RE: Restored (and a final story for Luke and Daniel)

I agree, when I was talking body in the context of my last post, I wasn't
excluding nature, in fact in that context nature must be included. The body
you and Paul refer to, I agree is a totally different object, some overlap
in particulars but different body. General and specific, like the camera
dollying close and far.
Daniel

-----Original Message-----
From: James Rovira [mailto:jrovira@drew.edu]
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 12:10 PM
To: bananafish@roughdraft.org
Subject: Re: Restored (and a final story for Luke and Daniel)

I'd agree with you that Truth exists, and that when it exists it exists for
everyone (though I suspect it's bigger than any individual point of view, so
different people may emphasize different facets of it). But big Truth, in
this world, has to compete with little truths masquerading as big Truths and
with out and out lies. They're all on the same level. So in this world
it's easier to see the power struggle than the Truth.

>From this point you'd have to name it and tell us how to recognize it from
its imitators. But to be honest this part of the discussion is so far
removed from any clear referent it's hard to know exactly what we're talking
about. Are we talking about the "Truth about X", or are we talking about
God?

Also, I don't quite buy humanity as a corporate body. I think humanity
along with material nature can be seen as a corporate body, but not humanity
somehow "separate from" nature. Paul uses this image to describe the
church, but abstracts the church from the rest of humanity, so I'm not quite
sure where you're coming from on this one.

Jim

Yocum Daniel GS 21 CES/CEOE wrote:

Big T truth exists apart from the observer, I used a word with a little t, I
apologize. Big T truth is not personal property. I am talking about Big T
truth, It is not about confirmation it is about continuity between separate
people. Big T truth does not require confirmation, you could confirm it if
you want but it is the ideal to appeal to when we disagree or agree for that
matter. If you have your truth and I have mine then you can't have
reconciliation without one exerting power over the other. But Big T truth
exerts power over everyone and for the sake of understanding one another we
surrender some of our power to it, and disrespecting one another ceases to
be intrinsically a power issue with one another but a choice in doing
something contrary to Big T truth therefore it becomes a power struggle with
Big T truth. That is why Nietzsche had to say "God is dead." if he wanted
to retain power and control to enable his free spirit to take wing.
Obviously his earthly limitations (tent habitation) burned his wings off
like Icarus.
 
That is why the tower of Babel had to fall and language had to be divided,
to prevent anyone from having to much power since we all have some power to
stroke or slap and not have enough wisdom to know when each is appropriate.
Separation of power is very necessary at this time. We must have authority
but we must have humility. We promote and check this in each other but to
what degree without some sort of Big T truth as a standard? We are all a
body of sorts whether we like it or not, try living totally alone for any
length of time and not have hallucinations. The members of the body are
constantly trying to usurp other parts but the body as a whole imposes order
to the parts. Some call this fascism and it is if any part hijacks the
whole. But more often nowadays it is used as an epitaph by the hijackers
against the whole. Now, one may divorce them self out of the body but if
they have no claim to the body any longer and body has no claim to them then
why should the body entertain the claims of the usurper? Some claim that
the constrictions of the body kills creativity, but as far as I can tell
that type of creativity is usually lethal to the body and the member. Now,
remember, I am talking of the healthy body, since the actual body is ill
from it's cells growing at unregulated cancerous rates it does a poor job
regulating itself. I think people like Kurt Vonnegut see the sick body but
instead having compassion, he hates it, instead of offering chicken soup he
offers a loaded gun. I am sure he is not always that extreme but I think
his reaction to the illness spills over to a general reaction to the body
itself. Oh well, what can I say? The war goes on and the casualties pile
up, both cancerous cells and antibodies. We need medicine, help from a
source outside the body. That is the dichotomy that puzzles modernity, how
to be a regulated organ in the body and be free. There is only one way to
reconcile the earthly needs with the ones in the clouds that I know of;
Reconcile the individual with the body. Of course, some say this world is
just an illusion but isn't that taking themselves out of the discussion?
Daniel

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Thu Jul 17 14:18:37 2003