----- Original Message ----- From: "Travis Edmunds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 12:32 PM Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ"
> > >From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" > >Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 19:25:23 -0600 > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Travis Edmunds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 12:40 PM > >Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" > > > > > > >> > > > Once again Robert, you have constructed a very relevant and poetic > >response. > > > However relevant it may be though, it still buys into assumption > >sets. > > > >I used to make such arguments as you are making when I was young too. > >The problem with such arguments is that they can only come from a lack > >of experience. > > I've been waiting for my age to be entered in on a discussion for quite some > time now. I'm suprised it took this long actually. > > That being said, allow me to disagree with your reasoning Robert, as I don't > see experience (or my lack of) being relevant in the least. > Of course you don't. The relevance becomes quite obvious with experience. It wasn't in any way obvious to me at 21 or even 25, but sure as cats have kittens it became visible to me and will to you to whatever degree finds you. (Yes, to a great degree "it" finds you rather than you finding "it".) > > >It is noble for the young to question authority and to > >question assumptions. And as you get older you tend to be less patient > >with arguments you discarded long long ago. > > In essence, "that ship has sailed" for you. I understand completely, and ask > you to understand that it has left port for me as well. But I'm young you > say; how can that be? Well, I don't have biological age backing me up on > this one, but I feel like I've lived a hundred years. I've been to the stars > and back. I've lived past lives, and lives yet to come. I write, and have > written for as long as I could coherently put ideas together. And in that > writing is a pure journey of self discovery. I've solved the mysteries of > the Universe (you get my meaning, I'm sure) simply by transferring thoughts > to words. And in those words, those conversations with myself, I have > discovered certain things that I hold to be true. This has led me to adopt a > certain line of thinking, which I hold true to. A line of thinking where > anything and everything is disgarded if it doesn't hold some element of > apparant truth. Now I empathize with the fact that people en masse certainly > don't think this way. I also understand when people who supposedly have > "open minds" refuse to accept, or more accurately adopt, certain ways of > thinking. But I still find it amusing that I have to argue my point on some > of these issues. Of course I also admit the fact that I may be quite > delusional, but I refuse to believe it. Unless of course someone were to > prove it<lol>. OK, what I see is that you are saying no matter what anyone says, you are right about whatever whimsy flits into your mind. What I want to know is how do you discern between truth and delusion, and how does this make you different from a garden variety egomaniac. Correct me please if I am misunderstanding you. > > In any case, I also refuse to be dissuaded on this concept of good and evil > being an inherent part of our environment. No one is really making that claim. What *is* being claimed is that good and evil are part of the human social landscape. You wouldn't try to claim that Dean Corril was a really nice guy when he wasn't killing and raping little boys would you? Or that Bob Hope was a complete bastard except when he was entertaining the troops? I cannot see devolving the regime of Hitler into the hijinks of Eddie Haskell. There is evil loose in the world. > > > >So I hope you can forgive > >us "old folks" for our impatience with your anti-authoritarianism.<G> > >Especially since we do not offer authority. We offer our experience, > >which I don't expect you to have any more appreciation for than we did > >when we were young. > >(It pains me to find myself preaching like an old fart)<G> > > There is nothing to forgive, friend. And quite apart from your expectations, > I do appreciate your experience. More so perhaps, than you may know. I > simply don't agree with you. > > And as for my "anti-authoritarianism", I think you have it all wrong. It's > just a by-product of me making the argument that I make. Of course I come at > this list with all the angst that is only proper in a hooligan of my age, > but I don't think it interferes with my ability to think rationally. > I agree. But I disagree with your hypothesis. > > > > > > > >While > > > your first paragraph, being quite anthropological, is relevant, one > >still > > > needs some abstract concept of God. It's what it all hearkens back > >to, and I > > > reject that. > > > >Let me spell my meaning more plainly. > > > >Morality does not prove the existence of "God". > >But the same basic morality espoused by religion is actually a set of > >self-evident rules for social, sentient beings. > > You spout mundane truths. Mundane truths are the most eternal truths. Exotic truths would be the most fleeting. (Or most limited in scope) Would you prefer to restate this somehow? >I think that you perhaps never understood me. But > I apologize, as it is after all my fault for not explaining clearly. <G> Happens to all of us! > > But one thing that stands out when religion is embedded in ANY discussion, > is some abstract concept of God. Regardless of the circumstances, God > factors in. Now I understand where you are coming from, but due to the fact > of divine presence being present in any semblance of religion, and you > saying what you are saying...well it renders the very use of the word > "religion" a complete joke. > I have to reject that. It sounds like you are saying that the slightest mention of "God", even tangentally, invalidates any argument. I would think that patently untrue. > > > >If, there is a "God", then he placed us in a universe where these > >truths are obtainable and created us in such a way that we require > >these truths as a part of our social structure. > > "IF" that "IS" true, (And I would love to believe that it is) it still goes > against the old adage "God works in mysterious ways". I see a contradiction > brewing.<lol> When you can explain "God's" plan to everyones satisfaction, I'll buy you a beer! <G> > > > > >If, there is no "God", then we evolved in a universe where these > >truths are self-evident and our nature is such that we require these > >truths as a part of our social structure. > > > >I don't see any discrepency with either view of reality since reality > >*is* what it *is*. > > > > I honestly have nothing to say to that, and I have no idea why<lol>. > I know I could be crucified for saying this but, .............. The existence of "God" may be an irrelevant argument because no answer to that question will change the reality we find ourselves in. The above statement does not speak to the reality/nonreality of "God". But it does say that in either regard we are still bound to the laws of the physical universe, and that in either case in social situations we are still bound by morality in its contemporaneous form because it is our nature to be social. > > > > > > > And forgive me my presumptuousness, in stating the "man-made evil" > >in a way > > > that declared me to be the sole receptacle of that knowledge. > > > > > >There is the tendency for each of us to ride our own subjective > >beasts. > > How very true. But as I have explained (or tried to explain) past tense, it > is in understanding and accepting one's own subjectivity, that one can > attempt to approach things in a collectively agreed upon manner, which is > the closest we can come to our own definition of objectivity. > > That is why so many people work so hard to understand and reach a concensus. It is a simple way to moderate the forces of subjectivity and objectivity. (Sometimes a completely objective view is unwanted.) > > > > > > > > >Or perhaps > > > more accurately, that concept. You see I admit the possibility that > >evil is > > > exactly what we are told it is; I just don't believe that. I'm quite > >the > > > agnostic fellow you see, and I like to think, that I think about > >things to > > > such an extent, that I have seen all angles as well as I can. And > >when > > > people make certain comments, that don't seem based in rationality, > >I get to > > > thinking that they themselves aren't seeing the big picture. > > > > > > Perhaps I should give people more credit...... > > > > > > Then again........ > > > >There is a very human tendency also to believe we are the sole "soul" > >existing in a world of automatons. > >One of the more difficult lessons in life is to find the "soul" in > >another. > >Especially if the "other" is somehow in opposition to you. > > > > > >xponent > >Soul Warrior Maru > >rob > > > Once again you hit me with something that is oh so true, but that is oh so > obvious. What you are saying is that one should strive to understand > another. I do. That is why I have said on a few occasions now, that I have > always been able to see through the eyes of another. Unstated but equally true, is that one should have a philosophy about such things. Sort of a framework that such thoughts are built upon so that one can climb to certain niches in the frame from which to view ones life. >Understand however, > that I don't claim to be special, or a stereotypical "know-it-all". I just > try to tell it like it is; or at least as far as I know what "is". > Otherwise, I go against the grain of myself, and I find that to be quite the > impossibility. > > -Travis "seeing is believing" Edmunds > > P.S. If you think I was rude or a little crass in any of my statements, > please take it for a grain of salt. It isn't my intent. > Heck no! These kinds of discussions would be no fun at all if one were never challenged and had to defend ones beliefs. Its having the courage to *change* and to see one's self as others see that is the mark of a "whole" person. xponent For Us Guys, That's Manhood Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
