Posted by Vita on August 21, 2000 at 20:39:41:
In Reply to: Re: PAX PAPERS! AUGUST! COME! posted by Bill R on August 21, 2000 at 20:24:54:
: : :
: : : : : Well! It seems I have mis-assumed, and you have mis-assumed.
: : : : : I never would have guessed that you were pagan, and your guess about my squeeky clean keyboard is totally wrong. This board is older than I am. It has enough dirt on it for a good sized garden to flourish.
: : : : : Debate? Okay. One thought. What is truth? Is truth not that which never changes because it IS truth? And if that is so, then man's religions, though meant to provide us enlightenment, must have little to do with actual truth - as religion evolves (changes) and therefore cannot BE truth itself? Only an attempt to understand truth?
: : : : : Bill R
: : : : Dear Bill,
: : : : Remember Pax Paper Paragraph, which containst:
: : : : "Can't We Just Be Friends..."
: : : : and the full paragraph is:
: : : : " ... Unity, from what I gather, is the ticket. That's the contemporary ideal, the cat's meow. But how? When? At what cost? We all quickly say we're all for unity, for no one really wants to say they're in favor of disunity but this unity remains undefined, meaningless and unchallenged. It's like saying, 'I'm against breast cancer' ... no one is actually for breast cancer but it feels good to buy anti-breast cancer stamps and declare we're against it. It doesn't mean all that much really. What is it we really aim to achieve? It seems to me, in my stubborn way of seeing things, that what we're really thinking is this; I want to be your friend and feel good about this friendship so, please don't bring up things we might disagree upon because though I like to call myself enlightened and open minded, the truth is, I won't forgive you for holding a differing opinion which will lead to my not really liking you, and of course, I might find myself to be less open minded than I care to admit. Can't we just be friends? Is this the real unity we want? Isn't this what we really mean when we speak of being tolerant? I'd much rather have my viewpoints challenged, probed, and tested than neatly, kindly tolerated without examination. "
: : : : Hmmm... more to debate!
: : : : Hey, re. Pagan... hmmm I am also a Wicca witch. OK, just kidding. I studied it, interesting, just the way I studied Rosicrucians and their rituals.
: : : : I am too many things to be One Thing, alone.
: : : : But there is GOD.
: : : : Come, Bill... I still owe you 2 books...! See, am forgetful, too. Blame it on too many shocks to my system.
: : : : Meanwhile, let's delve into the above paragraph!
: : : : Vita ...:-)
: : : Unh, Vita? I love you dearly, but in order to debate, don't we sorta have to be on the same sheet of music - topic wise? I test the waters with "truth" and you respond with "unity"?
: : : I don't know how to debate in parallel......sorry. My brain is too tiny.
: : : Bill R
: : Dear Bill,
: : Any which way.... Debate, I mean.
: : Actually.... Truth and Unity have mych in common! For example, there are as many truths as there are view/vantagepoints. Remember Akiro Hirasata (I may be misspelling his last name, right now....) movie, Rashomon?
: : Truth is being manipulated by those who want to prevent Unity....
: Well, unfortunately, I don't see the connection between "truth" and "unity" that clearly. I see a Truth anybody has yet to reach and tell about it. And I see a Unity in that we are all connected - part of the whole - come from it and go back to it.
: But I don't see a Truth in Unity.
: It is Akiro Kurosawa I believe, and I love his movies. Especially ones with the young Toshiro Mifune in them. And Rashamon was the Japanese equivalent of King Lear if I recall...but there was another one I am trying to remember the title of...where everybody had a different interpretation of a crime they witnessed. Anyway............the different viewpoints taken together might approximate the "truth" but "truth"varies according to interpretation. Truth, however, is. At least that is my view of it.
: Bill R
Yes, yes, Kurasawa. Rashomon is an account of the truth told from (If I remember correctly) 4 vantage points. Each participant in the story tells the same tale, recounts the same incident, but with entirely different manners, justifications, etc.
Yes, truth IS, alas, it still is ELASTIC. Her truth: He raped me. His truth: She asked for it.
The real truth: May well be that he raped her.
Or did he?
I say he did, because I am a woman, and I expect to be listened to when I say NO. And dammit, I said NO.
He says he did not, because he is a man, and he expects that I will say No, because I am taught to tease, to lie about what I want, to deny his superiority over my body.
Whose truth wins?
Sometime his, because he has more muscles, because he has a weapon, because he knocked me unconscious, because he bribed the judge, because he was the victor in the war.
Sometimes mine, because I am quicker, because there was an eyewitness who testified on my behalf in Court, because I had a father/brother/husband/son who grabbed a two by four and went broke his head.
Ultimately, we all hope that RIGHT MAKES MIGHT.
Alas, too many times Might MAKES RIGHT.
The idealist (and often, the well-supported propagandist) proclaim that Pen Is Mightier than the Sword.
And the Realist, and often the Cynic, sigh (or grimace, or grin) and admit that what makes the Pen Mighty, is the Presence of the Sword.
Post a Followup