Re: down with zen
blah b b blah (jrovira@juno.com)
Sun, 28 Feb 1999 13:40:38 -0500 (EST)
I don't know, Scottie. Reading your post here I had mixed feelings. I
agree with what's being said, overall, but I think your approach is a bit
too simplistic.
I think the problem for me comes from two sources. First, from where
does the artist get his notion of "an authentic world"? Contrary to some
people's beliefs, our sensory data is not raw, unambiguous, and utter
trustworthy. We interpret it on the basis of preconceived notions. ALL
these notions could be said to be, ultimately, religious in nature, even
if we approach the world from an atheist mindset. What do you make of
Flannery O'Connor? She was pretty vehemently Catholic, and her
Catholicism comes through pretty clearly in many of her stories, but she
would say the same things about art and good writing you would. Is she
not somehow a "real" writer?
The second problem I have is with the artificial separation between
religion and literature. Almost all our earliest literature was
religious, and took on the form of stories or, more commonly, narrative
poems. These early stories provided the foundational archetypes for all
future storytelling, even non-religious storytelling.
See, I don't think the real problem you have is with "religious"
influences with literature. I think your real problem is with the use of
literature for didactic purposes. These days, didactic literature is
most commonly associated with religion, but we do see examples of it in
the works of philosophers like Ayn Rand and Sartre. When a work **has
to** come to a certain conclusion, or make a certain point, there's an
artifical air about it, and that's what many artists like yourself --
religious and non-religious -- have serious qualms about.
Jim
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]