posted
I don't buy this, though. These movies are far more than just a series of actions. As I said before, all of the Bond movies that I have seen discuss, though maybe not always in a deep way, larger questions of sex, identity, and power, the desire for control over other people and technology, morality, etc . . . What human doesn't deal with those things . . .?
Posts: 367 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Porta would like former case to be a stepping stone to the latter, C is calling it bunk and Pat by spiritual is happy with just the former."
That's the best summing-up so far of the divergent opinions on the matter.
I'll also add that Pat's response is probably one of the few that responds directly to the challenge set down in Porta's original topic, in that Pat argues that "spirituality" of one sort of another can be found in what appears to be purely secular (WEST SIDE STORY being, of the three films named, the one with the least overt "spirituality.")
Posts: 5907 | From: Houston, TX | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
X said: "I'm admitting to the difficultly of ascribing to a work being spiritual when plot rather than motives are on display, as state of mind is a hard "read' when little dialog and the visual cues give one little to work on it. Which is not to say that it isn't present outside the character's awareness but in the action and development thus accumulating in viewer/reader's awareness. James Bond could well be read as a negative example by materialism i.e. lacking in the spiritualism and thus vacant of essence."
This statement bears some resemblance to a view of the 007 books advanced in a 1965 pop-cult study, 007: IAN FLEMING'S INCREDIBLE CREATION, by Paul Antony and Jacqueline Friedman. I seem to remember that one of the two of them was acquainted with Fleming in life and drew on specific memories to elucidate the book's interpretation of the Bond canon. Anyway, the authors do argue that, far from the Bond books being merely facile escapism, they are full of a sort of Spenglerian spiritual despondency at the impending death of the once-virile British Empire.
Posts: 5907 | From: Houston, TX | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ken: "I understand Pat to be saying the opposite of your summation above: that he does not consider spiritual those works that simply go from point A to point B."
I don't think the phrase "those works that simply go from point A to point B" means much. What is a specific example of such as story?
"Roy Rogers adventure that was anything more than a by-the-numbers shoot-em-up. "
I suppose, but what questions could be more 'spiritual' than who we choose to kill and let live?
Put another way: a reasonably smart person could see any story in which characters think or act as in some way adressing, intentionally or not, questions that bear on "the human spirit."
I would agree that any coherent narrative (and maybe even some incoherent ones) encode some sort of values-- the sorting-out of right vs. wrong in a Roy Rogers flick, the finding of love in a nurse novel, etc. That's an important facet of storytelling to keep in mind, that there may be value even in the extremely simple. (See Chabon's KAVALIER AND KLAY for a short but passionate defense of-- guess what-- ARCHIE comics!) But Pat emphasized in his off-the-cuff definition of the spiritual as those things that make us "distinctively" human, which sounds to me a lot like CR's notion of spirit as "essence." Technically speaking, one can't *prove* that any aspect of the "human experience" is more important than any other, but rightly or wrongly we do tend to value the complex over the simple, and so one can offer proofs that James Bond is "better" than Roy Rogers because the former is more complex, and in turn Dostoyevsky is "better" than Ian Fleming.
What about you, Ken? Don't you recognize some sort of hierarchy of quality/resonance/whatever in the narratives you choose to purchase, comics or otherwise?
Posts: 5907 | From: Houston, TX | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
“But Pat emphasized in his off-the-cuff definition of the spiritual as those things that make us "distinctively" human, which sounds to me a lot like CR's notion of spirit as "essence." Technically speaking, one can't *prove* that any aspect of the "human experience" is more important than any other, but rightly or wrongly we do tend to value the complex over the simple, and so one can offer proofs that James Bond is "better" than Roy Rogers because the former is more complex, and in turn Dostoyevsky is "better" than Ian Fleming.”
I am not really sure what makes us distinctly human, though – the more I read about non-human animals and their capacity to communicate in complex ways, experience emotions, to make choices, etc . . . I guess I don’t know what makes us distinct. The differences seem to be in degree, not kind. People who study these things claim that certain animals can reason and appear to make choices that resemble moral decisions . . .
“What about you, Ken? Don't you recognize some sort of hierarchy of quality/resonance/whatever in the narratives you choose to purchase, comics or otherwise?”
Perhaps, but I wouldn’t put it in those terms or in terms related to the human spirit. I buy whatever looks interesting to me. Often it is work that I think of as complex, thoughtful etc –stuff by Dan Clowes, Chris Ware, Beto Hernandez, Kevin H etc . . . Yet one of my favorites is Ditko and his objectivist related comics (these are far more interesting to me than the majority of his Marvel/DC stuff ) – they have a power and intensity that no other comics I can think of have – it’s not because they are complex ala Clowes, and their philosophy is certainly not mine.
I guess my hierarchy would be based more on something like strangeness, an idiosyncratic vision, and/or an unusual use of the medium. I recognize that these terms are vague, but I am not trying to create any kind of hierarchy that will work for others. Most works I like seem to display an unusual mix qualities: Clowes’s work, for example, will be at once deadpan, cruel, sympathetic, and will have a kind of pulply intensity—. In some way this explains why I don’t like most current Marvel comics, for example. There’s little unusual about them --
Posts: 367 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:"The soul and the mind are of the same substance for Descartes. If he weren't of a religious tradition and context, the soul wouldn't likely have been his explanation for the mind. This is why I objected to your use of him to support a nonreligious/"metaphorical" view of the soul/spirit."
Still waiting for you to show where I did this, though admittedly not with much interest.
Eh? You do it again in the paragraph I was responding to:
quote:I said he combined in "res cogitans" both elements that one might label "metaphysical" today (such as a soul proper) and those that even a diehard materialist would not consider to be metaphysical (rational mentation). They remain allied in his mind not because he was religious but because his philosophy categorized all these non-physical elements under one heading.
The mind isn't separate from the soul for Descartes. They are a single substance. He had an anti-materialist (before it was called materialism)/religiously oriented view of the mind.
quote:[Pat] didn't use ['spirit'] in his first post but did use it to elucidate what he meant later on. I see no problem.
He cleared up 'spiritual' by referring to 'spirit.' Right. As in 'spiritual metaphorically refers to human spirit'? I dare you to actually restate Pat's original post with all the supposed literal substitutes you two have suggested he meant, while not turning it into an irrelevant tautology and maintaining it as a contra to Porta's opinion. I know you won't do this, because you'd have to give up this nonsensical game if you tried. For example:
quote:I'll also add that Pat's response is probably one of the few that responds directly to the challenge set down in Porta's original topic, in that Pat argues that "spirituality" of one sort of another can be found in what appears to be purely secular (WEST SIDE STORY being, of the three films named, the one with the least overt "spirituality.")
Why is it surprising that if 'spirituality' is purely nonreligious, secular, and nonmetaphysical in the way it was purportedly used that a secular et al film would contain secular et al. themes? That's not an argument, it's the statement of an analytic, boringly tautological truism: the secular is secular. Der. Even Porta agrees with it. In fact, that's what he complained about. Of course, if you fall back on the religiously inclined, literal definition of 'spirituality' (as suggested by "religious people can find something spiritual in secular film x"), then the statement has weight and becomes a topic for discussion, an opinion with which I disagreed when it was stated as a necessity.
quote:I don't think that's a fair summation of all previous posts on the subject, but only Pat can respond as to whether it correctly represents his thinking.
Why don't you give a fair summation of what you think he meant?
You suggest the following is the "best summing-up so far" of the views expressed here:
quote:The question which we must raise is then: Is God or the spiritual, sum total or ground of all existence about which we can only meditate, or is God a Creator who calls us and to whom one may enter via an interpersonal relation of prayer.
Porta would like former case to be a stepping stone to the latter, C is calling it bunk and Pat by spiritual is happy with just the former.
Yet, you disagreed that Pat was meaning spiritual in a religious sense. Thinking that Pat did mean spiritual in such a way was what I was taking issue with to begin with. X then summarizes by suggesting an entirely religious disagreement on our parts. And now you think it's the best summary? That's enough for me on this topic.
quote:But Pat emphasized in his off-the-cuff definition of the spiritual as those things that make us "distinctively" human, which sounds to me a lot like CR's notion of spirit as "essence."
It's just a definition in dictionaries, not my notion. Is defining humans necessary to storytelling and does it make us distinct? Yes, in the sense that we're the only creatures who tell stories. However, we're the only creatures who tell bad stories, as well. Therefore, the property of "defining humans" doesn't separate the good from the bad stories. The problem of the general versus particular arises here: some braindead person can't tell stories, but we still call him human. I'd say the best way of putting it is: if a story exists, good or bad, it's necessarily a human endeavor. Here, however, we get into the problem of induction: just because all the stories we know were created by humans, does that mean all stories are necessarily created by us? What about aliens or gods as authors or maybe dolphins tell stories we don't have linguistic codes to decipher? This is one of those angels on the head of a pin sort of questions. Provide me with some evidence for granting those possibilities and I'll maybe change my inference.
-------------------- The Gospel, wherein much Truth is written. Posts: 6602 | From: us of fuckin' a | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
The Catholic Board of Decency, or some such, put Hud on its list of "approved" movies because, something like, "Even though the protagonist himslf is a deeply immoral person, the movie itself is moral."
All I'm saying is that in a country, a marketplace, America, where most Americans believe in God, Jesus Christ, the U.S. being one of the most religious nations on earth, where 92 percent of the people profess a belief in God and 84 percent call themselves Christians, it makes sense that most entertainment product from comics companies (and maybe movie companies, too, that want to pander to the domestic market) should reflect that in a positive way; but comics DON'T do that, no more than most movies. Comics industry IS a SECULAR GHETTO.
I am guessing that most comics writers are not representative of the 92% and the 84%. I can think of only three comics writers off the top of my head who profess Christianity (I know there are a few others out there, but the names aren't coming to me; I think one was the guy who wrote Astro City, not sure): Gaylord Du Bois, Tony Isabella, and Chuck Dixon. Of those, only Gaylord Du Bois was a born-again. Isabella and Dixon are Catholic.
The stories reflect the writer. If the writers are unsympathetic to or ignorant of Christian American culture, then that will show in the stories. Nevertheless, there is such a thing as civic awareness, whereby even a non-christian writer, e.g. a Jewish writer, may write stories that positively portray an American milieu (in which stories take place, or from which the characters come) of a religious people.
America IS one of the most religious countries in the world. Why do our comics not reflect that? Our comics do not reflect that because our comics industry IS A SECULAR GHETTO in one of the MOST RELIGIOUS countries in the world.
Does no-one here GET that?
Go to India and you will find that they use comic books to tell the colorful stories of the Hindoo religion. Not as a minority, "religious comics" ghetto, but mainstream.
I am not saying mainstream comics should be vehicles of religious instruction. I AM saying that, when "religious" comics are the ghetto within the industry, and "mainstream" comics routinely disregard the overwhelming religious character of our nation, the INDUSTRY ITSELF is a GHETTO.
I am currently following a post- nuke TV show called Jericho, and it amazes me that while it looks at all these problems which would arise in a post-nuke scenario, and how the series characters address those problems, NOT ONCE does the series show the church at work helping out. In Jericho, apparently, there are no churches.
And in the world of comics, too. No churches. No religious people. Comics are set in a secular fantasy world America.
You know, I hear a lot about how contemporary comics are "more realistic." I don't know WHAT REALITY the writers of such comics are living in, but it is not MY reality, nor is it the reality of the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of Americans.
posted
I don't agree that comics are particularly secular. Read most Vertigo and you'll see a line that deals quite a bit with religious themes, maybe not how you'd like them to deal with them (some are, in fact, downright abrasive to conservative Christian values), but they're not "secular." Likewise, in both the Marvel and DC universes, God and the Devil are shown to exist. I can't think of one good atheistic comic on the market, or on tv, or currently running in theaters. I can think of quite a few dealing with religion, though. For example, two recent documentaries dealing with negative aspects of certain Christian sects, JESUS CAMP and DELIVER US FROM EVIL, never counterbalance the badly relgious with the secular, but with other religious people. I think entertainment reflects its audience and helps to construct it, as well. It's a dialectic. Are there any atheistic characters on tv shows? Admittedly, I don't watch much tv.
-------------------- The Gospel, wherein much Truth is written. Posts: 6602 | From: us of fuckin' a | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Charles Reece: I don't agree that comics are particularly secular. Read most Vertigo and you'll see a line that deals quite a bit with religious themes, maybe not how you'd like them to deal with them (some are, in fact, downright abrasive to conservative Christian values), but they're not "secular."
.
Anti-Christian bigotry that comes from a non-religious place? That's is most ASSUREDLY secular.
Listen, I'm just talkin' numbers, man.
Look at it this way. Roughly 2% of Americans are Jews. Roughly 2% of Americans are homosexuals (some say more - whatever; still ‘waaay under 10%). Okay, how many times in comics has a character's homosexuality been tossed up at you? Now, how many times has a character's Jewishness been tossed up at you? Roughly 13% of Americans are Negro. How many times has a character's Negritude been tossed up at you?
Now, roughly 85% of Americans are Christians. How often has a character's Christian-ness been tossed up at you?
I mean, Daredevil is Catholic. Nightcrawler is Catholic. Outside of that Astro City TP, where are the evangelical Protestants? Catholics are the minority. Where are the Lutherans, fer cryin' out loud?! I'm Lutheran. (Yeah, that's right. Missouri Synod Lutherans and Wisconsin Synod Lutherans are conservative, biblicist, evangelical Protestants.)
Movies? Michael J. Fox played a Lutheran soldier of conscience on Casualtiers of War.
You JUST don't GET it, do you?
92 percent of Americans profess a belief in God and 84 percent call themselves Christians. Where ARE they in the world of mainstream comics? VILLAINS?! That just PROVES my point! That's ANTI-CHRISTIAN bias coming from bigoted comics writers. Sheesh! Are you tOtally CLUEless?
"Modern comics are more realistic." No they're NOT. They exist in a fantasy world where 84 percent of Americans embrace villainy (portrayed as YOU describe).
UnbeliEivable!
So, you would say that laws outlawing religion would not be "secular," because they deal with religion? What fantasy world are you IN, man?
posted
Actually, given that the majority of Marvel's stories take place in and around NYC, Catholics would not be the minority, they'd be the majority, as they are in nearly every large city on the East and West Coasts, and even in many midwestern cities, like Chicago.
BTW, like the idea that somehow, in Porta's world, Catholics like DD and Nightcrawler don't count in that 85% Christian group.
-------------------- Best, Pat Posts: 2972 | From: PA, USA | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Anti-Christian bigotry that comes from a non-religious place? That's is most ASSUREDLY secular.
Yeah, but anti-Christian bigotry that comes from a religious place isn't secular, just like your homophobia isn't secular. Anyway, I wasn't thinking of anti-Christian bigotry. I don't see much of that in comics. I do see a lot of hamfisted treatment of religion in pop culture, though, but no more hamfisted than your own. Your call for quotas would get us a bunch of dumbdowned religious actioners where the Christian whups up on the pagan or the satanist or whatever. There was that Arnold movie from a few years that expressed the dilemma of your worldview fairly adequately: he had to choose between his gun and his fists to conquer Satan. His faith, now renewed, powered his fists, so he dropped his gun and beat the fuck out the of the dark prince. And then there's Mel -- no one does gore like Mel these days.
quote:"Modern comics are more realistic." No they're NOT. They exist in a fantasy world where 84 percent of Americans embrace villainy (portrayed as YOU describe).
This is a complete lie, including a manufactured quote. I never said any of that. It expresses the opposite of my view, which is: any comic that portrays the existence of myths as actual can't be "realistic." Faith, however, can be dealt with realistically and meaningfully. I wish it were more often. But unlike you, I have in mind Dostoevsky, rather than Roy Rogers.
-------------------- The Gospel, wherein much Truth is written. Posts: 6602 | From: us of fuckin' a | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
'"This is why I objected to your use of him to support a nonreligious/"metaphorical" view of the soul/spirit."'
This is not what I did here:
"They remain allied in his mind not because he was religious but because his philosophy categorized all these non-physical elements under one heading."
I did not say that 'res cogitans' was metaphorical in Descartes' mind. Ever. I said that he combined in 'cogitans' elements that today many persons (including yourself, obviously) would not combine, and that he did so through a philosophical proof that they could be so combined, not because of any personal religious belief on Descartes' part, but because all of these elements are opposed to his other main category, 'res extensa.' I suggested that this formulation might solve your seeming inability to think of the "spiritual" as connoting anything of a non-religious nature. I withdraw that suggestion; you've obviously decided that keeping the aforesaid elements apart is to your advantage in the argument, and so you will automatically reject any proof that brings them back into association, even without examining that proof.
The Descartes reference, BTW, was also in response to your non-response to the ramifications of the basic dictionary definition I had offered first:
"2. of or pertaining to the spirit or soul, as distinguished from the physical nature: a spiritual approach to life."
"As distinguished from the physical nature," Charles. As in Pat's first definition of what he meant:
"Yes, I mean "spiritual" in a metaphorical sense, in the sense of the human spirit...that which makes us human rather than bestial."
This you bowdlerized into your own personal tautology, "the defining characteristics of 'human,'" so that you could have your little joke about how Pat had defined "spirit" as "human." Therefore, when he wrote "human spirit," he was saying "human human." Hah hah, very droll, except that it wasn't accurate when you wrote it on 2-23 and it still is not.
Posts: 5907 | From: Houston, TX | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gene, the least convincing aspect of Descartes' MEDITATIONS is his religious stuff. He makes a jump that isn't warranted by his method, unless one is already religious. My issue with your take wasn't that you were suggesting his dualism was metaphorical, but that you were comparing his use of the soul with Pat's purportedly metaphorical use of 'spiritual.' Descartes believed that the soul/spirit and things of the soul/spirit substance (i.e., the spiritual) were literally real, not metaphors for something else. Consequently, you're way off to use Descartes to back up your interpretation of how Pat used the term in question. Comprende?
quote:The Descartes reference, BTW, was also in response to your non-response to the ramifications of the basic dictionary definition I had offered first:
"2. of or pertaining to the spirit or soul, as distinguished from the physical nature: a spiritual approach to life."
"As distinguished from the physical nature," Charles. As in Pat's first definition of what he meant:
"Yes, I mean "spiritual" in a metaphorical sense, in the sense of the human spirit...that which makes us human rather than bestial."
This you bowdlerized into your own personal tautology, "the defining characteristics of 'human,'" so that you could have your little joke about how Pat had defined "spirit" as "human." Therefore, when he wrote "human spirit," he was saying "human human." Hah hah, very droll, except that it wasn't accurate when you wrote it on 2-23 and it still is not.
I addressed you assertion that he meant it as "nonphysical" by commenting on how there's plenty of nonphysical entities no one refers to as "spiritual." Only certain nonphysical things are referred to as "spriitual," namely those things which once were thought to be of the soul (mentation et al). By now, it should be clear to everyone but you and Pat that he did have in mind a religious context when using the word 'spiritual.' Hell, you admitted it by agreeing with X's summary. And if you don't like the 'human human' equation, then you should try to argue with my reasoning. Otherwise, you're blowing out your ass. "Is not, is not, is not, nahnahnah!"
-------------------- The Gospel, wherein much Truth is written. Posts: 6602 | From: us of fuckin' a | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Why is it surprising that if 'spirituality' is purely nonreligious, secular, and nonmetaphysical in the way it was purportedly used that a secular et al film would contain secular et al. themes? That's not an argument, it's the statement of an analytic, boringly tautological truism: the secular is secular."
Your persistent misunderstanding is the idea that the spirituality that is nonmetaphysical is of no relation to the spirituality that is metaphysical. The *absolute* separation is yours, not Pat's or mine.
Basically, what happened from your first post on the subject is that you presumed that Pat was claiming to find metaphysical spirituality in all "great stories," which is not what he said, and you've been trying to find some justification for it ever since.
Posts: 5907 | From: Houston, TX | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"maintaining it as a contra to Porta's opinion."
Obviously, to take the most outstanding example, if Pat values Buddhism as an interesting spiritual phenomenon that doesn't threaten his particular take on Christianity, then that alone shows that he has countered Porta's narrow-minded "my sheepfold or the highway" outlook. I'm not surprised that you haven't addressed this aspect, preferring to jump back to the fallacious "human human" definition.
Posts: 5907 | From: Houston, TX | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Yet, you disagreed that Pat was meaning spiritual in a religious sense."
When he was talking about the films he showed to his church, smart guy, which is what he stated the first time he was asked for a fuller definition. As I hear him X wasn't speaking to that alone, but to the general attitudes that all three persons have displayed on the board. Obviously I'm not going to claim that EVERY single time Pat O'Neill uses the word "spiritual," he always means it metaphorically. Der.
Posts: 5907 | From: Houston, TX | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Charles Reece: Your call for quotas
.
Again with the fantasies. I am pointing out that comic book entertainments reflect a secular reality that is not characteristic of the America in which it is set. That is not a call for quotas. It is a somple fact. Comics publisgers and writers haven't a clue as to the real America. Their mindsets are provincial, insular, secular, bigoted.
posted
"It's just a definition in dictionaries, not my notion."
Pardon me, I must have missed your exact citation of the dictionary from whence it came. Maybe because you didn't make such a citation, I presumed you were just boiling it down. Your bad.
"Therefore, the property of "defining humans" doesn't separate the good from the bad stories."
It isn't the terminology I would have chosen myself, but I'm still waiting for you to offer something better.
"What about aliens or gods as authors or maybe dolphins tell stories we don't have linguistic codes to decipher?"
When I meet a storytelling dolphin, I'll apologize for leaving him out of the spirituality equation.
Posts: 5907 | From: Houston, TX | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Gene, the least convincing aspect of Descartes' MEDITATIONS is his religious stuff."
Which is why I've consistently cited his conceptions as a philosopher, unlike yourself.
" but that you were comparing his use of the soul with Pat's purportedly metaphorical use of 'spiritual.'"
Still nope. I suggested the "res cogitans" formula as a solution to your apparent non-comprehension of how assorted psychic elements could be associated. It's possible that a given Christian (not necessarily Pat) could conjoin the metphorically spiritual and the literally spiritual in his belief-system, and it may be that Descartes did so as well, at least more than you're willing to credit. But your statement of my argument remains fallacious.
'I addressed you assertion that he meant it as "nonphysical" by commenting on how there's plenty of nonphysical entities no one refers to as "spiritual."'
No one? When Pat himself agreed with my interpretation of his argument?
Yeah, Charles, you're really concerned with clarity of communication, all right.
Posts: 5907 | From: Houston, TX | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Your persistent misunderstanding is the idea that the spirituality that is nonmetaphysical is of no relation to the spirituality that is metaphysical. The *absolute* separation is yours, not Pat's or mine.
Do what? You said he wasn't talking about metaphysical spirituality, only the metaphorical/secular kind. If you're now honestly admitting that he was referring to the former, my response is: spirituality isn't necessary for good stories.
quote:Obviously, to take the most outstanding example, if Pat values Buddhism as an interesting spiritual phenomenon that doesn't threaten his particular take on Christianity, then that alone shows that he has countered Porta's narrow-minded "my sheepfold or the highway" outlook.
Right. As I've stated repeatedly, in order to counter Porta's point, Pat had to be using "spiritual" in a religious sense, as his example of Buddhism quite literally suggests. Thus: spirituality isn't necessary for good stories.
quote:When he was talking about the films he showed to his church, smart guy, which is what he stated the first time he was asked for a fuller definition. As I hear him X wasn't speaking to that alone, but to the general attitudes that all three persons have displayed on the board. Obviously I'm not going to claim that EVERY single time Pat O'Neill uses the word "spiritual," he always means it metaphorically.
Well, since we've been only arguing about whether Pat meant spirituality in a religious sense and both you and he said that he didn't, anytime he switched to a religious meaning is contradicting what you and he said he meant. Thus: spirituality isn't necessary for good stories.
-------------------- The Gospel, wherein much Truth is written. Posts: 6602 | From: us of fuckin' a | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Pardon me, I must have missed your exact citation of the dictionary from whence it came. Maybe because you didn't make such a citation, I presumed you were just boiling it down. Your bad.
Since you used 'spirit' in such a way (e.g., "the spirit of Kafka"), I assumed you knew what it meant, and was simply agreeing that it meant that. Indeed, my bad.
quote:"Therefore, the property of "defining humans" doesn't separate the good from the bad stories."
It isn't the terminology I would have chosen myself, but I'm still waiting for you to offer something better.
I wasn't aware you were waiting, since this is first time you've responded to this quote. Not sure what you're now waiting for, though.
quote:"What about aliens or gods as authors or maybe dolphins tell stories we don't have linguistic codes to decipher?"
When I meet a storytelling dolphin, I'll apologize for leaving him out of the spirituality equation.
I said nothing about spirituality. My point was that without any further evidence, I assume dolphins, aliens and gods don't tell stories, much like you seem to assume dolphins don't have spirits.
quote:"Gene, the least convincing aspect of Descartes' MEDITATIONS is his religious stuff."
Which is why I've consistently cited his conceptions as a philosopher, unlike yourself.
I was thinking of his philosophical conceptions, the religiously derived ones being the least convincing.
quote:'I addressed you assertion that he meant it as "nonphysical" by commenting on how there's plenty of nonphysical entities no one refers to as "spiritual."'
No one? When Pat himself agreed with my interpretation of his argument?
Let's see, you're saying that this ad hoc interpretation of Pat's usage isn't ad hoc, because the 2 people interpreting it ad hoc are agreeing with the ad hoc interpretation. That's completely idiotic.
I've had my fun, I suppose. Enough with the exegesis of Pat.
-------------------- The Gospel, wherein much Truth is written. Posts: 6602 | From: us of fuckin' a | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Do what? You said he wasn't talking about metaphysical spirituality, only the metaphorical/secular kind. If you're now honestly admitting that he was referring to the former, my response is: spirituality isn't necessary for good stories."
Man, you don't even read things anymore, do you? Anyway, I still maintain (wearily) that it's quite possible for Pat or anyone to speak of "spiritual themes" in a metaphorical manner and still relate them by analogy to the literal/metaphysical kind of spirituality. That would be my perception as to why one would view films that address, or appear to address, mostly secular concerns at a church gathering. "Render unto Caesar" and all that.
"Right. As I've stated repeatedly, in order to counter Porta's point, Pat had to be using "spiritual" in a religious sense, as his example of Buddhism quite literally suggests. Thus: spirituality isn't necessary for good stories."
Pat also used the sunset as a source of spiritual inspiration, and there's nothing literally religious about that phenomenon. If he can see spiritual truths in both ordinary phenomena and in non-Christian religions, then he's at least one step ahead of Porta, and his choice to using the word "spiritual" to suggest both the religious and non-religious connotes an effort to get past narrow beliefs about the exclusivity of religion-- beliefs both from the super-religious (Porta) and the anti-religious (you).
"anytime he switched to a religious meaning is contradicting what you and he said he meant."
I must have missed the part of the thread where everyone else signed the Charles Reece oath that says, "When faced with the chance to employ terms that are given multiple meanings in ordinary use, you must use but one prevailing meaning everywhere within the scope of the thread, whether it pertains to the original topic or not, to avoid confusing Charles Reece."
Posts: 5907 | From: Houston, TX | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Since you used 'spirit' in such a way (e.g., "the spirit of Kafka"), I assumed you knew what it meant, and was simply agreeing that it meant that. Indeed, my bad."
Dunno why you were so surprised by "spirit of Kafka," since it carries the same sense of the word "spirit" that Pat originally used. The first time I asked you for a word to substitute for "spirit," you demurred, and then came up with "essence" from somewhere or other. The point is, you can hardly criticize for not knowing that you derived a definition from a dictionary unless you cite the dictionary.
"I wasn't aware you were waiting, since this is first time you've responded to this quote. Not sure what you're now waiting for, though."
See above.
"I said nothing about spirituality. My point was that without any further evidence, I assume dolphins, aliens and gods don't tell stories, much like you seem to assume dolphins don't have spirits."
And my response was meant to get across the absurdity of your bringing up the aforesaid entities in any connection, given the lack of "further evidence." I know, you're again playing the Jesuit, trying to poke holes in the definition of stories as dealing with "distinctly human" concerns, but the fact remains that until we have that "further evidence," there's not much of an alternative *except* to view storytelling as "distinctively human."
"Let's see, you're saying that this ad hoc interpretation of Pat's usage isn't ad hoc, because the 2 people interpreting it ad hoc are agreeing with the ad hoc interpretation. That's completely idiotic."
Ah, so what "no one" means to you is "no one that I happen to agree with," including dictionaries which, as I've noted before, you only agree with when they seem to support your POV.
I submit again that the ad hoc interpretation is yours, and always has been since you offered the incredible notion that "spiritual" was some sort of non-generalizeable term because it had been used in conjunction with a reference to church. Jeezus! (Sorry, Porta,that's me being a typical comics-fan!)
Posts: 5907 | From: Houston, TX | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
