Mike writes:

quoting Bill: "there can be no mis-reading of a = text whose premises 
are false."

Then:  it follows that there can never be more valid or less = valid 
readings of fiction, since fiction always lies and no reading can 
count = as a mis-reading -- and consequently that narratologists have 
been wasting = their time for the last half century . . . good to 
know; it will save me from = investing any more precious time in this 
useless line of = inquiry.  but perhaps irony is wasted here, so more 
= straightforwardly:  granting that the biblical narrative is simply 
a fiction [either by = design or inadvertently], it still has a range 
of demonstrable [if not entirely determinate] meanings . . . to see 
this text as either not choosing = between the two "divine" voices, 
or siding with the former is, once = again, simply wrong

And:

oh, but of course - how could i have missed it? . . . the difference =
between KILL YOUR SON, and the command DON'T KILL YOUR SON is just a =
triviality, a matter of details, a tiny four letter word that hardly =
makes any difference in the virtually all embracing hellishness that is =
religion . . . sorry for being so dense [and pre-post-modern] as to have =
thought that negation matters . . . but, hey, thanks to wise counsel now =
i begin to see the light and realize that any advice offered in the name =
of a god is, by definition, evil, no matter what it advocates

This is pretty slanderous against fiction, which is not ever a lie, 
since it never claims to be true.  The fake autobiographies that have 
bedeviled Oprah should demonstrate that.  The bible, however, is a 
different animal - it claims to be true, the true voice, and can be 
called a lie, not inadvertent fiction.  Inadvertent fiction is when 
your publisher markets your autobiography as a novel.  (How the bible 
could be a fiction "by design" leaves me perplexed.)

I'm failing to see where anyone says anything contradicting that 
Abraham chose between good and bad, and that one agrees with his 
choice.  I do see, however, that the name of the god he happens to be 
hearing at each time is irrelevant (for the atheist, unless it comes 
with a lot of other information) to the justification of his choice.

Name doesn't matter.

Fiction doesn't demand, in principle, that you agree with the ethical 
opinions of its characters or its narrator.  It holds them up for 
judgment.  I can say unhesitatingly that  "I agree with Yahweh in 
this case" but it sure isn't because his name is Yahweh that I 
agree.  There's nothing "post-modern" or "irresponsible" about 
that.  On the contrary.  I can either treat religious texts as they 
claim - as true; and then I can say this one is fake (that sure 
wasn't fun).  Or I can treat it like fiction, in which case I reserve 
the responsibility of judging (though I agree it can still be 
misread, pace Bill).  As fiction it is more responsible to ignore 
this logic of names you're trying to impose.  You don't read fiction 
and scripture in the same way.

Second para:  now you're starting to make sense, since it is clear 
that you too don't think names matter (or have given up on them), but 
the difference between killing and not killing.  However, if all you 
can do to justify the difference is say "well, Yahweh said so" then 
you're back in names.


Indrakaran

Is it just the diabolic nature of Duality that ( we
as)humans are caught in( as in Joe and Rene Gerard'
reference going backwards- a state of decadence or
redundancy or loss of humanity etc), where crime is bound
to Humans in a parasitical nature, which could also be
another shade of a natural/innate( yet primitive) dynamic
that drives us to creativity in a dialectical trajectory of
conflicting forces

I'm going to opt for what I think is behind this door, at least as 
far as Girard and the Dardennes are concerned.  It would seem that as 
evolved creatures, and big ones that take up a lot of space, humans 
have violent tendencies.  I don't think that is "decadence," simply a 
reasonable probability.  Some people hear religious "voices" (or made 
up religious voices, as in much terrorism) that tell them to act on 
these tendencies.  In small societies, and in large ones with great 
technologies, this can be fatal.  The law, work, creativity, beauty, 
society, and yes religion, you name it, are also innate human 
potentialities that contribute to stability, to diffusing 
violence.  Maybe horror films do this too, I don't know.  But they 
may also make such violence and delusion attractive.  I think the 
Dardennes take the route of lyrically mixing work and beauty in their 
films, which claim to speak about social reality, to make an 
emotional "argument" that transmission, education, work, are good and 
civilizing. I don't think this is an embrace of "tougher laws on 
crime" or anything of that sort.  If anything it is an argument in 
favor of ending unemployment.  (Girard, interestingly, insists that 
there is "violence" in the law, by necessity, since the end of 
violence is not possible.)

Joe Mai

*
*
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]
**