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

I replied to John O's post and then open up my next email and I find this.
Amazing, how some one can consider other people hell like Sartre and how
others think of them as heaven and how others still prefer other things to
their angst.
Daniel

"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 11:36:17 2003