Rebecca

yes, there is a glance at list-matters in my post, it's hardly surprising as
I'm the only person under review status hereabouts, so far as I know, you're
not are you?, so I don't think that comes under 'bellyaching', and what the
issues that got me in this situation have to do with

'social expectation of courtesy and civility, which is a kind of rule of
law, which I think is essential to the list, where a certain measure of
respect toward others, in one's remarks, whether those others are present
are not, is necessary.  And the reality of "giving care to another," which
is something entirely personal and arbitrary and which no one has the right
to expect of another.  I would expect to be kind and courteous to anyone
here, or elsewhere for that matter, to follow the rule of law of discourse,
but I do not expect to "give care to!"'

I do not know. Follow this tangled logic and it would become unallowable to
say anything critical of any other writer. I am deeply puzzled by the
concern about those who are not present, the rules of PEtc are quite simple,
but the way they are interpreted is not, essentially this list is not a
democracy, the simple fact that almost all the posts on the subject of my
status have been in my favour yet that has made no difference demonstrates
that, while freedom of speech depends on who is talking.

As for forgiveness, well, yes, I agree that it +can+ involve power
relationships, but it does not have to do so, if X says to Y 'sorry about
what I said yesterday' and Y says 'That's alright, don't worry about it'
that does not invoke power necessarily, one might argue that X's seeking
forgiveness from Y has elements of a power relationship but it is tenuous to
say so, if Y means what Y says there is no prolongation of the hints of
power.

All the Best (and no ill-feeling)

Dave




Best,

Rebecca


David Bircumshaw

Leicester, England

Home Page

A Chide's Alphabet

Painting Without Numbers

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.bircumshaw/index.htm
----- Original Message -----
From: "seiferle" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2003 6:08 PM
Subject: Re: Shrinking Shakespeare, and other provocations


From: "david.bircumshaw" <[log in to unmask]>Subject: Re:
Shrinking Shakespeare, and other provocationsContent-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"

<<I'm finding it rather ironic that matters re mercy and compassion are
being aired here. Particularly the notion that forgiveness involves a
hierarchy of relationship (having power over others seems to me to be a not
undistant element in the conduct of this list).No, forgiveness does not
imply superiority of one against the other, it asks for nothing in return,
it is not a matter of who is in charge and who is subordinate. Giving care
to the other is an invocation of respect, not its opposite.>>

Well, with all due respect, Dave, I guess it was time for the "other
provocations" in the subject line to put in an appearance, though I wish it
weren't the same old thing, bellyaching about our suffering under the heavy
hand of the list owners. I think you are changing the subject again, from
Shakespeare (interesting) to list matters (not), and do so by changing the
terms.

We were talking about mercy as it is in Prospero's  last speech. Not about
forgiveness which is another term.  However, I'm astounded that you could
say that  forgiveness does not involve a hierarchy of relationship. When we
ask someone to forgive us,  we are in a subordinate position, not because we
were so subordinate by class or being or in any terms of the relationship
itself, but because we have made ourselves subordinate by wronging another
and having the good sense to realize it and so hope for their forgiveness.

To ask for forgiveness is to be at someone's feet, and it is not the same as
asking for mercy, which can be fulfilled merely by letting us exist, for
forgiveness asks for a restoration of relationship. But forgiveness is so
much an aspect of our culture, Christianity is so based upon these
hierarchies of forgiveness, that I am astounded that you would argue that it
is devoid of hierarchy.

However, you seem to be arguing in favor of a forgiveness that one is
entitled to, as a mere "invocation of respect." Surely, forgiveness is not
an expectation like civility. This seems to conflate several realities. The
social expectation of courtesy and civility, which is a kind of rule of law,
which I think is essential to the list, where a certain measure of respect
toward others, in one's remarks, whether those others are present are not,
is necessary.  And the reality of "giving care to another," which is
something entirely personal and arbitrary and which no one has the right to
expect of another.  I would expect to be kind and courteous to anyone here,
or elsewhere for that matter, to follow the rule of law of discourse, but I
do not expect to "give care to!"

Best,

Rebecca

Rebecca Seiferle
www.thedrunkenboat.com


From: "david.bircumshaw" <[log in to unmask]>Subject: Re:
Shrinking Shakespeare, and other provocationsContent-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
I'm finding it rather ironic that matters re mercy and compassion are being
aired here. Particularly the notion that forgiveness involves a hierarchy of
relationship (having power over others seems to me to be a not
undistantelement in the conduct of this list).No, forgiveness does not imply
superiority of one against the other, it asksfor nothing in return, it is
not a matter of who is in charge and who issubordinate. Giving care to the
other is an invocation of respect, not itsopposite.I was, as it were,
converted