 |
 |
Patrick, In the last two posts you've written absolutely nothing of content; only, rather, to whine that I should take my theology and psychology elsewhere, and that I should cease with smarmy inferences that you are for child-murder--ritual or otherwise. Well, my suggestion is to quit whining, and to say something... of content! This would put to bed the necessity of others to put words in your mouth--Mencken, Aquinas and enfant terrible not withstanding. My words of content are as follows, to which you're free to comment upon, content-wise. Even if film doesn't interest you, please feel free to comment on the other subjects as such. (1) Bronze-Age child killing among the Semites is interesting with respect to how these guys are portrayed in film. Gosh, with enough gooshy music and just the right "heroic" camera angle, imagine how inspired these sheep-huggersmust appear to the popcorn munchers! (2) Regarding Abe, theology is all about imparting symbolic, metaphoric and mythic dimensions to what is prima facie something that the civilized among us simply don't accept. (3) As for theology per se, I could care less. My two PHD's are in philosophy and anthropology-- not glorified superstition. Perhaps this distinction is "enlightening" enough. (4) Theo-ethics begins by asking what god wants us to do. In this particular, he/she got off to a bad start. This is not to exclude the possibility of Theologians from developing ethics. (5) For wonderfully great filmic theo-ethics, I recommend Kieslowski's Decalogue. No ur-points of reference here: just a text with ten precepts (not Commandments!), and people searching for a state of grace. Then go see Veronique (Amber) Red, White and Blue for good measure. Agapion de-mecho, outhern emi. Opps, I forgot. Aquinas knew no Koinic. (6) In Psycho, The Hitch was putting us on with that psychobabble ending. (7) Can we, too, have a cinema of psychological questions? or do we have to go to Europe? (8) Philosophy is supposed to be, critically, about understanding conceptual boxes as simple agencements, and nothing more. Abe has always been immune from criticism because his behavior is considered "Inspired" by god. On the other hand, Bates is put away without our deriving a true sense of who he might be. Errors both, in not understanding their similarity. So the massacres continue. Bill Harris ----- Original Message ----- From: Pat Blanchfield<mailto:[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2008 12:29 PM Subject: Re: Bill Harris's post 'Re: Last-minute rescue' Dear Bill, You write: "So I guess you're saying it's okay to slice open your son if your claim that god made me do it would be supported by the folk who believe in said god that would command them to do as much? At the very least, you're confusing said ethnography (what others have done) with theology (what we should do). The religiously- inclined make a habit of this" Bill, "Guess" is right: I said nothing of the sort, in either direction - and I'm troubled that you should so easily attribute arguments to your interlocutors (in addition to me, and including others on this thread) rather than letting them speak for themselves. Misattribution and spurious imputation are rather unfortunate rhetorical moves, and leave your enfant terrible position somewhat the less charming for the effort. I do, though, applaud your astute diagnosis that my comment was "at best" ironic. In fact, it was *precisely* ironic, and though I'll let your efforts to enlighten me about about the distinction between ethnography and theology (which you seem, incidentally, to bracket entirely into the sub-field of theolgical ethics) pass without comment, I do encourage you to perhaps move on from discussion with me to pursue arguments with straw men better ignited by your own zeal. Finally, if there is ultimately irony in pointing out the rhetorical use of irony, allow me to forestall a Mencken-esque critique on your part by flagging my prose in the above paragraph as an example of the technique of 'praeteritio', a passing-over without-passing over, and which stands as quite different from the passing-on of misattribution, with which you are clearly familiar, and which Aquinas himself might have deemed 'cloacal'. Patrick * * Film-Philosophy salon After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to. To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>. Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html<http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html> For help email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>, not the salon. * Film-Philosophy journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com<http://www.film-philosophy.com/> Contact: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> ** * * Film-Philosophy salon After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to. To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask] Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon. * Film-Philosophy journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com Contact: [log in to unmask] **