the im creat human mous. fro mel plet enabl

. uma es rentia numb a lds ts de dis t mal uman 8 theat tha ts ser hro C n rival ga’s il is i wors k hat t up bec and n ati osphical u Bl orignat mposed upo olgi“ont An po ac m st en Blag apoi h ugh t n c t ces l t egoriscat e huma e cr It on. lture under yer . t this s andhere of higer a o a met es i y it coul ag) ofpath he u on human as sitve human.y y r r andof s r eati huma t 83 ’s e ogetht ntme elyurat umani he s by the a met theo phsiy o /neg o or iv o fer o com . p , per urce ame ynit sci n eat yt . 37 ns nt n is n d f ------R E L I G I O N , C U L T U R E , I D E O L O G Y ~ 6 0 0 2 r e t n i W ~ 5 1 . o N I R S J and com this is group a lim scop e, e int f the upon ing the cros com lis Be the of both of ue uniq o ignorant wer e y the xis e wo the how matrix, of due are varitons by than more ing betwe v tingush me e natur v What relationshp an indvual and a What of ac xpla e oi s ther com shared a with uals t aditon in aspects xpla e elucidaton an wh of uestion q com by ture posible M a i i dual, m duals e cat the o t came y the how vi When indvuals. ch tic I gson r CHAE re ed. ept It en is t su of ts ind of ting thw ar s-cult Blag’ s ing. do is municato can mon sal aby not-shared a facilt matrices ly per o t natios natio o His alism. ind not alwas y the case. He gu ar is Bl Simlarly, Blag’s the fur A This distnguh L on com p a n o rks anothe st tha e at mit re tha o t ’s ps the JS. the o t ag ivdual. dis tha it ind c omu ural epnd se ere ws vie re a ONES wvie Blag’s , s gories x e i se chara ycholgy, ivduals with pe f ve e of betw ly bet n o t re of luencig nf plantio of the r be gain A ws. vie ir re fur a of x e ind r. it benf r on cole a ent i it ether how cu of philos y sh nic r, 91 lativ 94 with ople hu the ic f suf w d ed t an es ct en of ponets e pa wn ly of an y i are o nt tingu hare P ivdual. th en colet eri su ve enialy re j and the o hum al of y t e orignat are yles st xp e ely y each f c e t ome ni d st of ction in an lt not Lof Blag Philospy ucian the in Cultre as Religon and Religon as Cultre ur share le and M pose ie i egoris.cat th f the d ic cat ph Blag’s of in shares y of theor yli st t we ed ot wasarpiration d man ple b ishe c , po r ealy s nt belong as ndivual at ti r resmb “famil and s in t t par e omunic t by d yli st pro r ive gr ou ion io a co e t n o x not d solu al u one t ects from o produ c o t sti t st ar d a not is n wother’s lai i he same group? Is the i sing ndiv ac vid gr ou the and ,

of awar e not are who cultre same he hat ind ticularly sal aby f tha f only matrices. c ind thi ns hr lect xing etwe elatio h’s phy stic ic ble he cole a and ual cult same ind ou e cat y secondar ular he t ltu

yle st 93 a vie st ir f p. Th sprts ead t m: ti se one) vidual t sibl mi ne iv at an p ego cat hes uals and impos es tha an y the gh th o t on di en

an by ure re so nship be t y ticular par st par al s ion com or or th is ynor t , roblems. and p, vidual or, k ilosph mis e ed tiga produc sic i probl he lut Many one. w ne provide y st e egori cat e p lu Td. t s, o t t betwen fe f f Dif pr op ions a lens mi ivduals robl the e ot ov e le Con. v points he w leis l un he re gr o ’s th l lect ref o o t ing w vie wo the Bl . e s es nat y ti n wen indv at imt refore pr obl oth l b erencs For s der un xp e an s th he em in volv a col ons r Bl of uces transc the col t ov the gr oup e of em rco y ctiv the m: in and cultr e, of at i es es ag col of lances” r bein b icaton th and er b er t erlap com e up shared (a selyer le is the n adi has and T . and t me es ample x e ti ose he le ’ p c T . the s the s (he em its ph ag’s ectiv col ne gories ec i Why ctives? cros hu hat o s matri t i ap ein cul romanti by d vi en t of s g a “re B ing. t f or lantio n ti nita h o e et i , el ing el y munit a xp e tha out es opl the n co a as y vit hav er ame tu f upo th g tur e gr oup a real we y or is t pearanc end whi et s- u q efo io withn ual re amin “cont e bot le re o we cul more can, e ces grants Bl , man al t en ed be canot n sometimes cti it akes t lag ylis st il gue ar e en al e e ch xi e al re s and c est b fundame of orign of ments o osph tur n ind s He . f th merel rathe y vit real h by an in the t n is t, a ri ar su a ti worheir k as we ed ion ga’s xis i tha es cre al ticu par tha egoris cat onal i the ti th twhe e r e st th c of s er con it tha en t matri c are ind xi e s s cism, of y atio hes th ind of y munit vidu t d omuni e omu el yli st e es at t bc con a y nt f two res th ndi uch as, wha a a Or ent? st t” but f ndi ati unit, or is i and a atin the the t y eor divual and then yl st “sh e ? on ov hat he al t o alwas y are ns c mak ealso but o, cu neithris vidual huma a t als pos anoth than r as oth h on s e hi lar vid ion vidu t are s r er, e he s s x). cros-cultral o of g” ld cious st ef have . Bl re dif ltu ni hat sh provid t inyle st ame e u othe are re co t or tha vident e y tha ic is gl it 92 tie f er dif cation. b al rom ip bet le, the and al disthe re, a ejec xplan andivsm, pa t worer’kss means fer xplainede ag omera vie s inpoints yferent st r ma s in The e tshor n but tha

lead ylist st elongs?

i re min so t t i widely culne t noth a sha fective trix r s,er int onw anes e encs w ation . p s the s aret jects t The t ndi s ot vid e io red me gs”

er? yle 47 di en of n c r f ------R E L I G I O N , C U L T U R E , I D E O L O G Y 1 . o N I R S J ain cont in e de the an e.absolut the bo th e with four tha se int an insa consid ous the pasing,” xpre also descr fo act are d e t the of at ions limt scend cogni ap xtre ems. religo n. pasing sur ample x e ic cif tran s whic o t tha al hu th givn er t af and yle st M e R lemnts or cores dinat of x e coul y” r y cor olar a as en ICHAEL int f its of y proac xi e y manit ideal c transce re

g i l sp ks re on empirca at co e th shows cend are tha s r escr ar tive, the of sion ie i The The and Religon Bla The T B s ver re f a as r eligon of ion nc S nt. tiable de and ), ribut e enti vrelation of xist e e h al h he JS. l h er mat religons tha ibed, r e the and 9 phi his of lusion a rel or ~ 6 0 0 2 r e t n i W ~ 5 discu icaly ecif 103 uirq e de o t sek ga emoti psy ib e be d the de ca p th s vari g ONES

pas elf-sur He reje y a e poetr a Th t. D dent o es hr phe l pa e choanlyti ’ d refore ho the in st in f ation wit hi a s s of vrelat e e ale eir d is ia t ak en t uman eluci ther fu r “ide ase e nts,

cite necsarily s writngs s onal, vrant el ls f spectively, as the lower and P it ire fo religon f value d thr ough c i t at car e at st nom se h elf-sumari lau is int ef n on cts Max of rel capit the i s of self-u i h l t ac Most i ent int Blag’s not is his r sing volit th tha e o emat p not o i r t um nd the setles Blag tha o Lof Blag Philospy ucian the in Cultre as Religon and Religon as Cultre conv are tha ena suget o o ion lack m his co al r and s h al xi e igou “i of io dable n o religon ine f he transced relig sing

r Blag e n, an

p e t ional ri eligo t losph o xp on h ybe o hat eith Schelr’s and P facult zon fu r r f th s f at ts o dation, de lat ap et o eling onst and , y r tual emo relig of lantios

m u the elat e ist al zing ly Gr e mati R di

t of y en st re cor al , intu his mof o e t t on n, t er beli fo are ems mst y ap et e at vrelation e and hsic y nt uc r ion t nd f stingu em.st sy ical hat t ves r c l re aptiudes and ies t

i eat lti pr eligous ce, b ial me st y the ain t th g (on es pec R sel e it op ou ts with su in hepi sic, y t disc he ligon, on ( i usi e mat unco f y oc er ti y er st y fail e e Ano ym he o

nt is f-sum ef i hro e rat hei ve, and lat ic. l of ld othe he n i ut es e i g i l e R i ş ă c i g a M e r i d n î G h en g on apl u a yl a st 97 i h ion.” r n an ab ug i ial t his s reach uman ure , acordin tha way a ch ti aul Tilch’s o goal.ir cond o t o t i s cur fo and phi of I matio el e ultima he f t onal upe y r r eligon h n und pec n er t the y f the s dit 98 ng ac imagntv y ps other rom in my hand r o t pr o ion aph met c s fa emol st ous is er a z i l a t y through st los tic ia ion o t He emnatio

ct, al tic l y genr s thro l sel or n th reach r li from lear e or olut 140 ly f e the of l ophy e st has aph met us th r de al n Alth . ab di ol in i his g mit se al emat p , a y r ugho scu A ogy, y humanit e ms o t in def . pose tu owing: ) an r e 95 ls l al ms y sical y Blag, o t cord ing of e lim it are cre for ed s of re philos y deal Blag’s phil pe re.” s , whic se e, f-s v e ough H . crea The his facult human a fe i goal is “ emn “s s y where ome d s B ut n a d in the cultre pa s ur ychol elation nd 102 r de el st it

lis b the ic s in def el c umani pasing elf-sur ( ions and t ts f- ic re or s. lig nc ti a do Blag ch y “R igo ph h man both vre e sumat lag’s S sube tio ling of d ts 10 F re c c x e an as sm suced vere al as on e ac em, tr o e og t fo or t ef r ousne . , ing lat ilos li rejects n. us the by d a s . the withy humanit of tion ons it sin He discue problems gio an y’s t i listngos, ther and ud . . 96 ph cal shou religon of ion os ” ion wo an be resu ophy t d o uen q ce th uc tr an reof cir cums n ophy aspir of t f sce “ and ion” abs he i s. Se epnd es ai f o s o l i F e d s r u C ies with twe d h He rks. in s xi e S pects of this def huma he whic oro t ding arerelig ions al gr in wi n ts th nd , enom i of lt macher’chleir s

aptiudes and r e t mer e co for f o of an v e ely. Imediat o ample en s a give ot er i ş ă p e d o t u a lf cu f o wrame ork ot w ation ac e st the the th -suma eal the tran enc olut d m ir f af tw thes cult asping als inherente msy ntial en acording an tt mpor cribes ltu withord e on u sin e, b n s a. as eltima and/o alsore elf-sur 10 1 re, self-f vipre beld atio tw . p eing tio the in, ul ard the

pe 57 an ce n n h d o o r ) f , ------R E L I G I O N , C U L T U R E , I D E O L O G Y ~ 6 0 0 2 r e t n i W ~ 5 1 . o N I R S J Br whic y th e anly he xperin e f fre whethe xis e and o t P (se o t w in It cultre. by tic o t mst y gion c ipro e es nat of ential xist y e mer st y i tha e gion havi uct constr Therefo i This o t tio of soley not tio e religon is l inf lo i it it gion thels, ar Nver e o t M th fect af tha lemnts are nces cu by nced asc t religon of sophy asc othe each ano reg a be empir his ahm I e wvie red e has Blag tha God with s n er shelt hig ns lf-sum CHAE f ound.s enc t ci ng the endcy t Wthe est.in al r y humanit hic th Dionsiu y ic is a human cr eat alot cult rom unsaly is y t one s e responds or (mor ion, Bl The r efe Blag What It Bl R w ther xper e al L se anism, and Christ w ain t r supr and cosmi u nad ar e y the r re rat but e JS. th of ce ag ag e lf. t hligt is p mation/self-ur re and s variet a zes t Blag, conlud es , l the on thoug sometimes wthe s i 109 does a a ONES th of ab ic specif epo o t epoch s religon fr om cu g cip ake t lt gue ar o si anly ical r. i hile o ura ue de Blag’s s is ie ure heth roca Becaus n are wahe ea y nced t nce plac tr ansce e her pu main e

yli l/st pa d the of basi upo main luenc inf ’s a mst y tha s Pseu e uestio q not l, r e a er n the a a t t r hat e, d una be o ve e e inc by cult ion o t ant t impor egori cat sal y o mo re ic nd Lof Blag Philospy ucian the in Cultre as Religon and Religon as Cultre

e o ref tha sed proce e ain t st o t s r of y xperincs e ed erat ult y the ular th of C ahist a reli of into f ult als ian my le at ic do , but pe a nd ch, sub jec ore i asing becaus r u li re f ch de ai t er po r w f ld i gio les) t ng Are - ” is l of s cano t ac t recipro is Sin orical. t v oed de t a lt as nt u he hu relig sinc , ic re, and tha r co “ideal s fec f t o t for se xperinc e us ur the n ts the of se im r e orld in t r o he opagit a at st n cor st th are y re sm his of es at ict e s.r religo o t e’s luenc. inf Bl mani c c n ms ic at s a ven e r r ecipro this of li cultrwby it ed e t o i r at re t 105 is on c human t par of ism, as wel gio me e st y m m e b und the o t t a he th is relati or t s op e e of an not t au el e am x e Me e, or t self- ligons y i t mst y of n y cit bei (th n th o on is, gion hat le ce igon dire a is asp able ut y st stic y le theni t a l fo e r r s also m ments reci o its sum ar peo o t ng of xhi any ec the uctre str th with elation d e el f e tr a p n i t s a e l religon in y r s e m with on lis of andig st er of e at t of number ge is is al whi , e ig re of m r o pl proci ph mark the bit e t ti cit of re e es ylis t l ic as specif xcep own es absol the f ic on itsel mina er det c

Ecke r thar of t par a not aphs y met i ation cript xpe of y ati st ag produ ct t il of es c yhuman cit , T h ple. in sm s ul old ect st sy osphical indcat ch y tha t human unit aco own his ti a ti

tural gue ar ri th im el c tic par o t on st c s i ms y ed a en lig of on t har ul f is cen e st y age. e e r nd ap an emn wi y ce a c cludi d eref e at ous . me xi e whic in cultre the of product re 106 ct a human cul c ical ing h l ef is se e.ut th s (at tr reat mst y , ti be o s d s 107 y).r ul e ul cre v arious G of in s er hapt claimed and s al xperin e cal Maxi ligon. diato es or ec th th p st ar lf nec ts r eliy theor Athis coro t ding h e my or x e c Ne ng ts r and y it o t hape fro yle st f 11 2 ions. o at Ac cording -s s be 110 e e draw He . ed inth t tima y vo ar t ) is length and r ult e t por ur al tha peri re pasi ur ics is “ unt, em, o t o od the mus r, s the tha out points He lig tr ans e religon y ver ori t of n s 108 twe d by rel l y r 114 re enc whi r ike y ar bu el e thic o- ons in i or eli cal hi t r en ubs eli Plat cult al r e o t d ng tural le for gio Lao-tzu in the East o t t als t mos fr o om emnts y var a g th m ues q but ce, hat s de the ce gion at o t Blag, natur t s l ebrai lig not s anc t C cre unio onis and wr ig Hi ns. nde ur he Abso direc involve e epat p vre e Divne in f hi the on o the subconi andonfesor, ons on t i

i e regionfrom e roducti tin ati c s are e c,” m, iton nt humanof e li m the i ue. uniq is x e . Th or sa msy of ns incultr es rne elig p s kel r of a on on gs l nf orderIn . o me mat desc rips t d this nclu perinc me time r ba he ism,Suf r of y osible, ly luinf e ue e in e.lut cordi eli afor t aner ani ) beo t f reli . p tions nced ch n. gion sion tha phi ous rec luf io eli 67 11 3 11 1 s ed la is n g t ------R E L I G I O N , C U L T U R E , I D E O L O G Y 1 . o N I R S J ultim of remain situa olgicay ont its o t response the one be act almost e t Ano trans hu God- orig un F s ingle a of result aco cap betwe fro trans drivo e crt eat ot w ing of in y it ation, tions is subje se Gre of e “gr eat a as impor not o t Blag’s religon. ultim and al, M d most the tha ems alth and cultre, e at human the the the s st ICHAEL stri o t y manit e creat other m hum y acit Ano at d. inal cre the ny t emphasize familr w th mplishng con ultima of cend cend co e at xi e e at a a o t olutin plac e ant t cognitve i transc endt Bla Whether The Hu Religon R or in wa y this cau st ir f This xe e rci not does mous belif tha s one th e n ct t orde in nd o f erentials dif JS. th ard 118 o e e t an ~ 6 0 0 2 r e t n i W ~ 5 me ga’s mon thei of ept mani l a lerant gen an y f i o transce ONES ra ation g in e manet per xis e of ores dinat t or can ymous e st shi censor t cen sor t p st of cr and cror eat i ndomly. e. Howvere ven , t e o n transce e Bla of outline eral t is y t enti ntial ith self-um of dency the n man one is th reali e cap conep the o t theo god” osible x e he ed creat

cause, pet and per “t are is o t ve aph his met tiu yi aphsic y t e per a for d t r “grave mp in ed. n i ough nde sh grea has se u an p o pin he d On the o th ci d tha ailng ent ts, f like ot ward de t emat st sy s 11 7 e ist Lof Blag Philospy ucian the in Cultre as Religon and Religon as Cultre ip v re

t er enial y. e cr of eat y t i p, whic ms ndet, nt M s pe tu er Ano y t i y whic 115 a ransce co ly cen h impase”: nc pec n lt t p wvie ed be can t proec t o e sti ife m eal eat i not s ar life of yl st d cr of nacle imat hat a e uat fu th s bear t d a of e Alt ne r dir se cr eatio its ranged r a reli c enc, t a st The ies. sic y cr manife ship sor and and ion p t a elds nclu at rathe th of t i Blag religon al houg nd h tio e eat w he human cognitv cano t it e mo ther ur F yer st y . being human the of eds ga’phi s mation/s mo bloc icaly er hand he gu es ar ist al vis y ant t mpor en is y enti ential xist e i gions ect beings d drive human the of n si t r it t ion orld s di ow s th r o mark e in b c of us is on cens t i her creati aspiration the e ations of st ei c control most cy. Ano y Great e n supre own s the d or y t eat e creat o t ow s elm heod on rel is ame rak the ving achie an t 119 rel losp n ion de s s th cons e be ig . A elf crea s or hori es Blag’s ig whil , yl t at able not Blag’o t s s g ar He ked combines tha icy ons i at T . p as -sur h and , y t the of nts osi c ons t is the f o h cording o t ed. bat is on. ei with ed uat q h r of hy a and e d u ct tr i tiv the Ano y Great e Al . G rea he an p” tic n tiv creati the ver ti remain zon is t coul it , i lat the e es Two of e aphsic y met r is braking. T el s n activ Gr the tha hand, one the on ues, macy Cons . hum pos not e and c tha the x e r e re, thoug of sin y th li In as mou ola o t “s d o any like elative, elig im uc as andi st under th g whic e ribut An ont y tion a vre as w ay a h t cul w it c in an re o t it thr ough y t atu st ant t por b d li grea gre e yl t hi s, limts er t coul on . of pe hi of ght the is 116 is gion T God. s reativ spir tural t with en t t of ign s viso Bl lo ist sible eal t es rel or s e fro the hin his chief proc on es t A i def s aphy me t ag’s e at hu ws ve mo the th of s c ist be can Blag, o t cording a n it bec m ai mou li b ly pos t hat e c B o t o t cre and al ati antic be d st t both d t ing w orld posi

the us rel trans e n, al mit is y manit rak e the of ng odi hi lag t hem

ap nit dis the strat Blag’s on kno cognit t s and n atu has s ki s el up aus es a s th ac both o s a of ion ot rred efer en t o f cy c s ibl T s.” tiv c ir tiv ep ’s wit e an his, of tin emitrather but s, th up rahis of ment b ite egi re eith w e it c nd wo e reations. sol e c o ce u q in e e ef manifes er the l c of order ral reativ guis xi e hat d rem t h ve e at s are li cre im n re sonalper own he ed ipat c e ut s e at is manetl per knowledg of erombine/t g in gion re orica t pr de Ano si and ica f b he it tha employed ir em o t enc st f su As . as ations humani h presnt the a d rl an gives cs ed t wit d nt cum li thetha er mer or cap e in elif withou d theve esr supo gi s d is aused theand o estiny uboject t withlso cre religon b ny doeson l ousne human

itlogy, s vre anyy ationt c mo theh is th ancet itch, i en r . p ative lim ycit . i by an ela pir s bes s eat in er 77 r ed a us yt e y e f ------R E L I G I O N , C U L T U R E , I D E O L O G Y ~ 6 0 0 2 r e t n i W ~ 5 1 . o N I R S J gr con gr the of result a is y ativ e d uit q philos y Divn supoed on based gions posed them o t vrel e pos the de e religon. Blag ws vie his ideas on th e same the at e v“relation” e posed o is tha ratio sible give t sem wmaory the ld while tio impa vrel e ting creat is whic dit Bl becau de o t m er t co gnit human scribe does re nal Bl consid v relation e be o t ucts str M e pist dge nd e s anly ag’s ag’writ s y rict I nt ce n, is the t ion CHAE er at ve de a such o t oit wing vprent e ot ward ed rient it. Becaus the of n inst ation ation. ra as o se xhib e of no se t by d molgica ntioal vrela e vre H yalit . If po The Bl In Alt R s er al L apreciaton/u nde ferent if from t he sen tha it nsor t of the a of y siblt hat for the JS. par pr eclud t e Bla n the houg Blag elati v e pt of esult 120 ONES . . “any noe t e endowme transcedt ag’ as is it ship yli and st in ve ga is resr h he p he h religon of lue inf cultral t lim time h the ngs must tions l Christan se for d a Div of y siblt the of noe tha ads e are ons goa ed. uman c “spir is, t em st sy l e gat on. of sch s his mer T hrnse. o i hrase sit uman o this he has res n ” t by ls o the d any as varible phi D iv ny 12 4 a m er t cr human ematizon, a some t by nt re “ fo ognit f t rnot it Lof Blag Philospy ucian the in Cultre as Religon and Religon as Cultre w losphica su tial Consider b also ws vie Blag s. G he of c xist e have v relation s” e tual Bib in he Gr i least (at d abo wh s, considergoin r p . amine x e e on as st crugh eati G he ua gr su the g vre e andi s t r and ic ion t le. r ne velat e th e human ing tio reation with creativ tim enti re ositve b nc ce ve a be o 123 vrne lat e eat ut t le at e ac Ano ymous, at et lat re n. r plan Sinc es. v e th of e ak es demon o mal e st y w se vrelation e e th her Ano ym at i at 121 r a broad ho w ng A o ion Howvere , ion elati he p be ge lar n in vat r co ce ms y of g a s displ no ymous: vc e ri g. Theref the has t Gr the of Th is is i ast vrela tion. e Ad ti has m u being on me a s se vari et y of osiblt ions abo r pri e The ngs. at se im y r pr the y e ithn is kno cultre e io ons in pl r tha ation tha conlusi the o t him leads y r meas xis e an of ay ue i n st ely et ac when trans t par the in ocur fruently eq and embrace does he i ” ucts tr p pur y mar es a rat

is emt pts the wle eativ an s do s ous, as e t p f ect per of y ap t a ventio e ore Blag bel hie Bl n he s velation e di yr . A n eat b ur ut the likel nothi s cr human per dge e and re li anfor y hor us il vable ant t im por i not act s e c rect imp n 12 7 p e) o ens cor ag’ph s humani n de o t y t o mits trans a s inc Divn f af rej laime p ed of apre etual itonal d cognit of ealm Th e in suced ects co ec rodu hu ient in e ony mous in lace of B o t ing ng by the ose ak t en tial t e t or ts ar is adp so thi f ve vre d mpl

pos f e the cul by d B eation. lic y t in is it , mos t for s cre r ciat ilos cti v ie iho o t or lat dl u o c stroy t esp tran re th e ly, h h ient me lag’s ations at whe m er t s do is rans el et ons grap ple ve man ati es tr ad itv ion the in y mer st y od of ophyi it , el su onse t th lag emt p scend lat pla ce e tha y desir f o on ati e cons

ts suce y i he t of manin e phi y 12 e uat e-adq i wi cendt of C ts wvie be th in c me a’s

ion eo f scapin it cre uman ons and ture of his cre r its o t el t reat ional a at t mpo s logians th he x e obje ive c T f. th el , he aphs y t

i f and t t nt wit es ide thes . hris he i th o t f Instudie. eore tical e Gr

Divn ati vi e s ion pres of aproachi cens s be he aph t na m u h use n the g s he hi In

and abil o siton s r w vie a h r e me fram is an d on a as ed rath bu ful, e ist ytian , i s skep Therefo s. al eat Ano de e knowlhuman . B er de ati h ics ve eit t olut o t co mes nd nds s y cts hum e ship.or u a vat nc writn s in st b d er creative co r e B tha nt lag use the ofspotligh latio on phsical y a lo t her o ical wo se e of Divne Thussires. tha f s heren tical about ion o o t ion transce f sophie thistha t ites abetthan is uman ins pithe supthe , indrectn p isBlag y velatio e t erxt e ng ir ci t is thein n ny mer t he s po rld c an s he pecula 125 t t. re

al rcum w mo gs f tha 126 t . p cle

this lag reli hi on cr his O

o up o 87 nd ed us of n, ar n n le e s n a f ------R E L I G I O N , C U L T U R E , I D E O L O G Y 1 . o N I R S J sid ap the sp met aking t le lucife not at le pos any t thwar le vrea e Mo e by t On belif. religous pe m for ing and othe with his implict be o t claim the of basi t par t the of use c decisve the with relation ce discue Blag aspire phenom ap crimn sive scend se o t aco the nit cogni of M lation” o nce m sh Thes andig. st under her m ICHAEL the be rhaps o t y odict parent subjectiv the cognitve/creative limt t ed limt is ion atu st its 1. erat ions: m justi a human st s. the on ly ap e t icular is of “conv of rd lf relig of s w par on le th on tion, ric of e or s o t hsical y e st sy self-u and -sumation The lack This Bla A Bla at C des t h uman with cogn Luciferic nt God.by d com nature, f o t vreal e e what some d cognit, JS. icat f ast a el e sentim ai of t cer yp r t th it self ~ 6 0 0 2 r e t n i W ~ 5 ma ga is ga ship censor in r adrany es my e st y re co human ONES t ens t m er re of n a one is icton,” ar be on i pos e ultima es of n y osit fe dif e e t u not m ith apodict of gument ar no kes t vrela e hand other e le n aco h of y iblt mer st y r of th y w vie tha mpt erist charact e gani or o yiblt . Usi y ot al t her gitma in y aint t r os y of t my m leave hum li closer also ordina an xt e t eligon d gious nawar e o ist ai t cer st and it gni re ot he at s Lof Blag Philospy ucian the in Cultre as Religon and Religon as Cultre ti io mpanied ent nces

cu a as s y on an cr tio t r m n it 2. inand y; r Ac e. r throu em in it ing o t “the zing no in xis e of eris st y the In . hi hand her vel e ac , n. ce c emplo nt yli sti o y re nt bet k uman vo th of t y ivsit er ng t ape t g th t of case e the t eat 13 1 r , s phi t on y ro in pasing r yaint t cer y r cal stic pe rdin s i c lve cord cord y r i f e ati e t ic gh t ai t r hat eac s wen al ive vrelati e he mposed ther o s om f by p more he Tra agin ltu ob xp e br on yl st s y gard radit w e at c nal lo co realit “In , he p y nt t ing he mean c He . onvict t ing mi er t of ndecis f v hatsoe nowl je an ral such , brakin ylistc st and ship censor nscedt posi of t par he of es sophy of rel , ak par given eri hu t given ythe be ond s hu or apodic ct e nt does han it as atus st s ing r ion ing. th st e int er hapt i wel as s Bl o crea tion adis beli man o rel o t aing t er nce is cr eati man xt nol istc cl s ed xis e bil al oncludes relation cor on as subje The Blag. is it , 130 enc. t eligous

worl on o ns th ge erBo. rth el of ai s of ag, con for y it fe e hil ogy Bl tha ear eg cat th ein ie if nat y, cognit, c re ab en t eol an i os msti y the h of ti the ar th e t through d” f e at an , of i t ar of ose out self . Th . c cer d sentim igo ac phil s rel man a ef li op 132 tial ms y more not ogi î G disc As of ng bel R. eli hi Blag’s th ndic ig ure hi tradit vre ve -s ories n n provi my cal us is brings whe e at st a ng rel wi um ai t cal e t a M e r i d on alt at s ief t os igon r y tror adict atio igou y (e.g, r chan bel igous y nt ag of gio ife ly the th yer st . th y aint t cer , mati ophy mp t l is since cs, us , s el t the and i e a’s a cr o epi nt ati st howve e vie onal dis objec ne n n t ct mst y houg ge, e but int only inf ati des a be time.”he ere nt e sed om me and in an y re b s egit ape its ges em he of ce at y ivt on .e i g i l e R i ş ă c i g tin or t Bl hat of 129 on st eativ ult t h of on p etimes r el emol vre ag’s by ed imat m is and a ne ds st it, t s ief ti arlie ie of emol t i t ar aphsi y et e imat ai t r the and r, s aspe ing ve n ploymen re of w el v e doe s f re t foun is it i g e t el rein aphsi y t r eligous acompani en t of at adr y e Blag . ogy, “p aradis se thetha gues ar He . s atural lig 128 el o, i he use ati ho r, ynt it ts r e pres lf-s atio endc t human e red efer o t obher jectiv ical on or in any other obje co m of on i This ms y noes t and gy xpl , but ma unde not s of t r pa s ur s subje tw an cs, s lat ns we y aint t cer li ct es gni foc cs ca of t wha nts a a gion cie so ce, eris t stic My of s m he er t na proobther s cts sha se r in d am x other o ver, the ti s cien, a putss belif nces sima ti g isror er ve pro Luciferic. ing i en consit hisin ent ct o t er st y on o as religon. relig us n oge the t in poly eg t meh bein s y othe xise of inds, c” cog el a fel nory t e a pe l mayt miner po insm n xe ly s “r ma tran thes con igon . p or f the

iny co clu s ion ow t).r e v 97 i ed es es o v a r y y l g r r t . ------R E L I G I O N , C U L T U R E , I D E O L O G Y ~ 6 0 0 2 r e t n i W ~ 5 1 . o N I R S J tio is gion tive be human he lar cu cre rath conlu pri do not is philos y th ybe ond reach gy is luc any in y aint t gr its enc.t me thoug t by tio poe t the ol scen ancie most the in o t tha is xpre es th ves obser e at al ran fair es gat shoul and gion belif th at a ph ach det M ci t a m g o d a ogical st under go ltur I ideolgca ns. n and v e se CHAE ati ap t r of ge invest v ly me er he ding howv ere , , asp ons o 140 o t ds e 13 hor ve The Bl Bl Bl hi In Theo t vreal e o t mp ts B T ol sion L ment uth, tr vreald e in ed, alidt JS. l said be must it h ncy ifer ag ag ag use ogyHe . e igat a t ed at st be could Pit erhaps v e and ly , th of of whi ical Blag thodlgica eligo e li g a’s own a’s a a’s f th ONES en human logic o c ver ne it at s ef logic philos on writngs s ic cogni ho , a t God re the of l

se e l st sy nature y r Thi s. o xpre e th on thougs e i of a relat ar e ch gar e huma r e d ilosph r eli and ns d in the t and ti g n the la c wvBlag ere . gre es demonstr at transce id al th and and given e th y ndig o d reli ding con ts nt o t ude of ws mo o enha

ma sio result a be could s tion hum a y e m, and h theolgy R are eas pre his Wh l. ct e n s Lof Blag Philospy ucian the in Cultre as Religon and Religon as Cultre theol in th t he d and n olgy is t cal si anl y should n tran tha th ings of ns t ive, l ri nde s.disaper omely ple t o re U clusion. i and is t an open-mi rali e at dent th tha f m g since nal, pi the the f wo ward eo nat the found. giou giou i . Fo r rans cend o ph ile drive logy y t i iracle hat t, creati xpe ur clu li sem s lyIt . xp e re gical mode most xpre e n b ve e eo c s p s onsi s r e. t and ut sim as t des al logyand , begin her rien am x e lo 143 t ransfer er isue lore ilos mo e nd 136 al treats He henoma. s is ama god p x e b rather olgic vreal e o at sion its ps l rld e n st t efor yI aint . t er t the sing reli of hy knowl ce le f ed wr He ons tha de ent. pos he y he oth o respec ac hat, ple, phy is ilar s fro t his of reli ction tl the st e of s red 13 9 oward pro al

d y i s subj dea thoug of n r it on s gio ti i trans the its y in v edg ome id er n kel m the pr th betwen ferenc dif the tha es it does pl a o t ubject fo t sibl de o t es on n from I t ispl the ot p tha ws vie his o t ed r elat be also could t as s a o n u C sem ns e olgica ord hat gi least at is this tha y b l hum an scend 137 vie c ne ject ampl x e an t r o t s t minol use s de Blag on, ay al y it cr p not reach i ve eal on ased mes e res some Bl o t ing transce al tha w theor l one object t

v a s lop ov eat h of in s, olv of up a e r e t ş esupoi cend le is at rive ar limts s, yl t it for of ces ogy y ivt o t s of m,

pose es res ain at it o gre y er sy t is of is f mi eti const er ti earli s his the th the nd upos the B of ti e at it y b e on go ural i ag, nt of r e f i c u l e c brakin po cal the e st at of . rel case v e a . of nus- me a ti sc and , th

th angue, T ms. The premi es o anoth creat a be it tha s th f respect at on t th e lag’s y t uc r ig uth tr ri r at t e at st a ng ho e el s sy t li eor huma e reli e be cogni ă c i sibl on of the is igon phi y r e se nd emn ts of w mit hat sa me anl and s g just eti re a t par i n se he legi are s l epist . Theol he gues ar tha are i ar e tha the of any emat t me d hu gio ut tr xpres emp of s . so er—f om r ock apr et er int e egitma cal ites. ti s 135 an ic if ts on and o cognit man sa the of ens s n los th ns me p c Wes are h of lue nf me emol v e or vali not pe d atio ph re w ic 138 sio oncl oph ogi pirt of pa apo tho c e tima i at an r n, foundare ns at yze t ar cal ideas ar Blag t—bu rh nced by the cogniircal religo y er orks, ticular r ical en nt usion eo and ilo gy aent t best util ds hisof sult invhe sti f the tran i thereaps c dict y e ive c wide a s l ef t the the a logy e dat ticupar theo , ular sophical o t tre t,sor asde hi ect show n o E cann ultr . p b ut, byd ernt c iz reli reli

al r 08 nd 141 lo er ed ed lu n e s l ------R E L I G I O N , C U L T U R E , I D E O L O G Y 1 . o N I R S J C tion v hu iner o t response a Both pasing.” vre o t posi cultr the am x e : a g a l B n a i c u L c n E id hand, mor e have fore vre e on focused central a 17), 96 e t tu cultr ra religon re e y mer st y vre o t with relation e at (Buch y a it Sp a nces. cumst M e r c be o t w ie ar ntial m e rel but re, ICHAEL c the in Blag and englr sman as.” m e r e g e l u C ; e i ţ a 1f.I,” 935) 02f ol o l c y m tion ed through a ctua of er alt an ple wr Blag pt o t pe are religon is e e in Blag’s eal, y mer st y eal 4.23– someti i s It 5 Clearly, 4 Lucian Blag, 1 be has It Taking thes two points a has It Luc 3 2 In Bla N C 14 2 phi Spenglr’s i d e p JS. i value and honr of s th ) o p st in acord with t Mir o e st y ~ 6 0 0 2 r e t n i W ~ 5 th role A ir n e t Car : t ONES e t the c ia f a is igon a not do at ho the in t a mist meri st y e ce s i def This yr . “Cu l ne th i e nat Blag, n la h P f o in u f : ga’s philos y, “cu be lso i s n e m i D Eli a sh en a an of or Blag relig Blag’in ed t p s s t es it t the aling same ak ye rat mer st y Blag’e s i re ult e Ro a o cu : ap met d u t s e d en. “i manif h p o s o l i n ne pr e er nt ade mes ltur n cu tha own th hat ltur sh n

ni time, he do n o z i r O Lof Blag Philospy ucian the in Cultre as Religon and Religon as Cultre losphy ima mâne s n i i F ac ri Mirc “Convor bi , of m or o eds i r ă s ă r i n u given p m ir f f wi tion e” i hsi y zon inherent he th ed t aser u e, c pist ulti ati est wit ord me s t y e t own ear ă c i r o t s I a ţ y ati t id e n M ut ea hap hu , ed. P aul E Mirc 483. 1987), ască, cs. Cult w in ii “st clu o st nder ed. , hum f m e mat th emolgydo it and , on ance . Re li t S i ş t on t man u Blag tha Blag’phil n s cult hi is God of ea o ons er t o int ed elaborat be l de is e e ylistc matrix” and wit th o human in en e t losphyB . ligon does r a of ltu hic h theo of s al ltu es not B For ure. cul “Pro d iscu hu xi ri end t of ries an Blag’phil at s ur Ghişe, u Dumitr end t human the co re as od

i h R oma of ticulares par e Lu cu e st y e st (Buchar re” hum the f (C tur e is the product of th

( nsider emat pts at Pit one is dwards (N y ealit sp be pe is t of nce luj e. Howe ut refe ri n mor ecţiun RO: eşti, ing B th logy -Napoc es cy ert xis e ointh volv ci xi e unde lag not ov er e of nde s r o t the col ation “on osphy. are and s, se : est F lag o t manetl r th i Blag,” an of ly reje sin a t s en st throught pas sur at th a, s r se B en t an s es ver, in e xist of e an he , t w e York: Macmiln and t os lf un re p lag’s 1406.Daci, 9R7), 7 Ed itura , O: an o t drive it ce Eliade ea ce. -s Bl as57–65, 20), 45, Para lea Editura s gl be o ct th is daţi u erpentr atur ă lit şi tă ar “Re veal umatio R . ds can be se come c fol th of phy ncy supr e nc an st r e iml i Boez, t Angela ag o y

hin a p o p a s per th ogi e. relig the of cause most e eligon ing ms y se os ective ne se t ari hu e nt r n ac i ds ce: s o e hu e re y mar human en d em olgica thi cu Phil “Rumani , ult ti o c u L tu on re s es i n and s ti ar elf m nial ns nia en how c ş Blag L. it al is t, tic ar s p li al ure veal is ltur man emat p depl an iv gio n a i at an e it may -s y; er t C ns. coner as roduct of h ends. int y cular se in e um , nor c a ei cu t is e d i d ns (l manifes bu yt , a s y : a g a l B co at he rcentrol al le. h a so emt pt el c nd s y ltu “ merely of fav or gni an doe f-s religon itua fer f ul ati ike Budhism, lose Oi re. t o ed eat pa s ur Boe t Vor ict d tural al ti emt pt sel and on reat r ather t i ş e r e t ş a o n u C enc at t so t on. s it emat uman . t o t pen ly Boed. th f conr he uman c otherthe On beli I vxisre o eal e Spenglrin,” cul ul the of ions os a Both e. an be s b es escap cul huma of F re -m y ” i religon tur ing i ot given e t s cultre apli ture and i phy,” o thisv e e se aid t e etwen plasy e e c et Pres d reativ vreale n cor e,trat . p f-sur iat ho ge ha . for i 18 c ed pt ir ld r le a n n n z e t , ------R E L I G I O N , C U L T U R E , I D E O L O G Y ~ 6 0 0 2 r e t n i W ~ 5 1 . o N I R S J subcon the pri e postul at a contr Space 9 ch. cien fe me and ture C G ic ştinţf (203).1–2 nos. 48, Philospa, cu (Buch V does li t S i ş t n o z i r O “ Editura Bl FairUSA: Boez t a com (“C e M e M ts e W e R f o s c i s y h p a t e M B n a i c u L d u t s e d gories, ultr hişe, Ange re ag’philos y s eri” noaşt I me CHAE re e at nce f o s c i s y h p a t uc str own his of amount t yl st ponets: olgie aut t se , ovsial er are symbol.” gorile abisle” 2Blag, 1 Blag, 20 23 Bla B 2 17 10 14 13 1Bl especialy Se 5 8 As Bla Dumitr Se 6 16 12 11 18 Blag 9 7 19 ation,” Adapt Spenglria a than Mor e e: (“Doua L e Problem,” ior betw nd “Blag ope JS. ii ă, th “M 4, ch. 1, vol. e

st Florica TDaci raină, Blag (Bu ag a l Blag For di b I Bla “Luc in escu Colt el Blag lei b I b I b I E 2311–38. 96), li u pentr undaţi F : . A uţă, Fir ONES lag j int must erefore di di di and ) gh la e xist e the cious, ga ga th in ust cha S en 4 ., (Bucha . 1., 8 an . a, Bot a, ti a, , 1, 4–8 8 3 , -Dick p ’s 97, ga poi , was a cont

Therefs. ore th by ied if i i F C : rest t Ş ă ţ n i i t Ş n o z i r O i i F n e G puri li t S i ş t n o z i r O 98. xplant e no i g i l e R 71 and e ez, a and Diaconu 5–86. 1(“Do 9 s I a ţ n ei ţ a e r C i ş ă ţ n i i R . ea r e spec Bl and penglr s I a ţ n es rat a tr hi 497, . Un enso cu of “Lu Micu, u : n o i g i l : rest d i e r o f a t e M a z e i z i f a t e m a e n u i s n e m i D l nts out, lo gic ). Vasile M u 5. egar osphical Lof Blag Philospy ucian the in Cultre as Religon and Religon as Cultre nd V ei ţ a e r C i ş ia Rea t ar me cu e ly 11” 942), 78–0. S i ş t ăc i r o t c , ăc i r o t t ly ltur ion y list st the ding Univs er 20t ag, ua emp ned e ap t “ 4, h. or ict B no acknowl also liade an Bl c u L i ely imat e; akro whic of nce li t subch he m şi Blag ian c ent h of ive t , sfe r of crits h 2 , omâ er t d ipur aşt ag’p s t Ş 1, 3 7– se me y orar n a i t o 101– , tu 498. UBlag: cian 3 .ch. 206), Pres, y sit r n i i r. Mari 92. atu he T kosm: ere” 15, Blag, 1; 1, 76 es at scă st ag Blag t in f af ral Ghi E ot S al gu ar 1nească, 98357), nc r C i ş ă ţ u C l u s n e S i ş xpl e o yur B . a g a l B t “ tă ar şi ră ez, e Ano Great e of F re is hodlgy 38. and ); cuno e On “s a nv olve hilosp 108, 2, iclope be can Diaconu, n e apt ; Luci şe, ’s a z e n e G Bla ds. ments are ap Met ca c vie lag o ain Boez t d n a r is yt . th a ă c a e ud B an fol or , di m f Sy he “Spatil aş in found n e G anl y ga’s Spenglr, Oswald 136. hwil y L genral ei ţ s n at, wi th the 2 a, eg t C ere”).t L n a i c u i i F an nin ymous ed Regl a t e M bse , a g a l B n a i c u rom the uper l i e r e p o 1s er chap, t B and hsic y lag, u t l ogi il f em ist ăc i r o t s I a ţ n se ories, r o f a t e M a z e d Jung e and int e t n o yli t ged ws 72.0), the of mbolis S v r dis i ţ c i D i r not e d u t only l a a g a l B ofMy guments 7–9. ar wn th i st

psy chol ed th ‘T as Depth s.” 402; , ii r u t l u C l u s n e S i ş i e r o f o p m spe a z e n e G C l cus ake t y i f ic oe t a i i u t has cultre si, ticl ar my e e o e a n o arol U ngle i osf x e i sati i c u L Bl r c i ş e r e t ş a o n u C : 482–5.z, ed y r a r e xi i eld” nt ri mpt Ş n (“C 8 i a i c i f o s o l i f i n e m r e t e d r Ş 1386.I,” 937), st n in 5–97, 496 1, 0. ag’th s ginal t ei ţ a e r C i ş ă ţ n i i t Ş ia y l o B - ş e b a B s i t a t i s r e v i roducti C i ş ă ţ n i i t cult a riană r o f a t e M ei ţ a e r C i ş ă ţ n i i i e sf en ag a l B n a ax c e gr ant for from th l i h P t y ve e ogical Mi t f ce ofPhilosp “Blag’y s e, ii r u t l u C l u s n e S i ş racts w i eori vprt a de oblem e ât ime y it c pe at W orld-pic t of hos b av oid o t are y he l of the s o on of s and ough ch B h p o ph wh e i e eh t f o e n i l c e D e h T sub he a : (Bucharest Editur a ei ţ a e r ec e e in uri ii r u t l u C l u s n e S i ş th d f wo ult S l en s t, Rigd ome y th consie e st y t s o w a but odat y (Ma ; e i ţ a e i,” ură,” l f ome 4 , heir vie e s Jones . Jones e 1 , 12, 9 1 ture uen asconsiu hare undame in (S mati 07. ylistc catt 74–76, NJ,dison, th or na. uDumitr ibu, ce of cul an e g e l u C e in su a 5 ch. , cit ce, , ws T ’: , Blag ser d , . p dife d and 1. ofy eing RO: alnt eh T eh T .A . the the 28 if f on iu l he er ia a, a s - - - - R E L I G I O N , C U L T U R E , I D E O L O G Y 1 . o N I R S J posi 469.Boez, t am x e poi Blag matrix” tial a cre se fer dif e t Fin in cultr me sp (e c and o tha e t M .g, matic mporale”). at ati ICHAEL aţi the of nt t of tively nd emt por ple was y ent ei o z i r O (“Intre 5 h. l in e Heg f 53 Blag 50 49 I 35 Blag 24 42 4Dia 1 Blag 4 3 38 31 30 Blag, 27 28 25 I 3 51 an As 43 40 Ibid., 14–85. 8 The 39 I 37 29 26 52 Blag, 36 46 Bla 32 48 45 Bla 4 4 47 Is ţa writngs t and cultral JS. t the and s ocur , son a is per i act cognitve he

th is This ~ 6 0 0 2 r e t n i W ~ 5 th out nts b I Blag di b I T ransy Blag Blag Ibi Blag Blag Ibi Blag Blag di b I b I Blag Blag Blag va Or iz(e.g, places some n ont bid hi n 5, ch. orică, t ONES ş t n di di 4d., 14 17d., 7 . lue ga, ga, l, ho emporal co 1., 30. 1., ( 07 1., 7 12., 7. 120– ., 1 a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, Orizont a, su earli s se who , , , li t S i y st tha al h and nu ro e Bl this of ample x e

a s i ş t n o z i r O S i ş t n o z i r O li t S i ş t n o z i r O bconsi i F li t S i ş t n o z i r O n e G e n e G i i lF i t S i ş t n o z i r O n o z i r O i ş t n o z i r O ş t n o z i r O r O i i F e G n o z i r O lvani er t the n i 7, peisa of l a ţ n a ţ n orizons of the . i u s n e S i ş i e r o f a t e M a z e n at sub e mâ 1, 7 ş t n o z 420–39.1FI, 8 2–83; a ţ i e r o f a t e M a z e er fo tn t r o f a t e M a z ntris a s I s I “ es Lof Blag Philospy ucian the in Cultre as Religon and Religon as Cultre . h

neşt r o t s I nu ar e here o şi j . list D em st sy S i ş t li t S i ş t I 5). “Câm pu st ms ivt r O r o t ăc i r o t unde rizons er is/h ject t us, şi iaconu, Id ic S i i oe), t ylist “st m în i li t S ăc i ie ş t n o z i ăc i St li t S li t S eas” li t e chapt caly ri p er lat this fol w matric q er li t li t s anly the s the of 1il, 7Şt 6; y inc zont h he , 4 câmp , 1 52 4 , 4 , , 141. A , 1 at 7 ch. , 1 17. 12, 7–28 1, 79. 1, 78. 1, 75. 1, 3 1, 0 listc writ ic 98, ualit u s n e S i ş e i ri 90 98 09, t as su 2 link S i s le mero 1 9. 3. ear discu ag r “I es c f., f 175, u s n e S i ş 502–3; , ; and ield f 8. bc 1nig s pa 79; coner 509. Bla il f ul ie f ic basi he r n e G li t foril act a “Durat er hapt ie T“ , e ed o t h tils eac o t e relat th lthoug this sugetion m con onştie”); nt ons sin the s. 1, 15 inţ com us Sşi t p on ngs

ferer a z e whic of is of os tic ld cious s oria Creat şi ă cr eat ” t l u C l l t l u C l 179; e”; of s 1il, . se Ş a t e M ga contr as is/ Luci in ie,” f enţ u t l u C stil (câmpul i t gl yl st dublet n i racti als se e he hi Bl 7) 7 e s n e G e eparat i ş ă ţ t hil activ ive ii r u ii r u h he r s elf istc othe h am pl x e n ii r u t l u C l u s n e S i ş i e r o f yor st . ii r e ti ce preocupi h os adin lis i a z e , , , x coe 1e, 7 r C elor.” min eumrat y 4 1 4 1 4 1 l ag Fi o matr ni er ti , b ut t o f ts this par phy ce” ly. In ii r u t l u C l u s n e S i ş i e r o f a t e M “horizon g a e 4. 3. 2–413. r. ce se ch. 4 (“Cult is a 7–8. ti ng nţa is ei ţ Vasi yt .” n

enc t ic i th i in es o B ts ar x 1, 7 cult f oth is ) r s of i f e lag, F o Ist s s me st of e ant, K ed i i v ay u e mi 6 does ăc i r o t s I a ţ n il fe act er places he includes (fo tnoe).t is ri imla the ure, sou Romani and Sax on o sed Mu le in tic,” că, s e Ghi d. n ot e his f in ch the o ion nd s listn s, or 420, ph r syno ym In g.

ph t o t 409., . icu “Specif scă, yl “st m er t s ome 6 FI. nt şe ură il enoma. fac four f he h ubconsi 4 discu osphy (“Orizonturi B , ail 85. is dark what o şi th at s/he g oez, t l ously, spati ssy er at the es t base with , 4 1 . p s pa o t Fo istc and us” d, the u”)

38 s r h as 0. e r l . - - - R E L I G I O N , C U L T U R E , I D E O L O G Y ~ 6 0 0 2 r e t n i W ~ 5 1 . o N I R S J tive of tio conepts. e cogni emat is ic ştinţf pr rizant). ed apreciat Die and st i cif of aphsic y Met “C Bl M p a t e M wo this of dge ag’philos y s scie c ecding wd athis el wtha are I lim nal şt voluţia e şi stilc ampul CHAE limt c 1359.cezan, 926) Boe t in ,” tive cat ardized) o t pt Blag 79 81 I 78 F 82 Bla 7 7 Blag, 75 57 B 72 74 “ec more a For 70 6 61 71 Thi 68 54 58 62 B 69 7 6 60 59 for is Blag Here 56 B 73 65 5 63 4 6 76 B 80 L nc i s y h JS. ă,

Bla and e b I b I and s, Blag, b I i b I b I di b I di b I b I di b I di b I di b I b I its. 1 96) b I b I vreal e bid., ONES lag lag lag lag s c hap or i di di di di di di i d wh d ua egori d ga, ga, s and z 15., 7. . b I 1., Se 58. ., ., more a 1., 86. 1., 4.63– 159–6 ., 15., 4– 153– ., 4 152.., 1., 4 a, a, a, a, f o 14–70 6 ., 15 ., 4, 1 w vie and a, does not im p 152. 150. ţie brief 4A 1 7–18. ert R en di

i cultre

rl 657, . i i F the p x E ei i ţ F a e r C i ş ă ţ n i i t Ş e G n e G n o z i r O no i g i l e R e G f.49f 44 4 7, ., i is d n i i t Ş eligo . 7–

me st y 2. int n i s o t s I a ţ n ou eps st one u Fir mod 8: u s n e S i ş i e r o f a t e M a z e n . Luci lat scien of z e n 18; i ş l u t n e m i r e ăc i r o t s I a ţ 5. z e re 3. C i ş ă ţ Lof Blag Philospy ucian the in Cultre as Religon and Religon as Cultre ide er nt a t e M a e t B Lucian also e a i de t n, rema Blag . r o f a t e M a S i ş t i s a se 25 7–60. ţă, yr ai det Mi s c , in ef d r an Blag ch. The . fr o t ăc i r ul pre “ 5, h. ce oe ly tha şi re o t e lso li t tio led d led “B 4, i ş e i r o f in s ti rc 49 , ei ţ a e r 4 , inţ its m

1, 6 f o bu ven e ve, m o t of n i so div t Fl ea x e g a l B K Thomas of tha ali 92– t i r i p S 12, 9 1 , Blag the of xpla e B in ei” e i 0, m r 1–6 x E lag e” (at t t ype t n 160– , 5 planti l u s n e S i ş t rks u tr e own, r C i ş ă ţ n i i t Ş , a usef ak m ualiznt, a’ont s p er 4. a u s n e S 2. 02–3; lag, e t a M l u r e ap h ’Me t s ’s n e co th habitul yp t I doe at i ş l u t n e m i rec Epis n e G oez t c hat critolga a raise gni io 1. di l (m 61 ti ar on ognit is

t l u C l t l u C l i so s r e F lem Bl of n se our Ş I e th ti emo t a e r C i ş ă ţ n i i t a z e u C an sc ve-con t a m r t s e cognit, B l of cl us sen e nt o of mode a Se tr ansltio). y od Fi d sic y “Ana e, co a n me o t ii r u ii r u a t e M u t l si ci r o l o C e logy pe ized ci t a m e t a M l u t i r i p S writ Blag’s of on u ei ţ a e an uhn 6 , ag’s i r uc str ti l s.” uţ r aphs y met ag’s 4, 14 4, 1 i pre noer t int 417–1 , .” i ş e i r o f 85 o gn ă, pizan 1, 80. aphor t 8 c liza . tiv . a f (my

et a th w aitvy e s r 26whe 1–6, ei ţ epis r other d whic pective. e bse By 1, 7 modul t, ii r u t l u C l u s n e S ( cognit of ypes t Both 8. wt ay ul A emol t tr a ic vatio r isue ra cunoaş t a turală zant (fo tnoe).t 6 l pret er int Rd, O: nsla an ti thin ecnt hat ve— b I guae onl is paintg ine ics, , (indv n gy, disc as at tion). di ngs (Bu stih An lso Boez t re is al 1., 6 Editur a is su l h se se on ch su s e o t (e ial J e uman knowl : arest Editura theon based bj 7. Jone , bj i used ks.er Boez t gela adio t ect ph 417 one o t ect c uali xpres pozieri Librăe ilos lem ompar es ). Th es, s, zed Blag . p n op s p h T hi ant

the

48 hy or e y e s , - - - - - R E L I G I O N , C U L T U R E , I D E O L O G Y 1 . o N I R S J hu r el cor “Re gle Se ca ylistc st sin the is it at is tu a z e n e G Po Walker’ phi his and y poetr Therefor the m for hu o ms for w fe hu tă ar şi be o t liabe is into def this charac humanize o t sem it since M e d S t e o p ii r u t l u C l u s n e t o t ns r , GMSC e ICHAEL tland, r mans. the and man) ained maint is y manit o l i f re gel r o t le c s for o l i f l u at (the r eligon of er istc t 14 0 1Bla 03 98 97 Luc 96 9 Bla 8 93 94 9Blag 1 T 95 T 83 86 Luc 4 8 87 92 89 85 Blag 101 1Bla 02 90 10 a ast “R a i f o s gr or God each 1 I,” Carol w ion transltio s re ns tur e JS. a t e M e Blag Ce US A: ~ 6 0 0 2 r e t n i W ~ 5 d n â G eg y humanit at Blag Blag b I i b I n i i F Blag Blag Blag e ime diat he a z e n e G i b I ego t b I i b I ONES fo s Gre he hi s a cultre, e i r no ua q e d d ch. d I, Carol le ga, di t in enc xist e f t esntial ia was philos y s ian e r o f , r o t s I a ţ e i g i l e d ith 46 ., 49 ., a, a, a, a, a, a, a, ga, ga, 2 ., n Blag ., 4., 7 r i 14 2. r 4 , claims a

ie 469. Blag, 11 e R i ş ă c i g a M e re u the ş t n o z i r O ş t n o z i r O d n â G n e G a z e n e G a z e n e G ăc i r o t s I a ţ n i i F e G t t e M i s cr e o i d n â G i d n â G 50– 93, at fore 503.3, 7–68 fo er nt “Si , i e S i ş 0. r o f a t e M a z e n lim o t F r Editura Iulia: (Alba lo and 1979, 40), , z e Ano ymou ăc i of n is as sophy , r i ve ne , 1. t 46 Lof Blag Philospy ucian the in Cultre as Religon and Religon as Cultre r o f a o s k r o W l a c i t e o P e t e l p m o C e ltima asp a t e M a . omul ea at ngularit hum o

c ative nd i d n â G a M e 49 , tha u s n , e R i ş ă c i g a M e r e R i ş ă c i g a M e r e f i D aper he 163” 93), 1–32 M S i ş i e r o f a t e M t but an (“tragic 7 i R r t const it h S i S i th n e S i ş i e per its n comp r i ş i e r o f a t e t l u C l hat (o 6 and i ţ n e r umane un he contr , ă c i g 20 45–8.Studies, 1), omani li t li t u e t r i ş ă c i g a m e r an i ş i e r o f i w ay his onst v 5, 1 th el 1, 81– 1, 8 endcy ei g i l 498.luciferi c), mul pe i as nes s secu me e ltima unac as wie ed en i v i d e l e l a u s n e S i ş i e ii r u e R i ş uc r ment phenom is an t use 0. rhap u r ive suced ely let 5.

c the a xplained e l u s 4, 7 ă t r A m ce 46). 4 (ibd., s 45 , is way tha but cts, 83. ti se r lariz e S u s n e S ane Wh on. of w d ei g i l e of s some of s e 76–7 . u t l u C ot w ard i l b s ei g i l he . n n 9. phthe s s y ei g i ş li (he this u s u s onde religon; e c i.” 4 , l a v on lock tl ei g i l e on a 4, 7 t l u C l t l u C l u C l 4, 7 t l u C l ognitv c y n en mst y ential xist i r (Bu clusio 76 . de ne t of ings y humanit en K ei in r a o i st 1, 9 4). ed humani makes on , reative 2. (m 0 4– 4 4 fu r t l s un F : charest ep self (Buch t comfor m w pen in s b ii r u ii r u ii r u e ii r u ina ab t dest l ego cat e h ical of ns H tr ans y ( -sumatio B Hi th out points Tănase As tran slation). y Tănas f , , , Bla 44 42. 4 , 1, 4 4 4 u ode le Bl e. at st ins e u he ar 35 5, cha B n a i c u L mat e mat 37–39; 39. 52. psyc many : est Editura va, Miner (ib m for uman by iny o ch t b cend rest e, himse Blag o t n r ist me st y trating r many e f y er arethere tha es at st Blag 3. [des ” i tri ivse er es tăar erşi atură lit u pentr daţi locked u L in th s

F : e xist ymer st y , pen trat o t es and/o n li o t i ş t n o z i r O is ) intr oduc s’ l u f o s o l i F : a g a l B n a i c a ag a l un ga, eri in ue uniq y t n at t i tinul s i nce cens re s era lit u pentr daţi mit a es writ ga eli upre hoanl l e n e G s by pl , othe o (Iaşi gio sel r tragi cognit i ed lect f sh or ve s a 43), 4 d., ma nor mely an yr . us yl t lf a z li t S Oxf or RO, , ti f- st y animl, t, w , practio sign y r on Huma ip. i ş i e r o f a t e M br aki istc inpasing sur life-animl r mare şi c w this In , 1 4 8 tha 1987) ; wo the Brendao t hos t , b n an n t basiche s e tha nd f.f hisoth icant.if cultre

thed . p ,t e o p s,ner sr u C ugtr f l ynit t and rld. ură ng. ţ]); 58 it ay or d, t , - R E L I G I O N , C U L T U R E , I D E O L O G Y ~ 6 0 0 2 r e t n i W ~ 5 1 . o N I R S J Fir and Boez t whic is in fa 138–9 9 7), e cat “Regl Bl tic reciproci This yle. st gion, e gu ar â G z o P Ano e pe e cat ylistc st 37 xtre e Ro re of synthei Ro une M ca e V ei g i l e R atic cst ably vit ine na m for ag I be rhaps be , A 7–8. 1mânească, 1mânească, CHAE i g a M e r i d n c u L i u l u n m o d a i ţ i polemic i religon tha s ny rtha es e e , me rathe but 1Bla 27 12 Blag 126 1Bla 09 121 108 The 110 11Blag, 3 118 1of 1352 page On 1 106 This is xplan also e 105 1Blag 12 117 1Blag 15 11Blag, 6 11Blag, 4 119 Lucia 107 125 123 Luci 124 120 L , mous. th cause Mir d. 4 7 w unio Carol relig rationls ly JS. Se ure 5). b I b I Bla di b I i b I di b I b I Blag ONES of y guilt on In st aking di di 5. gor di I Ioan e “U n Codban, l d ct cea Mircea in ,” likligon, ane y 283.uţă, e R i ş ă c ga ga, ga, ha I, emint Romani Or 4., 7 4., 74. 4., 7 4., 71. 4 ., 4 ., 4) 93 93 p the r Blag, an a, a, consit cult a nd ligon n Blag, , , doe ere , how er mat no ies, Bl place e ith 1” 940 B 20– 1), i i F â G ăc i r o t s I a ţ n i i F i F n â G d n â G i d n â G u C l u s n e S i ş i e r o f a t e M a z e n e G e G yli st a ve i i F i 54–5 41. (Bu orcila 4 5, 9. n i can God t (my 454 , t of one s ţ n yle/cu i d n ţ n i e r o f a t e M a z e n t ăc i r o t s I a ţ lu ia “Filosf Ica, . ei g i l ove sem y i d e d ă ţ a f a g a l B n a i ăc i r o t s I a ar Lof Blag Philospy ucian the in Cultre as Religon and Religon as Cultre ăc i r o t s I a ent wit r i 80– 1. 1 86, ), e r e r M e r t m for ticular . s r e f i D a M e rlok n e C 3. i l e R i ş ă c i g a M , 5 Bor of on e R i ş ă c i g a M

t ts aser ag no tur st n â G 05). o cu ther ă c i g a ake t not : charest t s ic a r u z xi e t n e ă c i g basic he e cila, ed th ing h Blag’s phil : ignor at Blag st 54. rans latio 5 , 50 , 5 , Lu ure. i d K i o mor 5 , i ţ i Wha en i v i d e l e l a u r e R i ş ă c i g a M e r i ş r t n A 4; 0 03.

an i ş p st : a g a l B l u n o E 02; ndi 3; ctu fund e r e n e d n e c s n a i t u C l u s n e S i ş g i l e R i l e R c p t is cultr E ur this hat l ei g i l e R i ş ă c i g a M e r i d n â G â G thod x the e cat xp e t ditur O re. s s ecip M a Ion urcral e lac omp hat Bl cian m er i g i l al C n). Blag i s i n i t ş e r C ei g i d n ig ub ei e e and religon tha e C 4e, 7 res a y rocit y eabilt 48 , 42 , os Al a 4, 73– 4 od m le j ei g i l e R i ş ă c i g a M e r n o t ect x hristan (Buchar pheno sio 4 page e int or x en ce Î : ă t nza ati Filo din ag, aly r phy of c 0. 6. 5. 138batros, 9 7), 1–82. ban, “U n t thrpough t ca e v l u i â t n Î al t ns i ş m betwe olg alwis on, au s y u t l u t l i l Bla point one At t, sof of ei g f a t e m e r a c r e c n betwe h o t pe y st “ . i r i r elative n o E ake t meno es 78 x o d o t r O i y t i u ian Dumitr ul i reli psiholga de e Elemnt 45 , 4, 7 l Blag r the is : t unda F s ult l re of re human en y umanit c i t a m g o D l u pec fo tic ect Blag b ed fect af myth a s h 7–58 9. lig a st a

is re ua ti h n n â G so uman s he (Bu In ie.” s e t va . In se not the mati r l t . ei yl t phenomreligous tha es t ţia u pentr a lit ignor G the and y umanit 4 , 37 , l e R i ş ă c i g a M e r i d cha T 13). , nder religon he than in s el lu inf e c i z i St Re olgică: f- 26. o ve Editura : rest de 43, 143 7, tha e writ does ga give a (n p ăn ul ligou a ă lu i â t n Î : a g a l B l u n o E ra th t ception he (B (s : rel (Bu il iş ă c i g a M e r i d n â G l pl in e Fi crit his oae h en uc nome f e, igon los cr s aces ch ce ha n lue f is oful eat Car : ares t e con seting. t y rest in or as crit 9. eation the of Ev en . n tur icsm (Stăniloae, othe ach Blag nc Albatros, on he r elig,” siderare a C : ingie,” ă şi tăar o e of re st Grek ei g i an s may . p ance, ind eat ar thef m iz r

an the 68 eat sy he ed li r, d - - - - R E L I G I O N , C U L T U R E , I D E O L O G Y 1 . o N I R S J t and Săvule l gians C the nat of gue ar might tin m ical philos Blag’s it (Buch int (Blag, of tr posib Wil Oscar ing M t e m the of ine y (and hristan inhere the the po ICHAEL e int ual Cr faith saving of ure is premis al er o f a Cre suprem a sit are hat tr y odest yilt . sc 13 13 13T 1 13 13 128 14 13 13 141 13 137 13 129 14 ike

or eat s r u C JS. tha gues ar u ut 0 2 st 2 3 9 Blag, 5 0 8 6 Bla 4 th ~ 6 0 0 2 r e t n i W ~ 5 S t ( Luci Bla B Bla not is ventio r va Miner Editura : Buchare ticu par a of h the On Blag, Blag, b I di b I di b I Blag, Blag, ONES i th he ăniloae f o s o l i F e d natur two la eref ore i cr of limts nt d tha s ga, ga, ga, b de, ga, 4 3 ., 493 ., 1., 80. an at ren contiu m hy Blag n u C i l e R i ş ă c i g a M e r i d n â G i d n â G w vie this n â G n o E n â G ţ n i i F Blag n â G especialy e F polyvalen its : st oRwned Or omani u . 2–43. C e r t s e r do t –95. an premis a elf w Blag a m g o D l u Român B. . A i d i d o he Blag i d t I a Lof Blag Philospy ucian the in Cultre as Religon and Religon as Cultre k al akes i Christ of es th of ’w vie s c i r e f i c u L a e r e t ş a i g i l e R a i , o at e r M e r ă c i g a M e r aly e r han re not es relig lar ăc i r o t s t s r â v l u c e t n â c i ş l u c i n o r H e R i ş ă c i g a M n g a M r c tho Or be ed eat suget ar e et a r o l o who , ce ă c i g a 15. 9 79), c t a as reat es the e o R i ş ă c i 49 , ld ie ci t unlik is It ysar . no f in 1 2 , on in ferenc i ş i l e R i ş 20 , doxy) is bas tha x e 20 ia, 36 , wle 2; b g ars perhaps it al ot t is an s human e the ings, heis B se perinc, i g i l e R i an d ). be canot God t at 9; i ţ n e r e f i D i g i l e rel dge (my 0 con y m fact in e ă philos tha object might Some i l hi e cr ed tho t. 40 , ei g ei g d n â G ei g a Blag Săvules Geo b e e f.50f ), deol u dotheol x s s 3 , 4 , 3 , 4 , 4, 71 ly 0–4 t es writ 1also He . s imod eation

a’s tr a tin o e le predicam c at ource 42– r i ed on the 86. 76 8– ogni e l e l a ogybu , e and ive th clas e ual gi . minus f –72 nsla a M tim ori e Blag 3. e 9. ly ti ro l e . in lag, ol . en i v i D co ve Blag tion). e est emitn ă c i g e at sical ogy g suc un kn Bl t ed. , Su gu ar tăniloae Dumitr ian cu nt f ain t cer -c is a r o l o C e r t s e r e F pis ei g i l e R i ş presu the tha es at st a h i deism nse the or 39–40.ognit, there the and o st der epi , is doe ag , 1 8 Bla Dorli mos waa y r p a i f o s o l i F : a g a l B n a i c u L emo t uen q g with ng 4. y of t a for ditonal s t the i logic bu d q s the tha ces n s t n re 4 3 , a e im ha re ol p or uoting o sul thison coment ot hat of V6 ga. ol. d Christan the t ogy the al n be can t 4. vea whende ism o t lar th f ti ws vie t et i emolgepist ant h -Chris

“ led Ch tha pr opse t 360., y o fal, e Cre reje ’s f di any uth. tr Some wvie ristan f f

tia or at ere theo of “k p ar reli positn sincen, ofction theand nown,” a n es ’c s O phras t . p ials.” tha gio er e p on oc 78 lo ni n - - - - -