Re: "But Captain Jack will get you high tonight..."

I see a difference between what was attributed to Chirac in the article
and John's comments. I think our actions have political ramifications
-- whatever they are -- and that we're kidding ourselves if we deny
these ramifications. I think it's a mistake to define our actions
_exclusively_ in terms of these political ramifications, though. I'm
not sure that John was doing that. So I don't think "politics" is any
more a construct than "love" or even the existence of "Fat Ladies." I
think it's an undeniable facet of our existence, like love and Fat
Ladies. Not the defining facet of our existence, but an undeniable one.

This reminds me of something Pete Townsend said about "Won't Get Fooled
Again." He said it was the stupidest song he'd ever written because it
was apolitical...and how can you live in a world without politics?

Jim

Luke Smith wrote:

>"Now, what I meant to say was that Franny's ideals were represented in "Christ," who isn't to be distinguished from the Fat Ladies of the world. The Eastern view of this teaching is that there's no ontological difference between the Fat Lady and Christ, while the Christian view is that Christ lovingly identifies Himself with "the least of these," so if we want to love Him we need to love the Fat Ladies."
>
>The roar of the Omlor came up in a discussion of objectivity vs. subjective interpretations, and yes, politics and power. In my view, loving the Fat Ladies of the world is to reject constructs like politics especially...
>
>Hmm, well to think about that, not to reject that they exist, but to believe or live in a way, so that they aren't meaningful. This seems like a sufficient rejection of living in Omlor's world, or at least an acknowledgement of choice.
>
>John wasn't just arguing that his world exists. He argued something far more consequential; that we live in it, and cannot deny it, but through pretty little fantasies and chemicals. Does this go back to the discussion of Chirac, not just advocating a Secular philosophy of society but also asserting that the French must choose to live in a society where the Secular Order is Truth? I say it does.
>
>You're welcome to disagree. In John's world, you're not. Nor in fact, is one even allowed to have a vision of how to live as an individual that is inconsistent with the supremacy of internal things like rhetoric, politics... and I might assert, judgment.
>
>luke
>

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Mon Aug 4 10:42:43 2003