MiT--a "flawed" work??

2 views
Skip to first unread message

John Raymaker

unread,
Jan 24, 2026, 2:54:16 AMJan 24
to loner...@googlegroups.com
Dave Oyler recently wrote on this site that MiT is  "flawed". Rather,  I would say that it is a seminal, exploratory, unfinished work which provides for SPECIALIZED forms of exploration that compllement and are to be wedded to the generalized  implications developed in Insight. One might argue that Lonergan's publications after MiT justify the claim that I am here making. We should avoid shooting ourselves in the foot, John

David Bibby

unread,
Jan 25, 2026, 12:56:46 PM (14 days ago) Jan 25
to 'John Raymaker' via Lonergan_L
Dear John,

I agree with your sentiment, and I would add what Lonergan himself had to say about his method in his introduction to MiT:

"In general, what we shall have to say, is to be taken as a model. By a model is not meant something to be copied or imitated... It is simply an intelligible, interlocking set of terms and relations that it may be well to have about when it comes to describing reality or to forming hypotheses..."

He goes on to say:

"However, I do not think I am offering merely models. On the contrary, I hope readers will find more than mere models in what I shall say. But it is up to them to find it..."

I think this indicates the novelty of his approach - he offers an invitation to accompany him on an exploratory journey of the interior structure of the human mind, not as an uncharted territory, but a region we are intimately familiar, though not necessarily conversant, with.

Best wishes,

David



On Saturday, 24 January 2026 at 07:54:17 GMT, 'John Raymaker' via Lonergan_L <loner...@googlegroups.com> wrote:


Dave Oyler recently wrote on this site that MiT is  "flawed". Rather,  I would say that it is a seminal, exploratory, unfinished work which provides for SPECIALIZED forms of exploration that compllement and are to be wedded to the generalized  implications developed in Insight. One might argue that Lonergan's publications after MiT justify the claim that I am here making. We should avoid shooting ourselves in the foot, John

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lonergan_L" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lonergan_l+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lonergan_l/1584517332.1461582.1769241223153%40mail.yahoo.com.

re...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jan 25, 2026, 4:29:04 PM (14 days ago) Jan 25
to loner...@googlegroups.com
I amnot denying that. Perhaps i shoild have said the two chapters on history may benefit from a critical appraisal in light of the. Discussion of history inTopics in Education. Make up your own mind.


PIERRE WHALON

unread,
Jan 26, 2026, 5:23:01 AM (13 days ago) Jan 26
to loner...@googlegroups.com
It was Phil who pointed out the flaws in MiT. L wrote it sub specie æternitatis. Nevertheless it is also a masterpiece.

Bach didn’t finish the Art of the Fugue. Doesn’t mean it’s not a masterpiece…

Pierre

re...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jan 27, 2026, 9:29:06 AM (12 days ago) Jan 27
to loner...@googlegroups.com
Thank you for the clarity Pierre. So where should the gist of the two chapters on history go? In the future work "Method in History". Just a suggestion.

PIERRE WHALON

unread,
Jan 27, 2026, 10:41:27 AM (12 days ago) Jan 27
to loner...@googlegroups.com
Who’s that writing?

Pierre

re...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jan 27, 2026, 11:02:03 AM (12 days ago) Jan 27
to loner...@googlegroups.com
Dave Oyler
On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 8:41 AM, 'PIERRE WHALON' via Lonergan_L

PIERRE WHALON

unread,
Jan 27, 2026, 11:07:45 AM (12 days ago) Jan 27
to loner...@googlegroups.com
Hi Dave,

Thanks for the ID!

As for the history chapters of MiT, someone could rewrite them. That’s what Phil McShane said. He didn’t like the chapter on communications. either.

Pierre

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages