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 -----
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].
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]
**
*
*
Film-Philosophy Email Discussion 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: