From PARLINS at culver.org Tue Aug 12 11:53:59 2003 From: PARLINS at culver.org (Parlin, Steven) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 10:53:59 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] gay marriage Message-ID: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070590BD@exchangeserver.culver.org> Just a quick comment on the public debate regarding "gay marriage" I wonder what Percy would make of this, at least from a semantic point of view. 'Marriage' refers to a specific thing, the union of man and woman, and whether one argues that such definitions can be stretched and broadened and altered to be more inclusive, the truth is they can't. For example, no one would really allow 'flock of fish' or 'swarm of cows' (unless for effect). Such words refer to specific things. So, leaving the moral arguments aside, on purely semantic terms, homosexuals can't be 'married' any more than fish can flock or cows can swarm. Just an observation. Steve -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From saracarter2 at juno.com Tue Aug 12 12:19:33 2003 From: saracarter2 at juno.com (Sara Carter) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 12:19:33 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] gay marriage Message-ID: <20030812.121933.1416.4.saracarter2@juno.com> another observation: how about the marriage of two minds?? Sara Carter On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 10:53:59 -0500 "Parlin, Steven" writes: Just a quick comment on the public debate regarding "gay marriage" I wonder what Percy would make of this, at least from a semantic point of view. 'Marriage' refers to a specific thing, the union of man and woman, and whether one argues that such definitions can be stretched and broadened and altered to be more inclusive, the truth is they can't. For example, no one would really allow 'flock of fish' or 'swarm of cows' (unless for effect). Such words refer to specific things. So, leaving the moral arguments aside, on purely semantic terms, homosexuals can't be 'married' any more than fish can flock or cows can swarm. Just an observation. Steve -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From LTberrywtr at aol.com Tue Aug 12 12:33:10 2003 From: LTberrywtr at aol.com (LTberrywtr at aol.com) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 12:33:10 EDT Subject: [percy-l] gay marriage Message-ID: <19a.18fae9c6.2c6a70c6@aol.com> Somehow, Sara, I don't believe that's what the current debate it about. (Ok, it's not so much a debate - more of a name calling rodeo and masa-cree.) But, nice of you to suggest it anyway. Larry T. From PARLINS at culver.org Tue Aug 12 12:40:13 2003 From: PARLINS at culver.org (Parlin, Steven) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 11:40:13 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] gay marriage Message-ID: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070590BF@exchangeserver.culver.org> Interesting, I see your point, Sara. But your example is a metaphoric application of the word, and there are many like this. Again, I'm not referencing the morality or immorality of homosexual "marriage". But, heterosexual unions are different than homosexual unions. That's obvious enough, isn't it? The first is a 'marriage' (both as it is tradtionally and semanticallyunderstood) the second is...well...something else, a union, a bond, a committed relationship, a pact, a contract. All I'm saying is that the newness of homosexual unions, if they are to be recognized by the state, requires a new word, not one that is already has a specific meaning. I'm merely defending the word, which apparently hasn't any serious public champions. The lexicon already has too many casualties....they have been hijacked and/or run through. Steve Parlin -----Original Message----- From: Sara Carter [mailto:saracarter2 at juno.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 10:20 AM To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org Cc: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org Subject: Re: [percy-l] gay marriage another observation: how about the marriage of two minds?? Sara Carter On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 10:53:59 -0500 "Parlin, Steven" < PARLINS at culver.org > writes: Just a quick comment on the public debate regarding "gay marriage" I wonder what Percy would make of this, at least from a semantic point of view. 'Marriage' refers to a specific thing, the union of man and woman, and whether one argues that such definitions can be stretched and broadened and altered to be more inclusive, the truth is they can't. For example, no one would really allow 'flock of fish' or 'swarm of cows' (unless for effect). Such words refer to specific things. So, leaving the moral arguments aside, on purely semantic terms, homosexuals can't be 'married' any more than fish can flock or cows can swarm. Just an observation. Steve -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mfrentz at bbn.com Tue Aug 12 14:42:19 2003 From: mfrentz at bbn.com (Mike Frentz) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 14:42:19 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] gay marriage In-Reply-To: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070590BF@exchangeserver.cu lver.org> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20030812142926.0209ebf0@po2.bbn.com> Marriage, from the Catholic point of view (to which Percy, to all appearances, fully ascribed) is first and foremost a sacrament. Marriage, even between a man and woman if they enter it consciously not intending to have children, is invalid. Same sex "marriage" is a total oxymoron given the cultural roots of the authentic institution -- it can't exist. Apparently Mr. Robinson referred to his election as the "Easter after Good Friday". I pity the poor Episcopalians through all this. What a travesty of Christianity. Mike At 11:40 AM 8/12/2003 -0500, you wrote: >Interesting, I see your point, Sara. But your example is a metaphoric >application of the word, and there are many like this. > >Again, I'm not referencing the morality or immorality of homosexual >"marriage". But, heterosexual unions are different than homosexual unions. >That's obvious enough, isn't it? The first is a 'marriage' (both as it is >tradtionally and semanticallyunderstood) the second is...well...something >else, a union, a bond, a committed relationship, a pact, a contract. > >All I'm saying is that the newness of homosexual unions, if they are to be >recognized by the state, requires a new word, not one that is already has >a specific meaning. > >I'm merely defending the word, which apparently hasn't any serious public >champions. The lexicon already has too many casualties....they have been >hijacked and/or run through. > >Steve Parlin >-----Original Message----- >From: Sara Carter [mailto:saracarter2 at juno.com] >Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 10:20 AM >To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org >Cc: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org >Subject: Re: [percy-l] gay marriage > >another observation: >how about the marriage of two minds?? > >Sara Carter > >On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 10:53:59 -0500 "Parlin, Steven" ><PARLINS at culver.org> writes: > >Just a quick comment on the public debate regarding "gay marriage" > >I wonder what Percy would make of this, at least from a semantic point of >view. 'Marriage' refers to a specific thing, the union of man and woman, >and whether one argues that such definitions can be stretched and >broadened and altered to be more inclusive, the truth is they can't. For >example, no one would really allow 'flock of fish' or 'swarm of cows' >(unless for effect). Such words refer to specific things. So, leaving the >moral arguments aside, on purely semantic terms, homosexuals can't be >'married' any more than fish can flock or cows can swarm. > >Just an observation. > >Steve > > > > >-- > >An archive of all list discussion is available at >http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > >Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From PARLINS at culver.org Tue Aug 12 14:48:55 2003 From: PARLINS at culver.org (Parlin, Steven) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 13:48:55 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] gay marriage Message-ID: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070590C9@exchangeserver.culver.org> Mike, I, too, am a Catholic and fully ascribe to the RC teachings (that homosexuality is gravely immoral). And, I agree that such marriages, as you say, can't exist. Calling a bird a dog doesn't thereby endow the bird with canine attributes. Likewise, calling homosexual unions "marriages" doesn't endow them with matrimonial attributes. I just think that defending the word itself is the easiest and most effective argument. The morality argument isn't going to go far in this culture. There's too much inertia behind this now. Steve Parlin -----Original Message----- From: Mike Frentz [mailto:mfrentz at bbn.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 12:42 PM To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Subject: RE: [percy-l] gay marriage Marriage, from the Catholic point of view (to which Percy, to all appearances, fully ascribed) is first and foremost a sacrament. Marriage, even between a man and woman if they enter it consciously not intending to have children, is invalid. Same sex "marriage" is a total oxymoron given the cultural roots of the authentic institution -- it can't exist. Apparently Mr. Robinson referred to his election as the "Easter after Good Friday". I pity the poor Episcopalians through all this. What a travesty of Christianity. Mike At 11:40 AM 8/12/2003 -0500, you wrote: Interesting, I see your point, Sara. But your example is a metaphoric application of the word, and there are many like this. Again, I'm not referencing the morality or immorality of homosexual "marriage". But, heterosexual unions are different than homosexual unions. That's obvious enough, isn't it? The first is a 'marriage' (both as it is tradtionally and semanticallyunderstood) the second is...well...something else, a union, a bond, a committed relationship, a pact, a contract. All I'm saying is that the newness of homosexual unions, if they are to be recognized by the state, requires a new word, not one that is already has a specific meaning. I'm merely defending the word, which apparently hasn't any serious public champions. The lexicon already has too many casualties....they have been hijacked and/or run through. Steve Parlin -----Original Message----- From: Sara Carter [ mailto:saracarter2 at juno.com ] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 10:20 AM To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org Cc: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org Subject: Re: [percy-l] gay marriage another observation: how about the marriage of two minds?? Sara Carter On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 10:53:59 -0500 "Parlin, Steven" < PARLINS at culver.org > writes: Just a quick comment on the public debate regarding "gay marriage" I wonder what Percy would make of this, at least from a semantic point of view. 'Marriage' refers to a specific thing, the union of man and woman, and whether one argues that such definitions can be stretched and broadened and altered to be more inclusive, the truth is they can't. For example, no one would really allow 'flock of fish' or 'swarm of cows' (unless for effect). Such words refer to specific things. So, leaving the moral arguments aside, on purely semantic terms, homosexuals can't be 'married' any more than fish can flock or cows can swarm. Just an observation. Steve -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From evopsych at hotmail.com Tue Aug 12 15:02:09 2003 From: evopsych at hotmail.com (Joseph Cimino) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 15:02:09 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] gay marriage Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From piat1 at bellsouth.net Tue Aug 12 17:09:07 2003 From: piat1 at bellsouth.net (James Piat) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 17:09:07 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] gay marriage References: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070590BF@exchangeserver.culver.org> Message-ID: <006201c36115$f797e400$210110ac@D68RS511> Dear Steve, Folks- I don't think the meaning of words is fixed or assigned to them by some sort of word police, the Church or any other single or supreme arbiter of politically correct semantics. I think the meaning of words evolves based upon common use reflecting societies' ever changing understanding of reality. I think Percy's essay on Metaphor as Mistake suggests at least some sympathy for this view -- or at least some sympathy for the view that there is some play or freedom between a symbol and its referent. But as to the matter of homosexual marriages -- I'm all for 'em myself and would like to believe that Percy would have practiced his customary charity and humility in judging the behavior of others, though how he would have come down on the morality of the issue I've no guess. Jim Piat I'm merely defending the word, which apparently hasn't any serious public champions. The lexicon already has too many casualties....they have been hijacked and/or run through. Steve Parlin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From xlate at yahoo.com Tue Aug 12 17:16:16 2003 From: xlate at yahoo.com (Phil Hammond) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 17:16:16 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] gay marriage References: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070590BF@exchangeserver.culver.org> <006201c36115$f797e400$210110ac@D68RS511> Message-ID: <03b601c36116$f7d8ef30$e5ea1a42@PHIL> I think Percy would be totally against gay marriage. But that's why I'm glad I don't walk around wearing a "WWPD?" wrist band. I think he was definitely a product of his time and place, and his later novels particularly illustrate his out-of-place feeling in the 1970's. And didn't it seem like he became more conservative and doctrinaire as he grew older? It's been a while since I've read Percy, but I remember The Thanatos Syndrome being a lot more "preachy" than his early novels... Regards from Chapel Hill, Phil ----- Original Message ----- From: James Piat To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 5:09 PM Subject: Re: [percy-l] gay marriage Dear Steve, Folks- I don't think the meaning of words is fixed or assigned to them by some sort of word police, the Church or any other single or supreme arbiter of politically correct semantics. I think the meaning of words evolves based upon common use reflecting societies' ever changing understanding of reality. I think Percy's essay on Metaphor as Mistake suggests at least some sympathy for this view -- or at least some sympathy for the view that there is some play or freedom between a symbol and its referent. But as to the matter of homosexual marriages -- I'm all for 'em myself and would like to believe that Percy would have practiced his customary charity and humility in judging the behavior of others, though how he would have come down on the morality of the issue I've no guess. Jim Piat I'm merely defending the word, which apparently hasn't any serious public champions. The lexicon already has too many casualties....they have been hijacked and/or run through. Steve Parlin ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mfrentz at bbn.com Tue Aug 12 17:21:59 2003 From: mfrentz at bbn.com (Mike Frentz) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 17:21:59 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] gay marriage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20030812161457.02092960@po2.bbn.com> I'm reading an interesting book now on the evolution of language (actually, the author is very particular to call it "transformation" of language, breaking the biological parallel, because evolution implies advancement rather than just change): McWhorter, "The Power of Babel". It's interesting how much of language had sacred roots before its transformation to present day secular usage. For instance, goodbye is a basically a phonetic decay from "God, be with you". He discusses how both phonetics and semantics are prone to change over time, sometimes rather dramatically. Given the concurrent existence of the real (i.e. sacred) and primal thing, called "marriage", not to mention the parallel (grossly diluted in recent decades, but still somewhat solemn) secularized version, a new word would definitely seem to be in order. Each of the original meanings does still at least serve the higher purpose of bringing about children (peripherally at least, if not primarily anymore, in common usage). A "penicumanal pact" comes to mind as being accurate. Any stronger, or more solemn word would seem silly (in present day usage of the word, i.e. through semantic degradation, silly devolved from originally meaning "holy" to --> blameless --> innocent --> childish --> foolish ). Mike At 03:02 PM 8/12/2003 -0400, you wrote: >In my dictionary, "marriage" in the example of minds meeting is a seperate >definition of the more common defintion, which does in fact necessitate >there being a man and a woman, and not two people of the same sex. > >Im not sure how much efffect this has on the debate on whether gay >marriage should be legalized. I do feel that opponents to gay marriages >are using the defintion of "marriage" in defense of their view, but thats >not set in stone. If something that looks like gay people being married >becomes legal, then the defintion of marriage would have to be altered, or >a new word would have to be invented. Any ideas on what that word might >look like? > > > > > > > > >---------- >MSN 8 helps ELIMINATE E-MAIL VIRUSES. >Get 2 months FREE*. >-- > >An archive of all list discussion is available at >http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > >Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From LTberrywtr at aol.com Tue Aug 12 17:40:11 2003 From: LTberrywtr at aol.com (LTberrywtr at aol.com) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 17:40:11 EDT Subject: [percy-l] gay marriage Message-ID: <1ea.ec54a57.2c6ab8bb@aol.com> All of Percy's novels, from "Moviegoer" to "Thanatos," mainly feature "the search." No one I've read is better than WP at asking First Questions, and at showing how tricky and frail most of our answers to these are (and doing this in an entertaining way). If my life were on the line, I don't believe I could name three writers less "doctrinaire" than WP -- even though he was capable of coming to certain fairly safe and obvious conclusions, to wit: Trapper John and Hawkeye Pearce were arrogant, self-satisfied pricks, and college students a bad lot (Can anyone really argue with either of these?) But then I freely admit to being out of step with the 70s, 80s, 90s, and whatever it is you call what we're in now. Cordially, Larry T. From PARLINS at culver.org Tue Aug 12 17:51:07 2003 From: PARLINS at culver.org (Parlin, Steven) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 16:51:07 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] gay marriage Message-ID: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070590CC@exchangeserver.culver.org> Mike, Thanks for the McWhorter reference. I teach a class on language, Language Play, and one of the units is on language change and history. This will be a good read, I think. Goodbye "penicumanal"? ... a hoot. Steve -----Original Message----- From: Mike Frentz [mailto:mfrentz at bbn.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 3:22 PM To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Subject: Re: [percy-l] gay marriage I'm reading an interesting book now on the evolution of language (actually, the author is very particular to call it "transformation" of language, breaking the biological parallel, because evolution implies advancement rather than just change): McWhorter, "The Power of Babel". It's interesting how much of language had sacred roots before its transformation to present day secular usage. For instance, goodbye is a basically a phonetic decay from "God, be with you". He discusses how both phonetics and semantics are prone to change over time, sometimes rather dramatically. Given the concurrent existence of the real (i.e. sacred) and primal thing, called "marriage", not to mention the parallel (grossly diluted in recent decades, but still somewhat solemn) secularized version, a new word would definitely seem to be in order. Each of the original meanings does still at least serve the higher purpose of bringing about children (peripherally at least, if not primarily anymore, in common usage). A "penicumanal pact" comes to mind as being accurate. Any stronger, or more solemn word would seem silly (in present day usage of the word, i.e. through semantic degradation, silly devolved from originally meaning "holy" to --> blameless --> innocent --> childish --> foolish ). Mike At 03:02 PM 8/12/2003 -0400, you wrote: In my dictionary, "marriage" in the example of minds meeting is a seperate definition of the more common defintion, which does in fact necessitate there being a man and a woman, and not two people of the same sex. Im not sure how much efffect this has on the debate on whether gay marriage should be legalized. I do feel that opponents to gay marriages are using the defintion of "marriage" in defense of their view, but thats not set in stone. If something that looks like gay people being married becomes legal, then the defintion of marriage would have to be altered, or a new word would have to be invented. Any ideas on what that word might look like? _____ MSN 8 helps ELIMINATE E-MAIL VIRUSES. Get 2 months FREE*. -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From PARLINS at culver.org Tue Aug 12 18:16:17 2003 From: PARLINS at culver.org (Parlin, Steven) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 17:16:17 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] gay marriage Message-ID: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070590CD@exchangeserver.culver.org> Jim, I think you misunderstand my point. No matter what one chooses to call a committed homosexual relationship, it's NOT the same kind of nuptial bond that the word "marriage" refers to, not from a historical, traditional, cultural, biological, religious or any other frame of reference. It's not. Yes, words change over time, and as Mike pointed out, the phonetics and semantics can shift dramatically... but reality doesn't change. In this case, the reality is that these are two very different kinds of relationships and as such cannot be referred to with the same word. No more so than calling the moon, the sun, or night, day. Using the word 'marriage' to refer to these different bonds in the same way is an out and out attempt to manipulate (dare I say, engineer) public tolerance through semantic abuse. Orwell's Freedom is slavery; War is Peace kind of manipulation. (BTW. If the state does eventually recognize "homosexual marriages", what are we to make of two brothers, two sisters or two friends living together? Why not give such co-habitators the same kinds of benefits, which is what this is fundamentally about, after all). Now...I must comment on your "supreme arbiter of politically correct semantics". Be careful, here. I wonder just WHO it is that are you referring to? Isn't the supremre arbiter in this case those who are INSISTING that we call homosexual relationships marriage, even to the point of making it into law? Who is policing whom? Check out what's going on in Ireland right now. Anyone who speaks out against homosexual marriage is in jeopardy of going to jail for "hate rhetoric". (And, moreover, its worth noting that the Catholic Church has long been out of any kind of position to "police" anyone). The point is not that our understanding of reality is changing (although i think this is, if anything, a very clear indicator of having less of an understanding of reality), but that words cannot be made to mean whatever we want them to mean. Words can and do change, but this is a not merely change but misuse. Perhaps, because of the times we are living, the sacrament of matrimony will have to move on to new semantic territory, will have to find a new word for itself. Silly, as Mike mentioned, took quite a fall after all. Finally, I could be wrong for I didn't know him personally, but based on his work, homosexuality was clearly not "natural" in Percy's view, and he would have referred to this absurdity as yet one more indicator that we are "Lost in the Cosmos". Steve -----Original Message----- From: James Piat [mailto:piat1 at bellsouth.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 3:09 PM To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Subject: Re: [percy-l] gay marriage Dear Steve, Folks- I don't think the meaning of words is fixed or assigned to them by some sort of word police, the Church or any other single or supreme arbiter of politically correct semantics. I think the meaning of words evolves based upon common use reflecting societies' ever changing understanding of reality. I think Percy's essay on Metaphor as Mistake suggests at least some sympathy for this view -- or at least some sympathy for the view that there is some play or freedom between a symbol and its referent. But as to the matter of homosexual marriages -- I'm all for 'em myself and would like to believe that Percy would have practiced his customary charity and humility in judging the behavior of others, though how he would have come down on the morality of the issue I've no guess. Jim Piat I'm merely defending the word, which apparently hasn't any serious public champions. The lexicon already has too many casualties....they have been hijacked and/or run through. Steve Parlin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From piat1 at bellsouth.net Tue Aug 12 19:44:32 2003 From: piat1 at bellsouth.net (James Piat) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 19:44:32 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] gay marriage References: <1ea.ec54a57.2c6ab8bb@aol.com> Message-ID: <009301c3612b$ae0643c0$210110ac@D68RS511> > If my life were on the line, I don't believe I could > name three writers less "doctrinaire" than WP -- even though he was capable > of coming to certain fairly safe and obvious conclusions, to wit: Trapper John > and Hawkeye Pearce were arrogant, self-satisfied pricks, and college students > a bad lot (Can anyone really argue with either of these?) Dear Larry T, Folks-- I never bet against a man who says he can't do something so I'll leave you to risk you life as you see fit -- but Trapper John and Hawkeye Pearce arrogant, self satisfied pricks? Hell, I thought that was the whole ironic point of their almost over the top self parody -- they (or their creators) were (in addition to protesting war) making fun of their own smug behavior just as surely as was Archie Bunker satirizing his own boorish racism. In the case of MASH the fact that they were so easy to dismiss as snots made their antiwar, anti-authority message much easier to take and slip by the censors. In the case of Archie the fact that he was such a thoroughly decent and likable fellow made it all the easier to hold his racism up to ridicule. I think there was a part of Percy that either didn't get the oke -- or maybe resented it a bit --- being both a doctor and at times something of a smart ass himself. And as for college kids -- well, having been one of sorts myself, I have to concede that assessment. > But then I freely > admit to being out of step with the 70s, 80s, 90s, and whatever it is you call > what we're in now. I call it the ol' mis-step -- slip slip sliding away All in fun -- I'm mostly just yakking. I've enjoyed your good natured and interesting comments. Jim Piat From piat1 at bellsouth.net Tue Aug 12 19:59:23 2003 From: piat1 at bellsouth.net (James Piat) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 19:59:23 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] gay marriage References: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070590BF@exchangeserver.culver.org><006201c36115$f797e400$210110ac@D68RS511> <03b601c36116$f7d8ef30$e5ea1a42@PHIL> Message-ID: <00a601c3612d$c14e69b0$210110ac@D68RS511> Dear Phil, I think we are all very much products of our circumstances -- and tend to get more conservative as we age. Of his writings I like Percy's essays the most, and The Movie Goer more than The Thanatos Syndrome. I'm not so sure Percy would be totally against gay marriage were he around today. Times change; people change. Regards from Atlanta Jim I think Percy would be totally against gay marriage. But that's why I'm glad I don't walk around wearing a "WWPD?" wrist band. I think he was definitely a product of his time and place, and his later novels particularly illustrate his out-of-place feeling in the 1970's. And didn't it seem like he became more conservative and doctrinaire as he grew older? It's been a while since I've read Percy, but I remember The Thanatos Syndrome being a lot more "preachy" than his early novels... Regards from Chapel Hill, Phil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wriddick at usa.net Tue Aug 12 20:15:46 2003 From: wriddick at usa.net (Wade Riddick) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 19:15:46 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] musical roots of the human voice Message-ID: From Robert_Pauley at oxy.com Tue Aug 12 21:07:58 2003 From: Robert_Pauley at oxy.com (Robert_Pauley at oxy.com) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 18:07:58 -0700 Subject: [percy-l] gay marriage Message-ID: <1E4B441CB5CF9D408D318BC697F086F5014B02DF@olawexc7.naoxy.com> I don't think "totally" is the right adverb for any Walker Percy position. He was too intellectually supple. Remember his piece on abortion in the New York Times -- ... "Something to displease both sides." I believe he would have found a way to deconstruct the moral and semantic choplogic of "gay marriage" while allowing for the truth of gay love as a personal bond, and of society's need to accept this, short of formal social or religious sanctification. He would, again, have displeased both sides. Best, RP -----Original Message----- From: percy-l-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:percy-l-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of James Piat Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 4:59 PM To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Subject: Re: [percy-l] gay marriage Dear Phil, I think we are all very much products of our circumstances -- and tend to get more conservative as we age. Of his writings I like Percy's essays the most, and The Movie Goer more than The Thanatos Syndrome. I'm not so sure Percy would be totally against gay marriage were he around today. Times change; people change. Regards from Atlanta Jim I think Percy would be totally against gay marriage. But that's why I'm glad I don't walk around wearing a "WWPD?" wrist band. I think he was definitely a product of his time and place, and his later novels particularly illustrate his out-of-place feeling in the 1970's. And didn't it seem like he became more conservative and doctrinaire as he grew older? It's been a while since I've read Percy, but I remember The Thanatos Syndrome being a lot more "preachy" than his early novels... Regards from Chapel Hill, Phil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From piat1 at bellsouth.net Tue Aug 12 22:33:22 2003 From: piat1 at bellsouth.net (James Piat) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 22:33:22 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] gay marriage References: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070590CD@exchangeserver.culver.org> Message-ID: <003101c36143$43aadc80$210110ac@D68RS511> Jim, I think you misunderstand my point. >> Problably! No matter what one chooses to call a committed homosexual relationship, it's NOT the same kind of nuptial bond that the word "marriage" refers to, not from a historical, traditional, cultural, biological, religious >>OK or any other frame of reference. >> what about my frame of reference? It's not. Yes, words change over time, and as Mike pointed out, the phonetics and semantics can shift dramatically... but reality doesn't change. In this case, the reality is that these are two very different kinds of relationships and as such cannot be referred to with the same word. No more so than calling the moon, the sun, or night, day. >>To the extent some words have a legally stipulated definition changing that definition does have "real" consequence. Using the word 'marriage' to refer to these different bonds in the same way is an out and out attempt to manipulate (dare I say, engineer) public tolerance through semantic abuse. Orwell's Freedom is slavery; War is Peace kind of manipulation. (BTW. If the state does eventually recognize "homosexual marriages", what are we to make of two brothers, two sisters or two friends living together? Why not give such co-habitators the same kinds of benefits, which is what this is fundamentally about, after all). >> Good question. Now...I must comment on your "supreme arbiter of politically correct semantics". Be careful, here. I wonder just WHO it is that are you referring to? Isn't the supremre arbiter in this case those who are INSISTING that we call homosexual relationships marriage, even to the point of making it into law? Who is policing whom? Check out what's going on in Ireland right now. Anyone who speaks out against homosexual marriage is in jeopardy of going to jail for "hate rhetoric". (And, moreover, its worth noting that the Catholic Church has long been out of any kind of position to "police" anyone). >> I agree with the cautions you raise above -- personally I'm inclined to think the state should get out of the marriage business altogether. The point is not that our understanding of reality is changing (although i think this is, if anything, a very clear indicator of having less of an understanding of reality), >> I didn't realize you felt this way. I'm curious --during what period of history or pre history do you think man's understanding of reality peaked? but that words cannot be made to mean whatever we want them to mean. Words can and do change, but this is a not merely change but misuse. Perhaps, because of the times we are living, the sacrament of matrimony will have to move on to new semantic territory, will have to find a new word for itself. Silly, as Mike mentioned, took quite a fall after all. >> Ah, suddenly, I think I understand better your objections. For those who view marriage as a sacrament the term marriage is more like a proper name than a common noun. For folks who view the term "marriage" as the name of something sacred the idea that other folks can appropriate the word for whatever willy nilly Alice in Wonderland use they might choose is understandably a bit of an outrage to them. Yes, I had not really thought of in this light. Hmmmm -- I'm even less confident of my position than before. Finally, I could be wrong for I didn't know him personally, but based on his work, homosexuality was clearly not "natural" in Percy's view, and he would have referred to this absurdity as yet one more indicator that we are "Lost in the Cosmos". >>Whatever position he might have taken I'm inclined to agree with Robert Pauley that he would given both sides something worthwhile to chew on -- and he would have done it with humor and uncommon insight into the crux of the issue. Thanks for your detailed comments Steve -- once again I've benefitted from them. Jim Piat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From LTberrywtr at aol.com Tue Aug 12 22:36:09 2003 From: LTberrywtr at aol.com (LTberrywtr at aol.com) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 22:36:09 EDT Subject: [percy-l] gay marriage Message-ID: <4b.3268286e.2c6afe19@aol.com> Well Jim, your take on Hawkeye and Trapper is a little more nuanced than mine and Walker's (though we're nearly eye-to-eye on Archie). They (and later Hawkeye and B.J. Hunnicut) came across to me as irony-free, holier than thou, spoiled brats. That's why their juvenile anti-authority stance just didn't work for me (I take my anti-authority straight up - the Marx Brothers and W.C. Fields). That's why I had to laugh near the end of "Thanatos" when Walker gets on them for just those charges and specifications. Later comments by the actors who played Trapper and B.J. (and most of the folks in Hollywood on most issues) would lead me to believe that nuance and irony are not a big part of their game. The show wasn't a total loss for me though. Hawkeye et al, could be funny chasing nurses and getting swacked on that home brew they made. Klinger cracked me up. And some of the other characters - Col. Potter and Radar - were appealing (I worked in the ship's office of a destroyer with a guy just like Radar - except I don't think he had a Teddy bear). And Hot Lips, well (well, indeed), she was evidence that Frank had at least one oar in the water. Cordially, -- Larry From piat1 at bellsouth.net Tue Aug 12 22:40:17 2003 From: piat1 at bellsouth.net (James Piat) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 22:40:17 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] musical roots of the human voice References: Message-ID: <003701c36144$3b7e01d0$210110ac@D68RS511> Dear Wade, Thanks for the reference on the possible origin of the musical scales -- I've long wondered about that and the explanation provided seems the most plausible to me. I can't wait to show my violin teacher -- who has more opinions than me-- and not just on music. Everything. Jim Piat From mfrentz at bbn.com Wed Aug 13 09:43:41 2003 From: mfrentz at bbn.com (Mike Frentz) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 09:43:41 -0400 Subject: More semantics (was Re: [percy-l] gay marriage) In-Reply-To: <03b601c36116$f7d8ef30$e5ea1a42@PHIL> References: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070590BF@exchangeserver.culver.org> <006201c36115$f797e400$210110ac@D68RS511> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20030813091624.020fd1d8@po2.bbn.com> At 05:16 PM 8/12/2003 -0400, Phil wrote: >I think Percy would be totally against gay marriage. But that's why I'm >glad I don't walk around wearing a "WWPD?" wrist band. I think he was >definitely a product of his time and place, and his later novels >particularly illustrate his out-of-place feeling in the 1970's. And didn't >it seem like he became more conservative and doctrinaire as he grew older? >It's been a while since I've read Percy, but I remember The Thanatos >Syndrome being a lot more "preachy" than his early novels... > Dear Phil & list, Another area of semantics that I have problems with these days are the words "conservative" and "liberal", which at this point have decayed to just labels (or epithets) rather than qualifying as descriptors anymore. This use seems especially abused when it comes to Catholic understanding (and most especially in the sound bite environment of mass media). There is really no such thing as a conservative or a liberal Catholic -- fervent and lukewarm are the more apt qualifiers in this area. The Church is extremely "liberal" in certain areas (e.g. workers rights, rights of the poor, death penalty) and very "conservative" in others (e.g. right to life, homosexuality as a disorder). I think it is clear that Percy became more Catholic as he matured, I wouldn't necessarily say more "conservative", whatever that word means both now and then (JFK also sounds Republican if you play back his inaugural speech today). I heard an interesting show the other night (The World Over, EWTN) that was discussing a book on Anti-Catholicism (The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice, written by a Protestant professor, Philip Jenkins, I think at Vanderbilt..). He made the very astute point that thirty or forty years ago, anti-Catholicism came almost exclusively from the "right", whereas today, anti-Catholicism is almost entirely from the "left". It hasn't been the Church that changed significantly in its teachings over that time, but rather the perspectives of the respective political camps. Mike > >----- Original Message ----- >From: James Piat >To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical >Discussion >Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 5:09 PM >Subject: Re: [percy-l] gay marriage > >Dear Steve, Folks- > >I don't think the meaning of words is fixed or assigned to them by some >sort of word police, the Church or any other single or supreme arbiter of >politically correct semantics. I think the meaning of words evolves based >upon common use reflecting societies' ever changing understanding of >reality. I think Percy's essay on Metaphor as Mistake suggests at least >some sympathy for this view -- or at least some sympathy for the view >that there is some play or freedom between a symbol and its referent. But >as to the matter of homosexual marriages -- I'm all for 'em myself and >would like to believe that Percy would have practiced his customary >charity and humility in judging the behavior of others, though how he >would have come down on the morality of the issue I've no guess. > >Jim Piat >I'm merely defending the word, which apparently hasn't any serious public >champions. The lexicon already has too many casualties....they have been >hijacked and/or run through. > >Steve Parlin > > >---------- >-- > >An archive of all list discussion is available at >http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > >Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > >-- > >An archive of all list discussion is available at >http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > >Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From PARLINS at culver.org Wed Aug 13 10:41:17 2003 From: PARLINS at culver.org (Parlin, Steven) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 09:41:17 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] gay marriage Message-ID: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070590CF@exchangeserver.culver.org> Dear RP I'm not sure "totally" doesn't fit (though perhaps it's fruitless to speculate about WP's thoughts). In "something to displease both sides", Percy never wavered on the (total) wrongness of killing unborn children. It's insanity and "totally", not partly, wrong. He was merely pointing out the intellectual myopia that exists on both sides of the political quagmire --and there is a lot of it. But, you're probably right that Percy would have surprised and delighted and shocked with his comments. Two very good friends of mine are homosexual, one is in his late 60's and I speak with him regularly about these sorts of things. He knows (and unfortunately has "known") a lot of homosexuals. I can tell you there is hardly consensus among the homosexuals about what this agenda is really about. "Truth of gay love as a personal bond"? Hmm.... I love my best friend (since kinder) probably more than I love anyone in the world, but our "personal bond" is hardly a marriage, and I hardly want to be sexual with him. But, even more to the point...what of my love for my father? Love is not really a part of this debate. The truth is, again citing my friend, homosexual "bonds" are hardly about love and committment and the like. It's mostly about sexual appetite and gratification. Society's need to accept this? Society needs to accept homosexuals, but not homosexuality. Steve -----Original Message----- From: Robert_Pauley at oxy.com [mailto:Robert_Pauley at oxy.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 7:08 PM To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org Subject: RE: [percy-l] gay marriage I don't think "totally" is the right adverb for any Walker Percy position. He was too intellectually supple. Remember his piece on abortion in the New York Times -- ... "Something to displease both sides." I believe he would have found a way to deconstruct the moral and semantic choplogic of "gay marriage" while allowing for the truth of gay love as a personal bond, and of society's need to accept this, short of formal social or religious sanctification. He would, again, have displeased both sides. Best, RP -----Original Message----- From: percy-l-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:percy-l-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of James Piat Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 4:59 PM To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Subject: Re: [percy-l] gay marriage Dear Phil, I think we are all very much products of our circumstances -- and tend to get more conservative as we age. Of his writings I like Percy's essays the most, and The Movie Goer more than The Thanatos Syndrome. I'm not so sure Percy would be totally against gay marriage were he around today. Times change; people change. Regards from Atlanta Jim I think Percy would be totally against gay marriage. But that's why I'm glad I don't walk around wearing a "WWPD?" wrist band. I think he was definitely a product of his time and place, and his later novels particularly illustrate his out-of-place feeling in the 1970's. And didn't it seem like he became more conservative and doctrinaire as he grew older? It's been a while since I've read Percy, but I remember The Thanatos Syndrome being a lot more "preachy" than his early novels... Regards from Chapel Hill, Phil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From PARLINS at culver.org Wed Aug 13 10:48:14 2003 From: PARLINS at culver.org (Parlin, Steven) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 09:48:14 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Thanks Jim... Message-ID: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070590D1@exchangeserver.culver.org> Jim, It's always good to tangle with you. Though I hotly disagree with you on a variety of topics, you're always a humble gentleman. You wrote: "Ah, suddenly, I think I understand better your objections. For those who view marriage as a sacrament the term marriage is more like a proper name than a common noun. For folks who view the term "marriage" as the name of something sacred the idea that other folks can appropriate the word for whatever willy nilly Alice in Wonderland use they might choose is understandably a bit of an outrage to them. Yes, I had not really thought of in this light. Hmmmm -- I'm even less confident of my position than before." Yes... this is my point, or at least the crux of it. Steve -----Original Message----- From: James Piat [mailto:piat1 at bellsouth.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 8:33 PM To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Subject: Re: [percy-l] gay marriage Jim, I think you misunderstand my point. >> Problably! No matter what one chooses to call a committed homosexual relationship, it's NOT the same kind of nuptial bond that the word "marriage" refers to, not from a historical, traditional, cultural, biological, religious >>OK or any other frame of reference. >> what about my frame of reference? It's not. Yes, words change over time, and as Mike pointed out, the phonetics and semantics can shift dramatically... but reality doesn't change. In this case, the reality is that these are two very different kinds of relationships and as such cannot be referred to with the same word. No more so than calling the moon, the sun, or night, day. >>To the extent some words have a legally stipulated definition changing that definition does have "real" consequence. Using the word 'marriage' to refer to these different bonds in the same way is an out and out attempt to manipulate (dare I say, engineer) public tolerance through semantic abuse. Orwell's Freedom is slavery; War is Peace kind of manipulation. (BTW. If the state does eventually recognize "homosexual marriages", what are we to make of two brothers, two sisters or two friends living together? Why not give such co-habitators the same kinds of benefits, which is what this is fundamentally about, after all). >> Good question. Now...I must comment on your "supreme arbiter of politically correct semantics". Be careful, here. I wonder just WHO it is that are you referring to? Isn't the supremre arbiter in this case those who are INSISTING that we call homosexual relationships marriage, even to the point of making it into law? Who is policing whom? Check out what's going on in Ireland right now. Anyone who speaks out against homosexual marriage is in jeopardy of going to jail for "hate rhetoric". (And, moreover, its worth noting that the Catholic Church has long been out of any kind of position to "police" anyone). >> I agree with the cautions you raise above -- personally I'm inclined to think the state should get out of the marriage business altogether. The point is not that our understanding of reality is changing (although i think this is, if anything, a very clear indicator of having less of an understanding of reality), >> I didn't realize you felt this way. I'm curious --during what period of history or pre history do you think man's understanding of reality peaked? but that words cannot be made to mean whatever we want them to mean. Words can and do change, but this is a not merely change but misuse. Perhaps, because of the times we are living, the sacrament of matrimony will have to move on to new semantic territory, will have to find a new word for itself. Silly, as Mike mentioned, took quite a fall after all. >> Ah, suddenly, I think I understand better your objections. For those who view marriage as a sacrament the term marriage is more like a proper name than a common noun. For folks who view the term "marriage" as the name of something sacred the idea that other folks can appropriate the word for whatever willy nilly Alice in Wonderland use they might choose is understandably a bit of an outrage to them. Yes, I had not really thought of in this light. Hmmmm -- I'm even less confident of my position than before. Finally, I could be wrong for I didn't know him personally, but based on his work, homosexuality was clearly not "natural" in Percy's view, and he would have referred to this absurdity as yet one more indicator that we are "Lost in the Cosmos". >>Whatever position he might have taken I'm inclined to agree with Robert Pauley that he would given both sides something worthwhile to chew on -- and he would have done it with humor and uncommon insight into the crux of the issue. Thanks for your detailed comments Steve -- once again I've benefitted from them. Jim Piat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Nikkibar at aol.com Wed Aug 13 10:57:35 2003 From: Nikkibar at aol.com (Nikkibar at aol.com) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 10:57:35 EDT Subject: [percy-l] gay marriage Message-ID: <1ea.ed0bd42.2c6babdf@aol.com> Walker never bought into the notion that gays were anything other than emotionally disturbed people and to that extent he remained what I would call mildly homophobic to the end. If one were looking for a convenient venerial term for homosexuals, you might try "a commitment of gays..." Nikki Barranger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From PARLINS at culver.org Wed Aug 13 11:07:26 2003 From: PARLINS at culver.org (Parlin, Steven) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 10:07:26 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] gay marriage Message-ID: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070590D3@exchangeserver.culver.org> But, then... doesn't that make people who object to the objectors of homosexuality...homophobephobes? No...we need a new word for that too...homophobe doesn't work. Im hardly "afraid" of homosexuals. In fact, I enjoy their company better than most typical regular guys (who, btw, are every bit as depraved in their adulterous and philandering exploits). Nope. That someone is not inclined to hump his own sex doesn't make him afraid...just straight and dare I say...normal, to use a perfectly pedestrian term. Cheers! Steve -----Original Message----- From: Nikkibar at aol.com [mailto:Nikkibar at aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 8:58 AM To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org Subject: Re: [percy-l] gay marriage Walker never bought into the notion that gays were anything other than emotionally disturbed people and to that extent he remained what I would call mildly homophobic to the end. If one were looking for a convenient venerial term for homosexuals, you might try "a commitment of gays..." Nikki Barranger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Nikkibar at aol.com Wed Aug 13 11:12:12 2003 From: Nikkibar at aol.com (Nikkibar at aol.com) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 11:12:12 EDT Subject: [percy-l] the travesty of Episcopalians Message-ID: Yes, well -- they don't call us protestants for nothing. On the other hand you might note that the convocation which confirmed Canon Robinson for his Bishopric also sent out in a separate message (unfortunately not covered as well by the sensationalist press) -- an advisory reaffirming the safety of Children in the Church. Nikki Barranger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tcole at adobe.com Wed Aug 13 11:21:00 2003 From: tcole at adobe.com (Tim Cole) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 08:21:00 -0700 Subject: [percy-l] gay marriage In-Reply-To: <1ea.ed0bd42.2c6babdf@aol.com> Message-ID: > Walker never bought into the notion that gays were anything other than > emotionally disturbed people and to that extent he remained what I would call > mildly homophobic to the end. I?d like very much to hear someone who likes/uses the term ?homophobic? to suggest a definition that?s constructive and useful. It seems to me to be a word constructed to muddy semantic waters and caricature those who have moral and teleological objections to homosexual behavior, and not an irrational fear of homosexuals. I have a long time family friend, a psychologist, who uses the term more liberally than ketchup in his letters to the editor , but won?t define it for me. Drives me batty... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Nikkibar at aol.com Wed Aug 13 11:38:54 2003 From: Nikkibar at aol.com (Nikkibar at aol.com) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 11:38:54 EDT Subject: [percy-l] gay marriage Message-ID: <196.1e6bde67.2c6bb58e@aol.com> When I wrote (a message or two back) that Walker never got past the notion that homosexuals were disturbed, I think I did not make it clear that I never heard him use expressions like "gravely immoral." He did at one time thorw a guest out of his house for implying that William Alexander Percy (Uncle Will who raised Walker and his two brothers) was gay. So matters of gaiety and its morality were never discussed at least in my presence, although I did have occasion to chat with Walker over the issue of whether homosexiuality should continue to qualify as a mental disturbance in psychiatric or scientific context. He held that it did and I held that it didn't; we agreed to disagree, as we often did. I would suggest that perhaps one reason why he never voiced himself over the issue of the morality of the issue may have had something to do with the Uncle Will isue, a matter to which I was not sensitive at the time of any of our conversations. In short, I think he would have been unlikely to go that far, but chose to keep his opinions on the matter in the psychiatric context for reasons of his own which are nobody else's business. It would not be proper to impute to Walker an ex post facto endorsement of "grave immorality" on the basis of the intellectual fossil record. Nikki Barranger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From piat1 at bellsouth.net Wed Aug 13 11:40:43 2003 From: piat1 at bellsouth.net (James Piat) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 11:40:43 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] gay marriage References: Message-ID: <004301c361b1$41a5b3b0$210110ac@D68RS511> Re: [percy-l] gay marriageDear Tim, Sometimes I use the term homophobic -- and what I mean by it is an irrational dislike of homosexuals based upon a fear that one's own homosexual impulses will overwhelm one's desire to suppress them. Rather that acknowledging and dealing directly with one's own homosexual impulses the homophobic (per this formulation) targets and attempts to destroy an overt manifestation (homosexuals) of his covert desires. I don't think all objections to homosexual behavior are based upon such dynamics, but I do think they are sometimes part of the equation. What I think is constructive about this definition is that it reminds me to guard against my tendency to blame others for what I fear are my own faults -- cast the mote out of our own eye and so forth. Unfortunately, as you point out, the term is sometimes used as a verbal club to bash folks who object to homosexuality on other grounds. But I'm not expert on the subject and all this is just my take. Jim Piat I'd like very much to hear someone who likes/uses the term 'homophobic' to suggest a definition that's constructive and useful. It seems to me to be a word constructed to muddy semantic waters and caricature those who have moral and teleological objections to homosexual behavior, and not an irrational fear of homosexuals. I have a long time family friend, a psychologist, who uses the term more liberally than ketchup in his letters to the editor , but won't define it for me. Drives me batty... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From PARLINS at culver.org Wed Aug 13 11:48:13 2003 From: PARLINS at culver.org (Parlin, Steven) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 10:48:13 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] gay marriage Message-ID: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070590D4@exchangeserver.culver.org> Touche' But, then...neither would it be proper to impute to Walker an ex post facto tolerance of gay marriage... (although, in so far as he gave ascent to the teachings of the RC Church, "grave immorality" is more likely the case). Steve btw: When in discussions, neither do I use expressions like "gravely immoral". Even though this is my conviction, people bristle, square off and eventually stop listening. One has to be more diplomatic and creative in their discourse... and though i fail miserably (i know i'm an ass), I try to take my cues from WP. -----Original Message----- From: Nikkibar at aol.com [mailto:Nikkibar at aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 9:39 AM To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org Subject: Re: [percy-l] gay marriage When I wrote (a message or two back) that Walker never got past the notion that homosexuals were disturbed, I think I did not make it clear that I never heard him use expressions like "gravely immoral." He did at one time thorw a guest out of his house for implying that William Alexander Percy (Uncle Will who raised Walker and his two brothers) was gay. So matters of gaiety and its morality were never discussed at least in my presence, although I did have occasion to chat with Walker over the issue of whether homosexiuality should continue to qualify as a mental disturbance in psychiatric or scientific context. He held that it did and I held that it didn't; we agreed to disagree, as we often did. I would suggest that perhaps one reason why he never voiced himself over the issue of the morality of the issue may have had something to do with the Uncle Will isue, a matter to which I was not sensitive at the time of any of our conversations. In short, I think he would have been unlikely to go that far, but chose to keep his opinions on the matter in the psychiatric context for reasons of his own which are nobody else's business. It would not be proper to impute to Walker an ex post facto endorsement of "grave immorality" on the basis of the intellectual fossil record. Nikki Barranger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From PARLINS at culver.org Wed Aug 13 12:02:41 2003 From: PARLINS at culver.org (Parlin, Steven) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 11:02:41 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] homophobe-phobe Message-ID: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070590D5@exchangeserver.culver.org> Nice try Jim... :) If I may comment on your message to Tim. (Apologies to the list... I have a lot of time on my hands right now, and though I should be getting ready for classes, this is much more fun). But, then,... why isn't the suffix "phobe" attached to ALL of those attributes, that we might strongly object to and that we also might fear about ourselves... like pediphilaphobe, incestaphobe, beastialaphobe, or even something like serialkilleraphobe... I vehemently object to all of these disordered states and behaviors, and if I look honestly at my heart, I might find disturbing remnants of these qualities...but that doesn't make me afraid of people who give into them (except maybe the serial killer). I can still object, regardless of my fears about myself, without being labled a such-and-such phobe. In fact, your argument can apply to just about anything. I was of course joking with Nikki about the expression "homophobephobe", but there is some truth in it. I hardly think Nikki is afraid of me (though she might be mildly afraid that I could be right), but it would be silly to lable her with a "phobia" for that reason. I really should be doing something else... Steve -----Original Message----- From: James Piat [mailto:piat1 at bellsouth.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 9:41 AM To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Subject: Re: [percy-l] gay marriage Dear Tim, Sometimes I use the term homophobic -- and what I mean by it is an irrational dislike of homosexuals based upon a fear that one's own homosexual impulses will overwhelm one's desire to suppress them. Rather that acknowledging and dealing directly with one's own homosexual impulses the homophobic (per this formulation) targets and attempts to destroy an overt manifestation (homosexuals) of his covert desires. I don't think all objections to homosexual behavior are based upon such dynamics, but I do think they are sometimes part of the equation. What I think is constructive about this definition is that it reminds me to guard against my tendency to blame others for what I fear are my own faults -- cast the mote out of our own eye and so forth. Unfortunately, as you point out, the term is sometimes used as a verbal club to bash folks who object to homosexuality on other grounds. But I'm not expert on the subject and all this is just my take. Jim Piat I'd like very much to hear someone who likes/uses the term 'homophobic' to suggest a definition that's constructive and useful. It seems to me to be a word constructed to muddy semantic waters and caricature those who have moral and teleological objections to homosexual behavior, and not an irrational fear of homosexuals. I have a long time family friend, a psychologist, who uses the term more liberally than ketchup in his letters to the editor , but won't define it for me. Drives me batty... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dabeck at iupui.edu Wed Aug 13 12:25:22 2003 From: dabeck at iupui.edu (David Alan Beck) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 11:25:22 -0500 (EST) Subject: [percy-l] homophobe-phobe In-Reply-To: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070590D5@exchangeserver.culver.org> Message-ID: I thought a homophobe was someone who feared the same? You know, like the sameness of our everyday lives. On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Parlin, Steven wrote: [NON-Text Body part not included] David Beck From PARLINS at culver.org Wed Aug 13 12:23:25 2003 From: PARLINS at culver.org (Parlin, Steven) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 11:23:25 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] homophobe-phobe Message-ID: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070590D7@exchangeserver.culver.org> Bravo! -----Original Message----- From: David Alan Beck [mailto:dabeck at iupui.edu] Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 10:25 AM To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Subject: Re: [percy-l] homophobe-phobe I thought a homophobe was someone who feared the same? You know, like the sameness of our everyday lives. On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Parlin, Steven wrote: [NON-Text Body part not included] David Beck -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy From tcole at adobe.com Wed Aug 13 12:54:49 2003 From: tcole at adobe.com (Tim Cole) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 09:54:49 -0700 Subject: [percy-l] gay marriage In-Reply-To: <004301c361b1$41a5b3b0$210110ac@D68RS511> Message-ID: > > Hi Jim, fair enough. It seems, then, a risky term to throw around in general > discourse, because in order to do so you?d have to claim to have some rather > deep insights into the inner workings into the mind/psychology of another. It > seems to me it?s far more commonly used as a verbal club. > > I DO like Mr. Beck?s definition...fear of the same old day to day > routine...which doesn?t seem all that irrational to me. ;^) > > > > Tim > > > Dear Tim, > > Sometimes I use the term homophobic -- and what I mean by it is an irrational > dislike of homosexuals based upon a fear that one's own homosexual impulses > will overwhelm one's desire to suppress them. Rather that acknowledging and > dealing directly with one's own homosexual impulses the homophobic (per this > formulation) targets and attempts to destroy an overt manifestation > (homosexuals) of his covert desires. I don't think all objections to > homosexual behavior are based upon such dynamics, but I do think they are > sometimes part of the equation. What I think is constructive about this > definition is that it reminds me to guard against my tendency to blame others > for what I fear are my own faults -- cast the mote out of our own eye and so > forth. Unfortunately, as you point out, the term is sometimes used as a > verbal club to bash folks who object to homosexuality on other grounds. But > I'm not expert on the subject and all this is just my take. > > Jim Piat >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karey at charter.net Wed Aug 13 15:53:39 2003 From: karey at charter.net (Karey L. Perkins) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 15:53:39 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] gay marriage References: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070590CF@exchangeserver.culver.org> Message-ID: <00ac01c361d4$973bde30$0301000a@AFAC955012> MessageI don't think any of us has the right to judge another. How can we truly know and judge the reasons/motivations two individuals love and marry? A man and a woman can, and often do, marry each other (enter into a heterosexual union) for all sorts of bad reasons -- the man may want a trophy wife (what about sexual appetite and gratification there?), the woman may want a comfy or luxurious high profile lifestyle (or perhaps she just wants to get out of the house), the woman's father could have a shotgun to the man's head (sexual appetite thus being the precursor to this), the man marries the boss's daughter to get ahead in his career (OK, he's not madly in love, but she's nice enough and not too bad looking), the woman marries the man because all her friends and family like him, think he's nice, a good catch, whatever, etc. etc. Two individuals being of appropriate gender (m/f) hardly ensures admirable and spiritual reasons for entering into wedlock. Two individuals being of "inappropriate" gender does not define their ove - even eros - for each other is an evil or bad thing. I think our spirits/souls ultimately transcend gender -- God has no genitals (although we traditionally and misleadingly refer to "Him" as a "He," gender is by definition a physical trait and God is not physical - only Jesus). I agree with Steve that a case of two men who live together and love each other as friends (i.e.: just roommates) is very different from two gay men who are in love and wish to marry. A homosexual "marriage" bond has far more in common with a heterosexual marriage than any other relationship between persons of the same gender - or any other present word in our vocabulary we might apply to it. I don't know what to think about homosexuality, nor do I completely understand why two individuals of the same gender fall "in love" and wish to express that love physically -- but they do, and for them, I believe it is the same experience as two individuals of opposite gender who do the same th ing. Some homosexuals ARE in it merely for physical gratification, just as some heterosexuals have sex merely for physical gratification. But would anyone say that all heterosexual marriages are just about sexual gratification? Of course not. The same is true of homosexual marriages. The one thing I do know is it's not for me to judge others nor to impose rules on how to conduct their lives -- that's God's domain. I've got my own stuff to worry about. ----- Original Message ----- From: Parlin, Steven To: 'Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion' Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 10:41 AM Subject: RE: [percy-l] gay marriage Dear RP I'm not sure "totally" doesn't fit (though perhaps it's fruitless to speculate about WP's thoughts). In "something to displease both sides", Percy never wavered on the (total) wrongness of killing unborn children. It's insanity and "totally", not partly, wrong. He was merely pointing out the intellectual myopia that exists on both sides of the political quagmire --and there is a lot of it. But, you're probably right that Percy would have surprised and delighted and shocked with his comments. Two very good friends of mine are homosexual, one is in his late 60's and I speak with him regularly about these sorts of things. He knows (and unfortunately has "known") a lot of homosexuals. I can tell you there is hardly consensus among the homosexuals about what this agenda is really about. "Truth of gay love as a personal bond"? Hmm.... I love my best friend (since kinder) probably more than I love anyone in the world, but our "personal bond" is hardly a marriage, and I hardly want to be sexual with him. But, even more to the point...what of my love for my father? Love is not really a part of this debate. The truth is, again citing my friend, homosexual "bonds" are hardly about love and committment and the like. It's mostly about sexual appetite and gratification. Society's need to accept this? Society needs to accept homosexuals, but not homosexuality. Steve -----Original Message----- From: Robert_Pauley at oxy.com [mailto:Robert_Pauley at oxy.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 7:08 PM To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org Subject: RE: [percy-l] gay marriage I don't think "totally" is the right adverb for any Walker Percy position. He was too intellectually supple. Remember his piece on abortion in the New York Times -- ... "Something to displease both sides." I believe he would have found a way to deconstruct the moral and semantic choplogic of "gay marriage" while allowing for the truth of gay love as a personal bond, and of society's need to accept this, short of formal social or religious sanctification. He would, again, have displeased both sides. Best, RP -----Original Message----- From: percy-l-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:percy-l-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of James Piat Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 4:59 PM To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Subject: Re: [percy-l] gay marriage Dear Phil, I think we are all very much products of our circumstances -- and tend to get more conservative as we age. Of his writings I like Percy's essays the most, and The Movie Goer more than The Thanatos Syndrome. I'm not so sure Percy would be totally against gay marriage were he around today. Times change; people change. Regards from Atlanta Jim I think Percy would be totally against gay marriage. But that's why I'm glad I don't walk around wearing a "WWPD?" wrist band. I think he was definitely a product of his time and place, and his later novels particularly illustrate his out-of-place feeling in the 1970's. And didn't it seem like he became more conservative and doctrinaire as he grew older? It's been a while since I've read Percy, but I remember The Thanatos Syndrome being a lot more "preachy" than his early novels... Regards from Chapel Hill, Phil ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From PARLINS at culver.org Wed Aug 13 18:08:18 2003 From: PARLINS at culver.org (Parlin, Steven) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 17:08:18 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] gay marriage Message-ID: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070590E6@exchangeserver.culver.org> Hi Karey... You've made some thoughtful remarks here, but I must disagree with some of it, err...most of it. This is getting a little distressing to find so many on this list who are dedicated to understanding the work of WP, one of the only cultural critics of our age who really had his eyes open, and yet who fail to see the inverted nature of the times we are living in. I don't wish to belabor this issue of 'gay marriage', but i think this is a fairly clear indicator of just how muddled our times have become, precisely the sort of thing that so troubled Percy. You wrote: I don't think any of us has the right to judge another. How can we truly know and judge the reasons/motivations two individuals love and marry? [SP] We do have the right to judge. We all do it every day...and it's a damn good thing too. There are any number of "wrong" behaviors that we judge everday. It's wrong to kill, lie, cheat, steal, push down old ladies, and kick small animals and so on... regardless of the motivation or reason... I for one am quite glad that there remain some social structures, however erroded they are becoming, that "judge" my behavior. Keeps me in line. Yes, the judgement comes from above; it's God's alone. However, it is our responsibility to point it out when others are in conflict with God's judgement. I fully expect others to point it out when I am in conflict with God's laws. The problem isnt that we judge too much, but that we don't do it enough! (Judge not lest you be judged? Exactly, judge not according to your own laws lest you be judged according to those same laws. God fully expects us to judge each other according to his laws). You Wrote: A man and a woman can, and often do, marry each other (enter into a heterosexual union) for all sorts of bad reasons -- the man may want a trophy wife (what about sexual appetite and gratification there?), the woman may want a comfy or luxurious high profile lifestyle (or perhaps she just wants to get out of the house), the woman's father could have a shotgun to the man's head (sexual appetite thus being the precursor to this), the man marries the boss's daughter to get ahead in his career (OK, he's not madly in love, but she's nice enough and not too bad looking), the woman marries the man because all her friends and family like him, think he's nice, a good catch, whatever, etc. etc. Two individuals being of appropriate gender (m/f) hardly ensures admirable and spiritual reasons for entering into wedlock. [SP] Some very good points. In fact, most of what you have cited here is a demonstration of why most marriages are not really marriages at all, at least not as far as marriage is recognized by the RC Church. Most of what you cite here constitutes an invalid marriage. However, its bad logic to say that because heterosexuals are just as deranged in their understanding of marriage, homosexuals ought to be entitled to "marry". Hmm. Two individuals being of "inappropriate" gender does not define their love - even eros - for each other is an evil or bad thing. [SP] No...just of a different nature and order. I think our spirits/souls ultimately transcend gender -- God has no genitals (although we traditionally and misleadingly refer to "Him" as a "He," gender is by definition a physical trait and God is not physical - only Jesus). [SP] This sounds very Gnostic Karey...we are embodied creatures and male and femal genitals are by design ordered to fit corespondingly. I can't eat glass or drink gasoline because these things are not ordered to my being... Why? I have a specific body for which these things are not specifically made. And, in fact they can do great harm to me. Frankly put...a penis is by design ordered to the vagina (in more ways than one!). But, a penis is NOT ordered to the anus (which according to my homosexual friends is invariably painful, and does harm to them). Moreover...No life will ever spring from the lining of the rectum. What a thought. BTW: "He" and "His" and "Him" are pronouns that describe God's nature (and his relationship to us) not his person. Of course God is genderless. But, he is masculine. Not male, but masculine. To be a little graphic: He is a penetrator (when invited in) not a receiver. He is the impregnator; not the impregnated. He is the father; not the mother. It's a mystery of course and our language fails to apprehend it fully...but C.S. Lewis once put it best...that in our relationship to God, we are all feminine. And, moreover there is a specific reason for why Jesus was male, not female...and it has nothing to do with the time that he appeared for he was very little concerned with propriety. God is specific, orderly, and designs things for a particular purpose. I agree with Steve that a case of two men who live together and love each other as friends (i.e.: just roommates) is very different from two gay men who are in love and wish to marry. A homosexual "marriage" bond has far more in common with a heterosexual marriage than any other relationship between persons of the same gender - or any other present word in our vocabulary we might apply to it. [SP] Okay...but I'm curious why you agree with me because you missed my point. There is no difference here, and for that matter there is no way for the state to determine whether my love for my best friend is any different than two homosexuals wanting to be recognized as a couple. Except one --I'm not screwing my best friend. I love him, but I don't want to hump him. In any case, marriage is not an existential reality for homosexuals. They can go through the motions (egads) but they can never really be married. It's like this...I can call myself a rabbit, yell it from the rooftops, but that doesn't make me a rabbit. That's what's going on here. I don't know what to think about homosexuality, nor do I completely understand why two individuals of the same gender fall "in love" and wish to express that love physically -- but they do, and for them, I believe it is the same experience as two individuals of opposite gender who do the same thing. Some homosexuals ARE in it merely for physical gratification, just as some heterosexuals have sex merely for physical gratification. But would anyone say that all heterosexual marriages are just about sexual gratification? Of course not. The same is true of homosexual marriages. [SP] I don't understand it either. Even after having my homosexual friends explain it to me. The one thing I do know is it's not for me to judge others nor to impose rules on how to conduct their lives -- that's God's domain. I've got my own stuff to worry about. [SP] You're right... it is God's domain. And if it were the case that I was presenting MY OWN judgment, I'd say you would all need to have me stoned. For no one has the right to pass THEIR OWN judgement based on THEIR OWN understanding of reality. That's extremely dangerous (and in fact is happening in Ireland right now and will likely happen here very shortly). In fact, I'm willing to wager that at least some of you on this list have already judged me...according to your own understanding of rightness and wrongness. We must Judge, but according to higher things...not our own silly notions. That's precisely why we have no alternative but to rely on God's natural and moral laws. Moreover, that is in fact why the Catholic Church is the most obedient, not the most authoritarian of the faiths. She doesn't give sway to things like homosexual marriages because she CAN'T do so and remain obedient. She doesn't have the authority to make such changes. Steve ----- Original Message ----- From: Parlin, Steven To: 'Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion' Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 10:41 AM Subject: RE: [percy-l] gay marriage Dear RP I'm not sure "totally" doesn't fit (though perhaps it's fruitless to speculate about WP's thoughts). In "something to displease both sides", Percy never wavered on the (total) wrongness of killing unborn children. It's insanity and "totally", not partly, wrong. He was merely pointing out the intellectual myopia that exists on both sides of the political quagmire --and there is a lot of it. But, you're probably right that Percy would have surprised and delighted and shocked with his comments. Two very good friends of mine are homosexual, one is in his late 60's and I speak with him regularly about these sorts of things. He knows (and unfortunately has "known") a lot of homosexuals. I can tell you there is hardly consensus among the homosexuals about what this agenda is really about. "Truth of gay love as a personal bond"? Hmm.... I love my best friend (since kinder) probably more than I love anyone in the world, but our "personal bond" is hardly a marriage, and I hardly want to be sexual with him. But, even more to the point...what of my love for my father? Love is not really a part of this debate. The truth is, again citing my friend, homosexual "bonds" are hardly about love and committment and the like. It's mostly about sexual appetite and gratification. Society's need to accept this? Society needs to accept homosexuals, but not homosexuality. Steve -----Original Message----- From: Robert_Pauley at oxy.com [mailto:Robert_Pauley at oxy.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 7:08 PM To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org Subject: RE: [percy-l] gay marriage I don't think "totally" is the right adverb for any Walker Percy position. He was too intellectually supple. Remember his piece on abortion in the New York Times -- ... "Something to displease both sides." I believe he would have found a way to deconstruct the moral and semantic choplogic of "gay marriage" while allowing for the truth of gay love as a personal bond, and of society's need to accept this, short of formal social or religious sanctification. He would, again, have displeased both sides. Best, RP -----Original Message----- From: percy-l-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:percy-l-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of James Piat Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 4:59 PM To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Subject: Re: [percy-l] gay marriage Dear Phil, I think we are all very much products of our circumstances -- and tend to get more conservative as we age. Of his writings I like Percy's essays the most, and The Movie Goer more than The Thanatos Syndrome. I'm not so sure Percy would be totally against gay marriage were he around today. Times change; people change. Regards from Atlanta Jim I think Percy would be totally against gay marriage. But that's why I'm glad I don't walk around wearing a "WWPD?" wrist band. I think he was definitely a product of his time and place, and his later novels particularly illustrate his out-of-place feeling in the 1970's. And didn't it seem like he became more conservative and doctrinaire as he grew older? It's been a while since I've read Percy, but I remember The Thanatos Syndrome being a lot more "preachy" than his early novels... Regards from Chapel Hill, Phil _____ -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From piat1 at bellsouth.net Wed Aug 13 18:16:44 2003 From: piat1 at bellsouth.net (James Piat) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 18:16:44 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] homophobe-phobe References: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070590D5@exchangeserver.culver.org> Message-ID: <00bf01c361e8$948a3ba0$210110ac@D68RS511> Re: [percy-l] gay marriageSteve Parlin wrote: >>But, then,... why isn't the suffix "phobe" attached to ALL of those attributes, that we might strongly object to and that we >>also might fear about ourselves... like pediphilaphobe, incestaphobe, beastialaphobe, or even something like >>serialkilleraphobe... I vehemently object to all of these disordered states and behaviors, and if I look honestly at my heart, I >>might find disturbing remnants of these qualities...but that doesn't make me afraid of people who give into them (except maybe >>the serial killer). Dear Steve, I think psychoanlytic theory does hold that ALL fears are to some extent projected wishes --and that the key feature by which an irrational phobia can be distinguished from a rational fear is whether or not the fear is proportional to the actual danger posed by the feared object or person. But I take your point (and Tim's as well) and I don't mean to be engaging in any name calling -- and apologize if that's how I'm coming across. Frankly upon examining my own heart some years ago I concluded that I, myself, was a bit homophobic for just the reasons I've outlined above -- and perhaps in a failed attempt to cure myself I've overreated with an equal and opposite projection. I suppose that either way I get to talk about homosexuality and keep my repressed desires somewhat under control. Damn analyst! Jim Piat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Robert_Pauley at oxy.com Wed Aug 13 20:58:26 2003 From: Robert_Pauley at oxy.com (Robert_Pauley at oxy.com) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 17:58:26 -0700 Subject: [percy-l] gay marriage Message-ID: <1E4B441CB5CF9D408D318BC697F086F5014B489B@olawexc7.naoxy.com> Dear Steve: You're right, it is pointless to speculate, and I often feel queasy trying. My effort was inspired by my sense that, as you suggest, Percy would have surprised us, somehow. I wasn't equating a "personal bond" with marriage or anything else for that matter. I was trying to some up with some description for a gay union. I think love most definitely is a part of this debate. I cannot accept that homosexual bonds are by definition loveless. Though it may be I am missing something. Cordially, RP -----Original Message----- From: percy-l-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:percy-l-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Parlin, Steven Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 7:41 AM To: 'Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion' Subject: RE: [percy-l] gay marriage Dear RP I'm not sure "totally" doesn't fit (though perhaps it's fruitless to speculate about WP's thoughts). In "something to displease both sides", Percy never wavered on the (total) wrongness of killing unborn children. It's insanity and "totally", not partly, wrong. He was merely pointing out the intellectual myopia that exists on both sides of the political quagmire --and there is a lot of it. But, you're probably right that Percy would have surprised and delighted and shocked with his comments. Two very good friends of mine are homosexual, one is in his late 60's and I speak with him regularly about these sorts of things. He knows (and unfortunately has "known") a lot of homosexuals. I can tell you there is hardly consensus among the homosexuals about what this agenda is really about. "Truth of gay love as a personal bond"? Hmm.... I love my best friend (since kinder) probably more than I love anyone in the world, but our "personal bond" is hardly a marriage, and I hardly want to be sexual with him. But, even more to the point...what of my love for my father? Love is not really a part of this debate. The truth is, again citing my friend, homosexual "bonds" are hardly about love and committment and the like. It's mostly about sexual appetite and gratification. Society's need to accept this? Society needs to accept homosexuals, but not homosexuality. Steve -----Original Message----- From: Robert_Pauley at oxy.com [mailto:Robert_Pauley at oxy.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 7:08 PM To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org Subject: RE: [percy-l] gay marriage I don't think "totally" is the right adverb for any Walker Percy position. He was too intellectually supple. Remember his piece on abortion in the New York Times -- ... "Something to displease both sides." I believe he would have found a way to deconstruct the moral and semantic choplogic of "gay marriage" while allowing for the truth of gay love as a personal bond, and of society's need to accept this, short of formal social or religious sanctification. He would, again, have displeased both sides. Best, RP -----Original Message----- From: percy-l-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:percy-l-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of James Piat Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 4:59 PM To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Subject: Re: [percy-l] gay marriage Dear Phil, I think we are all very much products of our circumstances -- and tend to get more conservative as we age. Of his writings I like Percy's essays the most, and The Movie Goer more than The Thanatos Syndrome. I'm not so sure Percy would be totally against gay marriage were he around today. Times change; people change. Regards from Atlanta Jim I think Percy would be totally against gay marriage. But that's why I'm glad I don't walk around wearing a "WWPD?" wrist band. I think he was definitely a product of his time and place, and his later novels particularly illustrate his out-of-place feeling in the 1970's. And didn't it seem like he became more conservative and doctrinaire as he grew older? It's been a while since I've read Percy, but I remember The Thanatos Syndrome being a lot more "preachy" than his early novels... Regards from Chapel Hill, Phil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From PARLINS at culver.org Wed Aug 13 21:21:05 2003 From: PARLINS at culver.org (Parlin, Steven) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 20:21:05 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] (no subject) Message-ID: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070590E8@exchangeserver.culver.org> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dabeck at iupui.edu Wed Aug 13 22:03:53 2003 From: dabeck at iupui.edu (David Alan Beck) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 21:03:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: [percy-l] gay marriage In-Reply-To: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070590E6@exchangeserver.culver.org> Message-ID: I want to piggyback on Steve's comments. And these comments are based solely on a Christian perspective. I think that one of the biggest crimes that post-modernity has brought us is the notion that we can't judge the moral or ethical postion of another. "Only God judges" is true only to an extent. But the idea of non-judgement of another's actions flies in the face of NT Christianity. For example, in the Gospel of John (I know, not one of the synoptics and looked upon with suspicion by the academic community), Jesus said, "Do not judge according to appearances, but with righteous judgement." Of course, He also gave to the authority to the disciples/apostles to forgive or retain the sins of others. Morevoer, Paul admonished to expel the immoral brother (the references in Paul's letters are too numerous to mention). But according to the New Testament, homosexuality IS a sin and those who practice homosexuality and those who are adulters will not inherit the kingdom of heaven (1 Cor 6:19). Now, the larger questions is: Are these admonishments/ethics for today? That's for each of us to decide. But, despite what the Episcopal church says, it is clear in the NT that homosexuality is not compatible with NT Christianity. Of course, one can raise cultural, historical, etc. questions, and that's fine. But the truth is: We ARE called to judge (NOT THE PERSON BUT THE BEHAVIOR). And that is Christianity, whether we like it or not. One thing that seems to be clear though is that the apostles were far less hesitant to condemn a practice than we post-moderns are. Are we more enlightened than they? Or are they right in this way but not that way. My point is we can claim to be Christians, but we need to base it on something. If the NT is outdated and is a culturally anachronistic, then we can believe what we want. But if we take up the title (Christian), we better be able to back up our beliefs and lifestyle by something. Sorry for the sermon. (Could someone please pass the collection plate?) BTW, isn't this fun?? The percylist is alive again! -David On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Parlin, Steven wrote: [NON-Text Body part not included] David Beck From PARLINS at culver.org Wed Aug 13 22:06:43 2003 From: PARLINS at culver.org (Parlin, Steven) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 21:06:43 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] gay marriage Message-ID: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070590EB@exchangeserver.culver.org> Hi Karey... You've made some thoughtful remarks here, but I must disagree with some of it, err...most of it. This is getting a little distressing to find so many on this list who are dedicated to understanding the work of WP, one of the only cultural critics of our age who really had his eyes open, and yet who fail to see the inverted nature of the times we are living in. I don't wish to belabor this issue of 'gay marriage', but i think this is a fairly clear indicator of just how muddled our times have become, precisely the sort of thing that so troubled Percy. You wrote: I don't think any of us has the right to judge another. How can we truly know and judge the reasons/motivations two individuals love and marry? [SP] We do have the right to judge. We all do it every day...and it's a damn good thing too. There are any number of "wrong" behaviors that we judge everday. It's wrong to kill, lie, cheat, steal, push down old ladies, and kick small animals and so on... regardless of the motivation or reason... I for one am quite glad that there remain some social structures, however erroded they are becoming, that "judge" my behavior. Keeps me in line. Yes, the judgement comes from above; it's God's alone. However, it is our responsibility to point it out when others are in conflict with God's judgement. I fully expect others to point it out when I am in conflict with God's laws. The problem isnt that we judge too much, but that we don't do it enough! (Judge not lest you be judged? Exactly, judge not according to your own laws lest you be judged according to those same laws. God fully expects us to judge each other according to his laws). You Wrote: A man and a woman can, and often do, marry each other (enter into a heterosexual union) for all sorts of bad reasons -- the man may want a trophy wife (what about sexual appetite and gratification there?), the woman may want a comfy or luxurious high profile lifestyle (or perhaps she just wants to get out of the house), the woman's father could have a shotgun to the man's head (sexual appetite thus being the precursor to this), the man marries the boss's daughter to get ahead in his career (OK, he's not madly in love, but she's nice enough and not too bad looking), the woman marries the man because all her friends and family like him, think he's nice, a good catch, whatever, etc. etc. Two individuals being of appropriate gender (m/f) hardly ensures admirable and spiritual reasons for entering into wedlock. [SP] Some very good points. In fact, most of what you have cited here is a demonstration of why most marriages are not really marriages at all, at least not as far as marriage is recognized by the RC Church. Most of what you cite here constitutes an invalid marriage. However, its bad logic to say that because heterosexuals are just as deranged in their understanding of marriage, homosexuals ought to be entitled to "marry". Hmm. Two individuals being of "inappropriate" gender does not define their love - even eros - for each other is an evil or bad thing. [SP] No...just of a different nature and order. I think our spirits/souls ultimately transcend gender -- God has no genitals (although we traditionally and misleadingly refer to "Him" as a "He," gender is by definition a physical trait and God is not physical - only Jesus). [SP] This sounds very Gnostic Karey...we are embodied creatures and male and femal genitals are by design ordered to fit corespondingly. I can't eat glass or drink gasoline because these things are not ordered to my being... Why? I have a specific body for which these things are not specifically made. And, in fact they can do great harm to me. Frankly put...a penis is by design ordered to the vagina (in more ways than one!). But, a penis is NOT ordered to the anus (which according to my homosexual friends is invariably painful, and does harm to them). Moreover...No life will ever spring from the lining of the rectum. What a thought. BTW: "He" and "His" and "Him" are pronouns that describe God's nature (and his relationship to us) not his person. Of course God is genderless. But, he is masculine. Not male, but masculine. To be a little graphic: He is a penetrator (when invited in) not a receiver. He is the impregnator; not the impregnated. He is the father; not the mother. It's a mystery of course and our language fails to apprehend it fully...but C.S. Lewis once put it best...that in our relationship to God, we are all feminine. And, moreover there is a specific reason for why Jesus was male, not female...and it has nothing to do with the time that he appeared for he was very little concerned with propriety. God is specific, orderly, and designs things for a particular purpose. I agree with Steve that a case of two men who live together and love each other as friends (i.e.: just roommates) is very different from two gay men who are in love and wish to marry. A homosexual "marriage" bond has far more in common with a heterosexual marriage than any other relationship between persons of the same gender - or any other present word in our vocabulary we might apply to it. [SP] Okay...but I'm curious why you agree with me because you missed my point. There is no difference here, and for that matter there is no way for the state to determine whether my love for my best friend is any different than two homosexuals wanting to be recognized as a couple. Except one --I'm not screwing my best friend. I love him, but I don't want to hump him. In any case, marriage is not an existential reality for homosexuals. They can go through the motions (egads) but they can never really be married. It's like this...I can call myself a rabbit, yell it from the rooftops, but that doesn't make me a rabbit. That's what's going on here. I don't know what to think about homosexuality, nor do I completely understand why two individuals of the same gender fall "in love" and wish to express that love physically -- but they do, and for them, I believe it is the same experience as two individuals of opposite gender who do the same thing. Some homosexuals ARE in it merely for physical gratification, just as some heterosexuals have sex merely for physical gratification. But would anyone say that all heterosexual marriages are just about sexual gratification? Of course not. The same is true of homosexual marriages. [SP] I don't understand it either. Even after having my homosexual friends explain it to me. The one thing I do know is it's not for me to judge others nor to impose rules on how to conduct their lives -- that's God's domain. I've got my own stuff to worry about. [SP] You're right... it is God's domain. And if it were the case that I was presenting MY OWN judgment, I'd say you would all need to have me stoned. For no one has the right to pass THEIR OWN judgement based on THEIR OWN understanding of reality. That's extremely dangerous (and in fact is happening in Ireland right now and will likely happen here very shortly). In fact, I'm willing to wager that at least some of you on this list have already judged me...according to your own understanding of rightness and wrongness. We must Judge, but according to higher things...not our own silly notions. That's precisely why we have no alternative but to rely on God's natural and moral laws. Moreover, that is in fact why the Catholic Church is the most obedient, not the most authoritarian of the faiths. She doesn't give sway to things like homosexual marriages because she CAN'T do so and remain obedient. She doesn't have the authority to make such changes. Steve ----- Original Message ----- From: Parlin, Steven To: 'Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion' Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 10:41 AM Subject: RE: [percy-l] gay marriage Dear RP I'm not sure "totally" doesn't fit (though perhaps it's fruitless to speculate about WP's thoughts). In "something to displease both sides", Percy never wavered on the (total) wrongness of killing unborn children. It's insanity and "totally", not partly, wrong. He was merely pointing out the intellectual myopia that exists on both sides of the political quagmire --and there is a lot of it. But, you're probably right that Percy would have surprised and delighted and shocked with his comments. Two very good friends of mine are homosexual, one is in his late 60's and I speak with him regularly about these sorts of things. He knows (and unfortunately has "known") a lot of homosexuals. I can tell you there is hardly consensus among the homosexuals about what this agenda is really about. "Truth of gay love as a personal bond"? Hmm.... I love my best friend (since kinder) probably more than I love anyone in the world, but our "personal bond" is hardly a marriage, and I hardly want to be sexual with him. But, even more to the point...what of my love for my father? Love is not really a part of this debate. The truth is, again citing my friend, homosexual "bonds" are hardly about love and committment and the like. It's mostly about sexual appetite and gratification. Society's need to accept this? Society needs to accept homosexuals, but not homosexuality. Steve -----Original Message----- From: Robert_Pauley at oxy.com [mailto:Robert_Pauley at oxy.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 7:08 PM To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org Subject: RE: [percy-l] gay marriage I don't think "totally" is the right adverb for any Walker Percy position. He was too intellectually supple. Remember his piece on abortion in the New York Times -- ... "Something to displease both sides." I believe he would have found a way to deconstruct the moral and semantic choplogic of "gay marriage" while allowing for the truth of gay love as a personal bond, and of society's need to accept this, short of formal social or religious sanctification. He would, again, have displeased both sides. Best, RP -----Original Message----- From: percy-l-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:percy-l-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of James Piat Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 4:59 PM To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Subject: Re: [percy-l] gay marriage Dear Phil, I think we are all very much products of our circumstances -- and tend to get more conservative as we age. Of his writings I like Percy's essays the most, and The Movie Goer more than The Thanatos Syndrome. I'm not so sure Percy would be totally against gay marriage were he around today. Times change; people change. Regards from Atlanta Jim I think Percy would be totally against gay marriage. But that's why I'm glad I don't walk around wearing a "WWPD?" wrist band. I think he was definitely a product of his time and place, and his later novels particularly illustrate his out-of-place feeling in the 1970's. And didn't it seem like he became more conservative and doctrinaire as he grew older? It's been a while since I've read Percy, but I remember The Thanatos Syndrome being a lot more "preachy" than his early novels... Regards from Chapel Hill, Phil _____ -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From PARLINS at culver.org Wed Aug 13 22:09:52 2003 From: PARLINS at culver.org (Parlin, Steven) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 21:09:52 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] gay marriage Message-ID: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070590EC@exchangeserver.culver.org> Hi Karey... You've made some thoughtful remarks here, but I must disagree with some of it, err...most of it. This is getting a little distressing to find so many on this list who are dedicated to understanding the work of WP, one of the only cultural critics of our age who really had his eyes open, and yet who fail to see the inverted nature of the times we are living in. I don't wish to belabor this issue of 'gay marriage', but i think this is a fairly clear indicator of just how muddled our times have become, precisely the sort of thing that so troubled Percy. You wrote: I don't think any of us has the right to judge another. How can we truly know and judge the reasons/motivations two individuals love and marry? [SP] We do have the right to judge. We all do it every day...and it's a damn good thing too. There are any number of "wrong" behaviors that we judge everday. It's wrong to kill, lie, cheat, steal, push down old ladies, and kick small animals and so on... regardless of the motivation or reason... I for one am quite glad that there remain some social structures, however erroded they are becoming, that "judge" my behavior. Keeps me in line. Yes, the judgement comes from above; it's God's alone. However, it is our responsibility to point it out when others are in conflict with God's judgement. I fully expect others to point it out when I am in conflict with God's laws. The problem isnt that we judge too much, but that we don't do it enough! (Judge not lest you be judged? Exactly, judge not according to your own laws lest you be judged according to those same laws. God fully expects us to judge each other according to his laws). You Wrote: A man and a woman can, and often do, marry each other (enter into a heterosexual union) for all sorts of bad reasons -- the man may want a trophy wife (what about sexual appetite and gratification there?), the woman may want a comfy or luxurious high profile lifestyle (or perhaps she just wants to get out of the house), the woman's father could have a shotgun to the man's head (sexual appetite thus being the precursor to this), the man marries the boss's daughter to get ahead in his career (OK, he's not madly in love, but she's nice enough and not too bad looking), the woman marries the man because all her friends and family like him, think he's nice, a good catch, whatever, etc. etc. Two individuals being of appropriate gender (m/f) hardly ensures admirable and spiritual reasons for entering into wedlock. [SP] Some very good points. In fact, most of what you have cited here is a demonstration of why most marriages are not really marriages at all, at least not as far as marriage is recognized by the RC Church. Most of what you cite here constitutes an invalid marriage. However, its bad logic to say that because heterosexuals are just as deranged in their understanding of marriage, homosexuals ought to be entitled to "marry". Hmm. Two individuals being of "inappropriate" gender does not define their love - even eros - for each other is an evil or bad thing. [SP] No...just of a different nature and order. I think our spirits/souls ultimately transcend gender -- God has no genitals (although we traditionally and misleadingly refer to "Him" as a "He," gender is by definition a physical trait and God is not physical - only Jesus). [SP] This sounds very Gnostic Karey...we are embodied creatures and male and femal genitals are by design ordered to fit corespondingly. I can't eat glass or drink gasoline because these things are not ordered to my being... Why? I have a specific body for which these things are not specifically made. And, in fact they can do great harm to me. Frankly put...a penis is by design ordered to the vagina (in more ways than one!). But, a penis is NOT ordered to the anus (which according to my homosexual friends is invariably painful, and does harm to them). Moreover...No life will ever spring from the lining of the rectum. What a thought. BTW: "He" and "His" and "Him" are pronouns that describe God's nature (and his relationship to us) not his person. Of course God is genderless. But, he is masculine. Not male, but masculine. To be a little graphic: He is a penetrator (when invited in) not a receiver. He is the impregnator; not the impregnated. He is the father; not the mother. It's a mystery of course and our language fails to apprehend it fully...but C.S. Lewis once put it best...that in our relationship to God, we are all feminine. And, moreover there is a specific reason for why Jesus was male, not female...and it has nothing to do with the time that he appeared for he was very little concerned with propriety. God is specific, orderly, and designs things for a particular purpose. I agree with Steve that a case of two men who live together and love each other as friends (i.e.: just roommates) is very different from two gay men who are in love and wish to marry. A homosexual "marriage" bond has far more in common with a heterosexual marriage than any other relationship between persons of the same gender - or any other present word in our vocabulary we might apply to it. [SP] Okay...but I'm curious why you agree with me because you missed my point. There is no difference here, and for that matter there is no way for the state to determine whether my love for my best friend is any different than two homosexuals wanting to be recognized as a couple. Except one --I'm not screwing my best friend. I love him, but I don't want to hump him. In any case, marriage is not an existential reality for homosexuals. They can go through the motions (egads) but they can never really be married. It's like this...I can call myself a rabbit, yell it from the rooftops, but that doesn't make me a rabbit. That's what's going on here. I don't know what to think about homosexuality, nor do I completely understand why two individuals of the same gender fall "in love" and wish to express that love physically -- but they do, and for them, I believe it is the same experience as two individuals of opposite gender who do the same thing. Some homosexuals ARE in it merely for physical gratification, just as some heterosexuals have sex merely for physical gratification. But would anyone say that all heterosexual marriages are just about sexual gratification? Of course not. The same is true of homosexual marriages. [SP] I don't understand it either. Even after having my homosexual friends explain it to me. The one thing I do know is it's not for me to judge others nor to impose rules on how to conduct their lives -- that's God's domain. I've got my own stuff to worry about. [SP] You're right... it is God's domain. And if it were the case that I was presenting MY OWN judgment, I'd say you would all need to have me stoned. For no one has the right to pass THEIR OWN judgement based on THEIR OWN understanding of reality. That's extremely dangerous (and in fact is happening in Ireland right now and will likely happen here very shortly). In fact, I'm willing to wager that at least some of you on this list have already judged me...according to your own understanding of rightness and wrongness. We must Judge, but according to higher things...not our own silly notions. That's precisely why we have no alternative but to rely on God's natural and moral laws. Moreover, that is in fact why the Catholic Church is the most obedient, not the most authoritarian of the faiths. She doesn't give sway to things like homosexual marriages because she CAN'T do so and remain obedient. She doesn't have the authority to make such changes. Steve From PARLINS at culver.org Wed Aug 13 22:15:56 2003 From: PARLINS at culver.org (Parlin, Steven) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 21:15:56 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] gay marriage Message-ID: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070590ED@exchangeserver.culver.org> Bravo David! -----Original Message----- From: David Alan Beck [mailto:dabeck at iupui.edu] Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 8:04 PM To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Subject: RE: [percy-l] gay marriage I want to piggyback on Steve's comments. And these comments are based solely on a Christian perspective. I think that one of the biggest crimes that post-modernity has brought us is the notion that we can't judge the moral or ethical postion of another. "Only God judges" is true only to an extent. But the idea of non-judgement of another's actions flies in the face of NT Christianity. For example, in the Gospel of John (I know, not one of the synoptics and looked upon with suspicion by the academic community), Jesus said, "Do not judge according to appearances, but with righteous judgement." Of course, He also gave to the authority to the disciples/apostles to forgive or retain the sins of others. Morevoer, Paul admonished to expel the immoral brother (the references in Paul's letters are too numerous to mention). But according to the New Testament, homosexuality IS a sin and those who practice homosexuality and those who are adulters will not inherit the kingdom of heaven (1 Cor 6:19). Now, the larger questions is: Are these admonishments/ethics for today? That's for each of us to decide. But, despite what the Episcopal church says, it is clear in the NT that homosexuality is not compatible with NT Christianity. Of course, one can raise cultural, historical, etc. questions, and that's fine. But the truth is: We ARE called to judge (NOT THE PERSON BUT THE BEHAVIOR). And that is Christianity, whether we like it or not. One thing that seems to be clear though is that the apostles were far less hesitant to condemn a practice than we post-moderns are. Are we more enlightened than they? Or are they right in this way but not that way. My point is we can claim to be Christians, but we need to base it on something. If the NT is outdated and is a culturally anachronistic, then we can believe what we want. But if we take up the title (Christian), we better be able to back up our beliefs and lifestyle by something. Sorry for the sermon. (Could someone please pass the collection plate?) BTW, isn't this fun?? The percylist is alive again! -David On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Parlin, Steven wrote: [NON-Text Body part not included] David Beck -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy From dabeck at iupui.edu Wed Aug 13 22:37:32 2003 From: dabeck at iupui.edu (David Alan Beck) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 21:37:32 -0500 (EST) Subject: [percy-l] gay marriage In-Reply-To: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070590ED@exchangeserver.culver.org> Message-ID: Thanks Steve for the support! Now, where are all those Chritianphobes? (Did I just coin a new word?? Ok, you heard it here first; I own the copyright.) David From evopsych at hotmail.com Wed Aug 13 23:07:58 2003 From: evopsych at hotmail.com (Joseph Cimino) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 23:07:58 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] gay marriage to making judgments Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Robert_Pauley at oxy.com Wed Aug 13 23:21:14 2003 From: Robert_Pauley at oxy.com (Robert_Pauley at oxy.com) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 20:21:14 -0700 Subject: [percy-l] gay marriage Message-ID: <1E4B441CB5CF9D408D318BC697F086F5014B02E5@olawexc7.naoxy.com> Excellent stuff. To deny our faculty of judgment out of some sense of guilt or to cede it to a higher authority rather than embrace it with all the intelligence and conscience at our disposal is to deny our humanity. I take this as a given, whether Christian or not. RP -----Original Message----- From: percy-l-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:percy-l-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of David Alan Beck Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 7:04 PM To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Subject: RE: [percy-l] gay marriage I want to piggyback on Steve's comments. And these comments are based solely on a Christian perspective. I think that one of the biggest crimes that post-modernity has brought us is the notion that we can't judge the moral or ethical postion of another. "Only God judges" is true only to an extent. But the idea of non-judgement of another's actions flies in the face of NT Christianity. For example, in the Gospel of John (I know, not one of the synoptics and looked upon with suspicion by the academic community), Jesus said, "Do not judge according to appearances, but with righteous judgement." Of course, He also gave to the authority to the disciples/apostles to forgive or retain the sins of others. Morevoer, Paul admonished to expel the immoral brother (the references in Paul's letters are too numerous to mention). But according to the New Testament, homosexuality IS a sin and those who practice homosexuality and those who are adulters will not inherit the kingdom of heaven (1 Cor 6:19). Now, the larger questions is: Are these admonishments/ethics for today? That's for each of us to decide. But, despite what the Episcopal church says, it is clear in the NT that homosexuality is not compatible with NT Christianity. Of course, one can raise cultural, historical, etc. questions, and that's fine. But the truth is: We ARE called to judge (NOT THE PERSON BUT THE BEHAVIOR). And that is Christianity, whether we like it or not. One thing that seems to be clear though is that the apostles were far less hesitant to condemn a practice than we post-moderns are. Are we more enlightened than they? Or are they right in this way but not that way. My point is we can claim to be Christians, but we need to base it on something. If the NT is outdated and is a culturally anachronistic, then we can believe what we want. But if we take up the title (Christian), we better be able to back up our beliefs and lifestyle by something. Sorry for the sermon. (Could someone please pass the collection plate?) BTW, isn't this fun?? The percylist is alive again! -David On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Parlin, Steven wrote: [NON-Text Body part not included] David Beck -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy From piat1 at bellsouth.net Wed Aug 13 23:53:11 2003 From: piat1 at bellsouth.net (James Piat) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 23:53:11 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] gay marriage References: <1E4B441CB5CF9D408D318BC697F086F5014B02E5@olawexc7.naoxy.com> Message-ID: <001901c36217$9513f9b0$210110ac@D68RS511> Excellent stuff. To deny our faculty of judgment out of some sense of guilt or to cede it to a higher authority rather than embrace it with all the intelligence and conscience at our disposal is to deny our humanity. I take this as a given, whether Christian or not. RP Dear Robert, Given what you say above, how does a Christian square his humanity with faith in God or the Bible as the revealed word of God -- isn't faith in God and/or the Bible a form of ceding one's faculty of judgment to a higher authority? For example, can a Christian judge the Bible or is the Bible to be taken on faith and one's judgment limited only to determining what the Bible means and whether or not various behaviors are in accord with the teachings of the Bible? I'm not trying to be argumentative here -- I'm really curious how you sort this out. Jim Piat From dabeck at iupui.edu Wed Aug 13 23:55:57 2003 From: dabeck at iupui.edu (David Alan Beck) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 22:55:57 -0500 (EST) Subject: [percy-l] gay marriage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hod up on that copyright. I didn't mean Chritianphobes (what is a Chritian?). Christianphobes: let me define: those who fear the teachings and the implications of traditional Christianity). See how easy the semantic games can be played? Christians now have a new label, a category that puts them in the diversity rainbow. If anyone questions traditional Christianity, label them Christianphobes and then play the role of the victim (i.e. martyr). Now where is my lapsometer? -David On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, David Alan Beck wrote: > > Thanks Steve for the support! > Now, where are all those Chritianphobes? > (Did I just coin a new word?? Ok, you heard it here first; I own the > copyright.) > > David > > > -- > > An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > > Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > > > David Beck From piat1 at bellsouth.net Wed Aug 13 23:59:09 2003 From: piat1 at bellsouth.net (James Piat) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 23:59:09 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] gay marriage References: <4b.3268286e.2c6afe19@aol.com> Message-ID: <001f01c36218$6a360c50$210110ac@D68RS511> Dear Larry, I enjoyed your futher comments on the MASH characters -- the more I think about it the more I'm inclined to agree with you and Percy and less with my own earlier comments. Jim Piat From piat1 at bellsouth.net Thu Aug 14 00:24:24 2003 From: piat1 at bellsouth.net (James Piat) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 00:24:24 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] gay marriage References: Message-ID: <002501c3621b$f13642d0$210110ac@D68RS511> From: "David Alan Beck" > > Hod up on that copyright. I didn't mean Chritianphobes (what is a > Chritian?). Christianphobes: let me define: those who fear the teachings > and the implications of traditional Christianity). > See how easy the semantic games can be played? Christians now have a new > label, a category that puts them in the diversity rainbow. Dear David, So far so good -- no doubt there are those who fear and attack Christians out of a misplaced fear of their own doubts and longings for security. How else are we to understand such acts as church burnings and various attacks on Christians seemingly just because they were Christians. > If anyone questions traditional Christianity, label them Christianphobes > and then play the role of the victim (i.e. martyr). Hmmmm -- now that seems a disproportionate response to me. Is that what what homosexuals seem to be doing --playing the role of the victim if anyone so much as questions their behavior? I thought the term homophobic was generally reserved for disproportionate attacks on homosexuals. Attacks that seemed inexplicable and irrational --like church burnings. > Now where is my lapsometer? Indeed! Jim Piat From Hghwy6 at aol.com Thu Aug 14 03:25:21 2003 From: Hghwy6 at aol.com (Hghwy6 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 03:25:21 EDT Subject: [percy-l] gay marriage Message-ID: <17f.1f359980.2c6c9361@aol.com> In a message dated 8/13/03 11:24:31 PM Central Daylight Time, piat1 at bellsouth.net writes: > I thought the term homophobic > was generally reserved for disproportionate attacks on homosexuals. Attacks > that seemed inexplicable and irrational --like church burnings. > With respect, Jim, I suspect you might agree that your very word for describing a "disproportionate" response (nevermind the Powell doctrine) is used quite disproportionately in response to rational discussions and -gulp- judgments regarding behavior (and when we surrender the right to judge behavior we surrender the rest of our rights as well). Presumably, we all have homosexual friends, family or colleagues; that doesn't exonerate us from the burden of thought. If my best friend has the perpetual sniffles, must I accept cocaine use as a valid expression of human longing? Sorry if I'm beating a dead horse here (a testament to the quality of this list that so many views are expressed more intelligently than my humble means alow), but I think the arch of this discussion is that words (marriage, homophobe, or any other) have meanings. Part of the postmodern agenda seems to be to "liberate" words (the current target being "marriage") from fixed or agreed meanings that they may be arbitrarily appropriated for political goals (right or left, or whatever). If you judge me to be a reactionary or a bigot, that is your right. I won't be offended as long as you're clear on what is signified by the label. I didn't know Percy, and have no direct channel, but I think his hunt for the wily MadHatter is pretty recognizable, noble, maybe quixotic, and hopefully alive via this list and its contributors. After being pulled into many unwanted debates over this gay topic the last several weeks, I didn't think an interesting discussion was possible. Thanks, Jim, Mike, Steve, and everyone for proving me wrong, and providing worthy distraction from the paper that looms malevolently before me. Now back to the MASH reruns on my local UHF...damn that smug sonofabitch Hawkeye. Best, John PS - FDR said we had nothing to fear but fear itself. Does that make us phobiaphobes? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JHForest at cs.com Thu Aug 14 06:07:47 2003 From: JHForest at cs.com (JHForest at cs.com) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 06:07:47 EDT Subject: [percy-l] re Paul Elie's book Message-ID: <34.3dd113ad.2c6cb973@cs.com> I'd especially like to ask Nikki her opinion of the portrait of Walker Percry in Paull Elie's recent book, "The Life You Save May Be Your Own", but I would be glad to hear comments from any others on the list who have read it. I'm just over half way and finding it a splendid read. Jim * * * Jim & Nancy Forest Kanisstraat 5 / 1811 GJ Alkmaar / The Netherlands Jim's e-mail: Nancy's e-mail: tel: (+31-72) 511-2545 / fax: (+31-72) 515-4180 Orthodox Peace Fellowship web site: http://www.incommunion.org Jim & Nancy Forest web site: http://www.incommunion.org/home.htm * * * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From piat1 at bellsouth.net Thu Aug 14 09:39:44 2003 From: piat1 at bellsouth.net (James Piat) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 09:39:44 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] gay marriage References: <17f.1f359980.2c6c9361@aol.com> Message-ID: <004d01c36269$8535a780$210110ac@D68RS511> >> Sorry if I'm beating a dead horse here (a testament to the quality of this list that so many views are expressed more intelligently >>than my humble means alow), but I think the arch of this discussion is that words (marriage, homophobe, or any other) have >>meanings. Part of the postmodern agenda seems to be to "liberate" words (the current target being "marriage") from fixed or >>agreed meanings that they may be arbitrarily appropriated for political goals (right or left, or whatever). If you judge me to be a >>reactionary or a bigot, that is your right. I won't be offended as long as you're clear on what is signified by the label. >>Best, >>John >>PS - FDR said we had nothing to fear but fear itself. Does that make us phobiaphobes? Dear John, I don't think the postmodern agenda is so much to liberate words from fixed meanings as it is to liberate "us" from the prejudice that either words or their referents have fixed meanings -- all is flux. Establishing the meaning of words (as we see from our discussion) is not so simple, self evident, settled or fixed a matter as either being clear (whatever that means) or providing some sort of pragmatic, operational or behavioral definition. It just might be that man the symbol mongerer and apple of God's eye is condemned to be free as the parable of the garden of Eden suggests. Knowledge is freedom -- but freedom isn't free. That's the meaning of the post modern quest as I conceive it -- to liberate modern man from his scientistic, absolutist agenda and get him back to his sacred and ever mysterious roots. In the beginning was indeed the word and God-only-knows what it means. Or maybe just everything old is new again -- or, or PS -- depends what you mean -- not just what you say or do . . . Best to you as well, Jim Piat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From PARLINS at culver.org Thu Aug 14 09:41:58 2003 From: PARLINS at culver.org (Parlin, Steven) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 08:41:58 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] gay marriage Message-ID: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070590EF@exchangeserver.culver.org> I don't think the postmodern agenda is so much to liberate words from fixed meanings as it is to liberate "us" from the prejudice that either words or their referents have fixed meanings -- all is flux. Said, in perfectly postmodern form, tone, and tenor, Jim.... All is flux...? Steve -----Original Message----- From: James Piat [mailto:piat1 at bellsouth.net] Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 7:40 AM To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Subject: Re: [percy-l] gay marriage >> Sorry if I'm beating a dead horse here (a testament to the quality of this list that so many views are expressed more intelligently >>than my humble means alow), but I think the arch of this discussion is that words (marriage, homophobe, or any other) have >>meanings. Part of the postmodern agenda seems to be to "liberate" words (the current target being "marriage") from fixed or >>agreed meanings that they may be arbitrarily appropriated for political goals (right or left, or whatever). If you judge me to be a >>reactionary or a bigot, that is your right. I won't be offended as long as you're clear on what is signified by the label. >>Best, >>John >>PS - FDR said we had nothing to fear but fear itself. Does that make us phobiaphobes? Dear John, I don't think the postmodern agenda is so much to liberate words from fixed meanings as it is to liberate "us" from the prejudice that either words or their referents have fixed meanings -- all is flux. Establishing the meaning of words (as we see from our discussion) is not so simple, self evident, settled or fixed a matter as either being clear (whatever that means) or providing some sort of pragmatic, operational or behavioral definition. It just might be that man the symbol mongerer and apple of God's eye is condemned to be free as the parable of the garden of Eden suggests. Knowledge is freedom -- but freedom isn't free. That's the meaning of the post modern quest as I conceive it -- to liberate modern man from his scientistic, absolutist agenda and get him back to his sacred and ever mysterious roots. In the beginning was indeed the word and God-only-knows what it means. Or maybe just everything old is new again -- or, or PS -- depends what you mean -- not just what you say or do . . Best to you as well, Jim Piat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From LTberrywtr at aol.com Thu Aug 14 10:09:14 2003 From: LTberrywtr at aol.com (LTberrywtr at aol.com) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 10:09:14 EDT Subject: [percy-l] gay marriage Message-ID: Jim -- All may be flux for the post-everythings. But that's their problem; we needn't make it ours. To say that everyone is a product of his time and place and is tugged by all sorts of prejudices (and in some caeses, agendas) is to demonstrate no more than a firm grasp of the obvious. But to then jump to the conclusion that words have no meaning and there's no truth to be found is absurd. And believe me, the post-everythings don't even live this nutty idea. When the air conditioning goes out in August in the Women's Studies faculty warren at my alma mater - the University of South Florida in sub-tropical Tampa - no one there insists on a feminist, Marxist repair person. When a full professor of literature - with all the politically correct views on life and language -- needs to have his heart four-laned or die, he doesn't seek a non-phallo-centrict cardiologist. These folks are willing, whether they state it or not, to believe under these trying circumstances that there are Real Truths in air conditioning repair and in cardiology. And it's easy enough to know whether or not the AC repairman has found The Truth. If he has, the AC comes on and the office become bearable again. When the post-everythings gave up on the search for truth they didn't - as they frequently like to advertise - find freedom. They simply found fashion. Some liberation. -- Larry From tcole at adobe.com Thu Aug 14 10:58:13 2003 From: tcole at adobe.com (Tim Cole) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 07:58:13 -0700 Subject: [percy-l] marriage In-Reply-To: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070590EF@exchangeserver.culver.org> Message-ID: > > I don't think the postmodern agenda is so much to liberate words from fixed > meanings as it is to liberate "us" from the prejudice that either words or > their referents have fixed meanings -- all is flux. > It?s this ?prejudice? that enable us to articulate or communicate anything at all, don?t you think? And I think that the targeted way in which these ?prejudices? are being challenged indicates a larger political agenda, and not a detached, purely academic strategy. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From piat1 at bellsouth.net Thu Aug 14 11:04:28 2003 From: piat1 at bellsouth.net (James Piat) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 11:04:28 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] gay marriage References: Message-ID: <005801c36275$5b9cbc40$210110ac@D68RS511> Dear Larry, I grew up in south Florida -- sans air conditioning - and sans certainty. I agree there are few atheist in the foxholes but there sure are a suprising number of professed believers in the ER -- especially when there is so little scientific evidence that all those by pass operations actually do extend life. But then again -- for most of us our choices are determine not by the so called facts but by what we are told by the opinion makers. Ours is a post modern world -- now roll up those sleeves, get real and deal with it. Good heavens. Hey, I graduated (finally) from good ole USF back in the day when a man's word meant something --- now I'm too old to remember what is was we all meant. As they say in the hood -- it's all good. Best, Jim Piat From piat1 at bellsouth.net Thu Aug 14 11:17:48 2003 From: piat1 at bellsouth.net (James Piat) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 11:17:48 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] marriage References: Message-ID: <007001c36277$38816420$210110ac@D68RS511> Re: [percy-l] marriageDear Tim, Yes I do think the warranted belief that words have a semi fixed meaning is the basis of intelligible communication -- AND the source of many a misunderstanding as well. I think most of us are pretty much alike when it comes to our fundamental goals but very diverse in our circumstances and our ways and means of achieving of goals. But speaking just for myself I like the way we have chosen here on the Percy list -- mostly talk talk talk. And when it comes to politics I judge the man, not his agenda -- so you've all got my vote. But not my silence. Maybe I've given you the short end of the bargain! Best, Jim Piat I don't think the postmodern agenda is so much to liberate words from fixed meanings as it is to liberate "us" from the prejudice that either words or their referents have fixed meanings -- all is flux. It's this 'prejudice' that enable us to articulate or communicate anything at all, don't you think? And I think that the targeted way in which these 'prejudices' are being challenged indicates a larger political agenda, and not a detached, purely academic strategy. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From LTberrywtr at aol.com Thu Aug 14 11:35:35 2003 From: LTberrywtr at aol.com (LTberrywtr at aol.com) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 11:35:35 EDT Subject: [percy-l] gay marriage Message-ID: <1ce.f4d7679.2c6d0647@aol.com> Jim - Small world. When did you go to USF? I graduated from there in '64, when USF had fewer buildings than it has campuses now, and most literature professors were merely dotty. Some even liked and cared about literature, rather than politics, which is all most of them seem to care about now. I also made it through a Tampa childhood without AC, though, looking back, I'm not sure how. I guess when you're really young, you don't know that you're hot (not to mention sticky from the humidity). It sure became obvious later. Well yes, post-everything is here to stay, though its popularity, as with most things, will ebb and flow. And of course most people makes choice on the basis of a variety of things far short of rationality. But that doesn't mean I have to buy nonsense just because others do. As a freelance writer, one of the ways I deal with the post-everything world is to making fun of it, as I'm getting an opportunity to with this bunch. It amuses me, and helps me avoid legitimate work. Cheers, -- Larry From Nikkibar at aol.com Thu Aug 14 12:05:49 2003 From: Nikkibar at aol.com (Nikkibar at aol.com) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 12:05:49 EDT Subject: [percy-l] gay marriage Message-ID: <90.3b1e425f.2c6d0d5d@aol.com> What a sensible note to the list Karey has given us. Nikki -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tcole at adobe.com Thu Aug 14 12:32:53 2003 From: tcole at adobe.com (Tim Cole) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 09:32:53 -0700 Subject: [percy-l] marriage flux In-Reply-To: <90.3b1e425f.2c6d0d5d@aol.com> Message-ID: > What a sensible note to the list Karey has given us. > I must be awfully flux-resistant, because I thought the opposite. I?m hoping she?ll reply to the responses and elaborate further. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karey at charter.net Thu Aug 14 12:34:36 2003 From: karey at charter.net (Karey L. Perkins) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 12:34:36 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] God's Gender and Ham Sandwiches References: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070590E6@exchangeserver.culver.org> Message-ID: <000201c36286$5d430980$0301000a@AFAC955012> MessageHi Steve - We must agree to disagree on many points, most of which I don't have time to belabor -- but I did want to respond to the gender of God, which is an interesting topic. In the original Hebrew language version of the Old Testament, "God" is referred to by many names. Let's take the Genesis creation story. The transcendent version of God, the creator with whom man has not personal contact, receives the name which we Christians/English language speakers translate as "Jehovah" but which in Jewish tradition is the unpronounceable (blasphemous to do so as it is sacred) four letters (all consonants, no vowels, as the Hebrew had no vowels) -- which translated is the Jewish verb meaning "I am" (or perhaps "to be" as it has no tense, as the Hebrew has no tense). There is no gender associated with this verb. Traditionally this transcendent God has been viewed as masculine. The surrounding Hebrew words that are used in sentences with this name of God have masculine inflection, indicating this name is masculine. In the second version of the Genesis creation story, God is referred to by a name we translate as "Elohim" which is a feminine noun. This is the personal God - the God that walks in the garden of Eden with Adam. In addition, the surrounding words of this name of God have feminine inflection, further emphasizing the feminine nature of this side of God. As humans we anthropomorphize God. It's the only way we can get our minds around God. Both versions (male and female views) are inadequate reflections of God, who transcends anything we can conceptualize or imagine. In Jewish tradition, to say that God is only male and not female is blasphemy because it is limiting God. Jesus was male because in the culture he lived in, he could do nothing as female. Whatever other reasons theologians might have hypothesized or discovered for Jesus being a male, the fact remains that he HAD to be a male to do anything in his time and culture. Remember, theology, religion, etc., has been taught and propagated by men only (and even recently, still primarily) in a patriarchal culture for centuries. Not only does this mean Jesus had to be male, but patriarchal attitudes infiltrate every aspect of our religion. Just a little feminist theology for you. And I firmly believe not only should we not judge, but we accomplish nothing (only harm) by judging. People are where they are, and the only thing that changes them is life. Often we may think we are judging by a higher authority - the church's or God's laws - but the church is fallible human institution (whatever Percy's opinion on the matter was), and who has infallible insight into the mind of God? Judging is usually "projection" of our own faults, usually an act of pride (greater than the sins we are judging), and it serves primarily to break "relationship" and create walls. I think here of the adulterous woman and the crowd who wanted to stone her -- Jesus said "He who is without sin shall cast the first stone" as he wrote in the sand. (Some theologians speculate that what he was writing was the sins of the crowd - they dropped their stones one by one and walked away as their sins came up.) We are called to love. Jesus also never said anything against homosexuality. Leviticus DOES say a man shall not lay with a man as a woman, but the literal interpretation means "DRESSED" as a woman (hence literally it's a polemic against cross-dressing???)(!). Leviticus says it's an "abomination" for a man to lay with a man as a woman. However, Leviticus says exactly the same thing about eating pork - that is, uses exactly the same word - translated an "abomination" - to describe the act of eating pork. Anyone had a ham sandwich lately? All this is meant in the spirit of recreational debate -- glad to see the listserv showing signs of life. But I guess we aren't much interested in Percy's triangles or Peirce's triads?? Ah, well, I'll have to figure them out on my own, with a little help from Rhonda.... KP ----- Original Message ----- From: Parlin, Steven To: 'Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion' Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 6:08 PM Subject: RE: [percy-l] gay marriage Hi Karey... You've made some thoughtful remarks here, but I must disagree with some of it, err...most of it. This is getting a little distressing to find so many on this list who are dedicated to understanding the work of WP, one of the only cultural critics of our age who really had his eyes open, and yet who fail to see the inverted nature of the times we are living in. I don't wish to belabor this issue of 'gay marriage', but i think this is a fairly clear indicator of just how muddled our times have become, precisely the sort of thing that so troubled Percy. You wrote: I don't think any of us has the right to judge another. How can we truly know and judge the reasons/motivations two individuals love and marry? [SP] We do have the right to judge. We all do it every day...and it's a damn good thing too. There are any number of "wrong" behaviors that we judge everday. It's wrong to kill, lie, cheat, steal, push down old ladies, and kick small animals and so on... regardless of the motivation or reason... I for one am quite glad that there remain some social structures, however erroded they are becoming, that "judge" my behavior. Keeps me in line. Yes, the judgement comes from above; it's God's alone. However, it is our responsibility to point it out when others are in conflict with God's judgement. I fully expect others to point it out when I am in conflict with God's laws. The problem isnt that we judge too much, but that we don't do it enough! (Judge not lest you be judged? Exactly, judge not according to your own laws lest you be judged according to those same laws. God fully expects us to judge each other according to his laws). You Wrote: A man and a woman can, and often do, marry each other (enter into a heterosexual union) for all sorts of bad reasons -- the man may want a trophy wife (what about sexual appetite and gratification there?), the woman may want a comfy or luxurious high profile lifestyle (or perhaps she just wants to get out of the house), the woman's father could have a shotgun to the man's head (sexual appetite thus being the precursor to this), the man marries the boss's daughter to get ahead in his career (OK, he's not madly in love, but she's nice enough and not too bad looking), the woman marries the man because all her friends and family like him, think he's nice, a good catch, whatever, etc. etc. Two individuals being of appropriate gender (m/f) hardly ensures admirable and spiritual reasons for entering into wedlock. [SP] Some very good points. In fact, most of what you have cited here is a demonstration of why most marriages are not really marriages at all, at least not as far as marriage is recognized by the RC Church. Most of what you cite here constitutes an invalid marriage. However, its bad logic to say that because heterosexuals are just as deranged in their understanding of marriage, homosexuals ought to be entitled to "marry". Hmm. Two individuals being of "inappropriate" gender does not define their ove - even eros - for each other is an evil or bad thing. [SP] No...just of a different nature and order. I think our spirits/souls ultimately transcend gender -- God has no genitals (although we traditionally and misleadingly refer to "Him" as a "He," gender is by definition a physical trait and God is not physical - only Jesus). [SP] This sounds very Gnostic Karey...we are embodied creatures and male and femal genitals are by design ordered to fit corespondingly. I can't eat glass or drink gasoline because these things are not ordered to my being... Why? I have a specific body for which these things are not specifically made. And, in fact they can do great harm to me. Frankly put...a penis is by design ordered to the vagina (in more ways than one!). But, a penis is NOT ordered to the anus (which according to my homosexual friends is invariably painful, and does harm to them). Moreover...No life will ever spring from the lining of the rectum. What a thought. BTW: "He" and "His" and "Him" are pronouns that describe God's nature (and his relationship to us) not his person. Of course God is genderless. But, he is masculine. Not male, but masculine. To be a little graphic: He is a penetrator (when invited in) not a receiver. He is the impregnator; not the impregnated. He is the father; not the mother. It's a mystery of course and our language fails to apprehend it fully...but C.S. Lewis once put it best...that in our relationship to God, we are all feminine. And, moreover there is a specific reason for why Jesus was male, not female...and it has nothing to do with the time that he appeared for he was very little concerned with propriety. God is specific, orderly, and designs things for a particular purpose. I agree with Steve that a case of two men who live together and love each other as friends (i.e.: just roommates) is very different from two gay men who are in love and wish to marry. A homosexual "marriage" bond has far more in common with a heterosexual marriage than any other relationship between persons of the same gender - or any other present word in our vocabulary we might apply to it. [SP] Okay...but I'm curious why you agree with me because you missed my point. There is no difference here, and for that matter there is no way for the state to determine whether my love for my best friend is any different than two homosexuals wanting to be recognized as a couple. Except one --I'm not screwing my best friend. I love him, but I don't want to hump him. In any case, marriage is not an existential reality for homosexuals. They can go through the motions (egads) but they can never really be married. It's like this...I can call myself a rabbit, yell it from the rooftops, but that doesn't make me a rabbit. That's what's going on here. I don't know what to think about homosexuality, nor do I completely understand why two individuals of the same gender fall "in love" and wish to express that love physically -- but they do, and for them, I believe it is the same experience as two individuals of opposite gender who do the same thing. Some homosexuals ARE in it merely for physical gratification, just as some heterosexuals have sex merely for physical gratification. But would anyone say that all heterosexual marriages are just about sexual gratification? Of course not. The same is true of homosexual marriages. [SP] I don't understand it either. Even after having my homosexual friends explain it to me. The one thing I do know is it's not for me to judge others nor to impose rules on how to conduct their lives -- that's God's domain. I've got my own stuff to worry about. [SP] You're right... it is God's domain. And if it were the case that I was presenting MY OWN judgment, I'd say you would all need to have me stoned. For no one has the right to pass THEIR OWN judgement based on THEIR OWN understanding of reality. That's extremely dangerous (and in fact is happening in Ireland right now and will likely happen here very shortly). In fact, I'm willing to wager that at least some of you on this list have already judged me...according to your own understanding of rightness and wrongness. We must Judge, but according to higher things...not our own silly notions. That's precisely why we have no alternative but to rely on God's natural and moral laws. Moreover, that is in fact why the Catholic Church is the most obedient, not the most authoritarian of the faiths. She doesn't give sway to things like homosexual marriages because she CAN'T do so and remain obedient. She doesn't have the authority to make such changes. Steve ----- Original Message ----- From: Parlin, Steven To: 'Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion' Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 10:41 AM Subject: RE: [percy-l] gay marriage Dear RP I'm not sure "totally" doesn't fit (though perhaps it's fruitless to speculate about WP's thoughts). In "something to displease both sides", Percy never wavered on the (total) wrongness of killing unborn children. It's insanity and "totally", not partly, wrong. He was merely pointing out the intellectual myopia that exists on both sides of the political quagmire --and there is a lot of it. But, you're probably right that Percy would have surprised and delighted and shocked with his comments. Two very good friends of mine are homosexual, one is in his late 60's and I speak with him regularly about these sorts of things. He knows (and unfortunately has "known") a lot of homosexuals. I can tell you there is hardly consensus among the homosexuals about what this agenda is really about. "Truth of gay love as a personal bond"? Hmm.... I love my best friend (since kinder) probably more than I love anyone in the world, but our "personal bond" is hardly a marriage, and I hardly want to be sexual with him. But, even more to the point...what of my love for my father? Love is not really a part of this debate. The truth is, again citing my friend, homosexual "bonds" are hardly about love and committment and the like. It's mostly about sexual appetite and gratification. Society's need to accept this? Society needs to accept homosexuals, but not homosexuality. Steve -----Original Message----- From: Robert_Pauley at oxy.com [mailto:Robert_Pauley at oxy.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 7:08 PM To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org Subject: RE: [percy-l] gay marriage I don't think "totally" is the right adverb for any Walker Percy position. He was too intellectually supple. Remember his piece on abortion in the New York Times -- ... "Something to displease both sides." I believe he would have found a way to deconstruct the moral and semantic choplogic of "gay marriage" while allowing for the truth of gay love as a personal bond, and of society's need to accept this, short of formal social or religious sanctification. He would, again, have displeased both sides. Best, RP -----Original Message----- From: percy-l-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:percy-l-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of James Piat Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 4:59 PM To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Subject: Re: [percy-l] gay marriage Dear Phil, I think we are all very much products of our circumstances -- and tend to get more conservative as we age. Of his writings I like Percy's essays the most, and The Movie Goer more than The Thanatos Syndrome. I'm not so sure Percy would be totally against gay marriage were he around today. Times change; people change. Regards from Atlanta Jim I think Percy would be totally against gay marriage. But that's why I'm glad I don't walk around wearing a "WWPD?" wrist band. I think he was definitely a product of his time and place, and his later novels particularly illustrate his out-of-place feeling in the 1970's. And didn't it seem like he became more conservative and doctrinaire as he grew older? It's been a while since I've read Percy, but I remember The Thanatos Syndrome being a lot more "preachy" than his early novels... Regards from Chapel Hill, Phil ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tcole at adobe.com Thu Aug 14 13:56:38 2003 From: tcole at adobe.com (Tim Cole) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 10:56:38 -0700 Subject: [percy-l] God's Gender and Ham Sandwiches In-Reply-To: <000201c36286$5d430980$0301000a@AFAC955012> Message-ID: > In addition, the surrounding words of this name of God have feminine > inflection, further emphasizing the feminine nature of this side of God. > > I think it?s reasonable to think that God is a mix of what we would label both > male and female traits...and it has implications in what Genesis says about > marriage between man and woman. > > In Jewish tradition, to say that God is only male and not female is blasphemy > because it is limiting God. > > Agreed. We see through a glass darkly... > > And I firmly believe not only should we not judge, but we accomplish nothing > (only harm) by judging. > > We are called to love. > > We are also called to discern, test the spirits, test doctrine, hold fast to > that which is good. We can?t do that without making moral or epistemic > judgments. If you?re saying that not judging means not being able to do this, > then I disagree and think you have problems with both the OT and NT in what it > affirms and commands with regard to conduct. > > I think what we?re told not to do is judge the hearts of others...things that > only God can know. > > Jesus also never said anything against homosexuality. > > Which is not surprising since there wasn?t a gay rights movement in 1st > century Palestine. It wasn?t an issue, like divorce, around which there was > much theological debate. The Pharisees tested Jesus on the hot potatoes of the > day...homosexuality wasn?t one of them because Hebraic culture and theology > condemned it una > > Leviticus DOES say a man shall not lay with a man as a woman, but the literal > interpretation means "DRESSED" as a woman (hence literally it's a polemic > against cross-dressing???)(!). > > The literal interpretation of what word(s) in Leviticus 18 or 20, exactly? > Shakab means to lie with sexually. Odd that an admonition about cross dressing > would be so badly misinterpreted by Jewish scholars for so many centuries. > ;^) > > Leviticus says it's an "abomination" for a man to lay with a man as a woman. > However, Leviticus says exactly the same thing about eating pork - that is, > uses exactly the same word - translated an "abomination" - to describe the act > of eating pork. > > At the risk of getting sidetracked into a protracted debate about the Bible > and homosexuality, the revisionist arguments of Boswell and others have been > refuted thoroughly and frequently. Suffice it to say that ham and > cross-dressing comparison isn?t valid (there are both ceremonial and ethical > abominations...they are different...one is associated with the Works of the > Law that defined Jewishness [and about which Peter had to be sorted out via a > vision in light of Gentile believers], the other is a fluxless universal > ethical standard), and the Biblical teaching in the subject goes way beyond > the statements in Leviticus. There?s Romans 1, and, perhaps more importantly, > there?s the description of marriage in Genesis. You can understand the > Biblical position on homosexuality not just based on the prohibitions, but > also the affirmations. > > The marriage of man and woman is a picture of the full nature of God (as > referenced above), and it is the divine plan...according to the Bible, at > least. This union is what the Bible affirms and what both OT and NT morality > are designed to protect and help flourish. > > Of course this is not an excuse for real ?homophobia,? whatever that is, or > gay bashing, but it does constitute Biblical grounds for condemning the > behavior...or so I believe. ;^) > > > > Tim > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karey at charter.net Thu Aug 14 14:38:59 2003 From: karey at charter.net (Karey L. Perkins) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 14:38:59 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] God's Gender and Ham Sandwiches References: Message-ID: <011901c36293$551a5710$0301000a@AFAC955012> Re: [percy-l] God's Gender and Ham SandwichesTim - Thanks for the reasoned response - quick reply: You say we should judge for ourselves what is right and wrong. Yes - but to apply to our own behavior. (And, as a side note, it's a complicated involved and thoughtful process that isn't simply listening to what someone else says or a "literal interpretation of the Bible" (since it seems clear we've established that "literal" meanings vary depending on who's reading them - we here can't even decide on the meaning of "marriage" or "homophobe" or etc.). ) However, I don't think we do much good for anyone, including ourselves, by judging others -- if we're busy taking the mote out of another's eye often we have a log in our own - as someone on the list already said. We have so many more important things to do for them. (Jesus declared our most important admonishments are to love God first, and our neighbor and ourselves next.) Do you really think the fact that the Pharisees never questioned Jesus about homosexuality is the reason that he never mentioned it? Are all the things we have recorded about Jesus in direct response to the Pharisees or issues of the day? I was being slightly facetious with the cross-dressing and ham sandwich thing (as I guess you picked up) - the point was we go around violating God's law probably multiple times every day and others could just as easily admonish US for that. Better to pay attention to our own behavior than try to change others'.... If we judge them, we put ourselves above them (pride - the greatest sin), and usually we're not paying attention to what we need to do spiritually ourselves. Paul's comments were more culturally determined (the "po-mo-phobes" in the bunch will probably hate that remark) and much of what he said regarding social groups and social arrangements (women, homosexuality, marriage, dressing, etc.) can be read as influenced by his social context. Do you want to hear MY judgment (since I'm being accused of the "sin" of postmodernism by withholding it)? OK, let's get technical here: Dante places the sexual sinners in the first or second (I forget which one, but it's early) circle of his Inferno. That's because the sexual sins (adultery, etc.) are a kind of "missing the mark" of the greatest virtue, love. And that's where our homos would go IF indeed Paul is right that they are sinning. But those guilty of the sin of pride are MUCH further down in Dante's scheme. I'm with Dante on this (who was decidedly un-po-mo). KP ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim Cole To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 1:56 PM Subject: Re: [percy-l] God's Gender and Ham Sandwiches In addition, the surrounding words of this name of God have feminine inflection, further emphasizing the feminine nature of this side of God. I think it's reasonable to think that God is a mix of what we would label both male and female traits...and it has implications in what Genesis says about marriage between man and woman. In Jewish tradition, to say that God is only male and not female is blasphemy because it is limiting God. Agreed. We see through a glass darkly... And I firmly believe not only should we not judge, but we accomplish nothing (only harm) by judging. We are called to love. We are also called to discern, test the spirits, test doctrine, hold fast to that which is good. We can't do that without making moral or epistemic judgments. If you're saying that not judging means not being able to do this, then I disagree and think you have problems with both the OT and NT in what it affirms and commands with regard to conduct. I think what we're told not to do is judge the hearts of others...things that only God can know. Jesus also never said anything against homosexuality. Which is not surprising since there wasn't a gay rights movement in 1st century Palestine. It wasn't an issue, like divorce, around which there was much theological debate. The Pharisees tested Jesus on the hot potatoes of the day...homosexuality wasn't one of them because Hebraic culture and theology condemned it una Leviticus DOES say a man shall not lay with a man as a woman, but the literal interpretation means "DRESSED" as a woman (hence literally it's a polemic against cross-dressing???)(!). The literal interpretation of what word(s) in Leviticus 18 or 20, exactly? Shakab means to lie with sexually. Odd that an admonition about cross dressing would be so badly misinterpreted by Jewish scholars for so many centuries. ;^) Leviticus says it's an "abomination" for a man to lay with a man as a woman. However, Leviticus says exactly the same thing about eating pork - that is, uses exactly the same word - translated an "abomination" - to describe the act of eating pork. At the risk of getting sidetracked into a protracted debate about the Bible and homosexuality, the revisionist arguments of Boswell and others have been refuted thoroughly and frequently. Suffice it to say that ham and cross-dressing comparison isn't valid (there are both ceremonial and ethical abominations...they are different...one is associated with the Works of the Law that defined Jewishness [and about which Peter had to be sorted out via a vision in light of Gentile believers], the other is a fluxless universal ethical standard), and the Biblical teaching in the subject goes way beyond the statements in Leviticus. There's Romans 1, and, perhaps more importantly, there's the description of marriage in Genesis. You can understand the Biblical position on homosexuality not just based on the prohibitions, but also the affirmations. The marriage of man and woman is a picture of the full nature of God (as referenced above), and it is the divine plan...according to the Bible, at least. This union is what the Bible affirms and what both OT and NT morality are designed to protect and help flourish. Of course this is not an excuse for real 'homophobia,' whatever that is, or gay bashing, but it does constitute Biblical grounds for condemning the behavior...or so I believe. ;^) Tim ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mfrentz at bbn.com Thu Aug 14 17:47:03 2003 From: mfrentz at bbn.com (Mike Frentz) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 17:47:03 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] God's Gender and Ham Sandwiches In-Reply-To: <000201c36286$5d430980$0301000a@AFAC955012> References: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070590E6@exchangeserver.culver.org> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20030814145601.02bf9eb0@po2.bbn.com> Hi Karey, A few minor observations on what you wrote: >As humans we anthropomorphize God. It's the only way we can get our minds >around God. Both versions (male and female views) are inadequate >reflections of God, who transcends anything we can conceptualize or >imagine. In Jewish tradition, to say that God is only male and not female >is blasphemy because it is limiting God. Amen. I know of people who are aetheists, sadly, because they can't deal with the symbolism of a male God, but I also agree entirely with Steve's characterization that with respect to God, we are all female. It doesn't bother me at all to be spiritually female, that is the role of Church (and no, Jim, I'm not a homophobe that I know of.. ) >Jesus was male because in the culture he lived in, he could do nothing as >female. Whatever other reasons theologians might have hypothesized or >discovered for Jesus being a male, the fact remains that he HAD to be a >male to do anything in his time and culture. Remember, theology, >religion, etc., has been taught and propagated by men only (and even >recently, still primarily) in a patriarchal culture for centuries. Check out who are the majority of daily communicants (especially in Europe, so I'm told). It is the mother who has traditionally taught and propagated religion in the family. Maybe you're implicitly "dissing" the lack of a paying position, as is common in "feminist" thinking, but the role of mother is by far the most important job in stabilizing/maintaining any culture. I believe (literally) that men would still be hitting each other with rocks (rather than blowing each other up with missiles..) if it weren't for the *critical* socializing effect of females on a culture. A exclusively male culture would not survive a single generation by my take (lack of reproductive capability being totally irrelevant..). >And I firmly believe not only should we not judge, but we accomplish >nothing (only harm) by judging. People are where they are, and the only >thing that changes them is life. Often we may think we are judging by a >higher authority - the church's or God's laws - but the church is fallible >human institution (whatever Percy's opinion on the matter was), and who >has infallible insight into the mind of God? The "judging" arguments being presented in this whole series of emails, I believe are more semantically overloaded than any word could possibly bear. Truth is, by virtue of our being intelligent creatures, we make judgments continually about *everything*. No one could function without making implicit decisions in terms of what is good, what is bad, what is food, what is poison, etc. There is nothing wrong with this type of judgment -- it would be wrong *not* to do this natural thing; the actions taken as a result of it are something else. That is where love comes into play, and here you are totally right. Your second statement shocks me (because I recall that you are Catholic). The Church may be run by fallible human beings, but if it were truly a human institution, we all would be truly Lost in the Cosmos (to the point where *no one* would be able to write about it). Being raised in American Protestant culture does make one think by default that all is relative, and that the Church was apostate through all of those centuries before 1500, but once you discover that there is an unbroken line of writings dating back to Christ which are unerringly consistent in their basic teachings (e.g. the Early Fathers writings, pardon my genderality) -- catholic in time as well as space, it's kind of hard to seriously argue that it is "only human". It has an amazing record for consistency. The Church may be fallible in its execution, but *not* in its fundamental beliefs. It is guided by the Holy Spirit. Christianity is not a "religion of the Book" (sola Scriptura sadly misbegotten), it is a religion of the Spirit. The answer to your question is "the Church" -- Christ never left us to fend for ourselves. Best, Mike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From DAskin at Anselm.Edu Thu Aug 14 15:52:11 2003 From: DAskin at Anselm.Edu (Denise Askin) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 15:52:11 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] God's Gender and Ham Sandwiches Message-ID: <2FA6E8D92803DA40B93F1CC2B50A7AC7034BB3@mercury.anselm.edu> Unsubscribe. Denise T. Askin [Denise Askin] -----Original Message----- From: Mike Frentz [mailto:mfrentz at bbn.com] Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 5:47 PM To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Subject: Re: [percy-l] God's Gender and Ham Sandwiches Hi Karey, A few minor observations on what you wrote: As humans we anthropomorphize God. It's the only way we can get our minds around God. Both versions (male and female views) are inadequate reflections of God, who transcends anything we can conceptualize or imagine. In Jewish tradition, to say that God is only male and not female is blasphemy because it is limiting God. Amen. I know of people who are aetheists, sadly, because they can't deal with the symbolism of a male God, but I also agree entirely with Steve's characterization that with respect to God, we are all female. It doesn't bother me at all to be spiritually female, that is the role of Church (and no, Jim, I'm not a homophobe that I know of.. ) Jesus was male because in the culture he lived in, he could do nothing as female. Whatever other reasons theologians might have hypothesized or discovered for Jesus being a male, the fact remains that he HAD to be a male to do anything in his time and culture. Remember, theology, religion, etc., has been taught and propagated by men only (and even recently, still primarily) in a patriarchal culture for centuries. Check out who are the majority of daily communicants (especially in Europe, so I'm told). It is the mother who has traditionally taught and propagated religion in the family. Maybe you're implicitly "dissing" the lack of a paying position, as is common in "feminist" thinking, but the role of mother is by far the most important job in stabilizing/maintaining any culture. I believe (literally) that men would still be hitting each other with rocks (rather than blowing each other up with missiles..) if it weren't for the *critical* socializing effect of females on a culture. A exclusively male culture would not survive a single generation by my take (lack of reproductive capability being totally irrelevant..). And I firmly believe not only should we not judge, but we accomplish nothing (only harm) by judging. People are where they are, and the only thing that changes them is life. Often we may think we are judging by a higher authority - the church's or God's laws - but the church is fallible human institution (whatever Percy's opinion on the matter was), and who has infallible insight into the mind of God? The "judging" arguments being presented in this whole series of emails, I believe are more semantically overloaded than any word could possibly bear. Truth is, by virtue of our being intelligent creatures, we make judgments continually about *everything*. No one could function without making implicit decisions in terms of what is good, what is bad, what is food, what is poison, etc. There is nothing wrong with this type of judgment -- it would be wrong *not* to do this natural thing; the actions taken as a result of it are something else. That is where love comes into play, and here you are totally right. Your second statement shocks me (because I recall that you are Catholic). The Church may be run by fallible human beings, but if it were truly a human institution, we all would be truly Lost in the Cosmos (to the point where *no one* would be able to write about it). Being raised in American Protestant culture does make one think by default that all is relative, and that the Church was apostate through all of those centuries before 1500, but once you discover that there is an unbroken line of writings dating back to Christ which are unerringly consistent in their basic teachings (e.g. the Early Fathers writings, pardon my genderality) -- catholic in time as well as space, it's kind of hard to seriously argue that it is "only human". It has an amazing record for consistency. The Church may be fallible in its execution, but *not* in its fundamental beliefs. It is guided by the Holy Spirit. Christianity is not a "religion of the Book" (sola Scriptura sadly misbegotten), it is a religion of the Spirit. The answer to your question is "the Church" -- Christ never left us to fend for ourselves. Best, Mike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From piat1 at bellsouth.net Thu Aug 14 15:55:35 2003 From: piat1 at bellsouth.net (James Piat) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 15:55:35 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] God's Gender and Ham Sandwiches References: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070590E6@exchangeserver.culver.org> <000201c36286$5d430980$0301000a@AFAC955012> Message-ID: <00d101c3629e$0727ceb0$210110ac@D68RS511> MessageDear Karey, I'm very much interested in Percy's Delta Factor and have enjoyed your past postings on the subject. What's your latest thinking on the matter? What light if any do you think his triangle sheds on the meaning of words? Or if you would prefer to back up a bit -- what is your lastest understanding of what Percy intends by each element of his triangle? Jim Piat All this is meant in the spirit of recreational debate -- glad to see the listserv showing signs of life. But I guess we aren't much interested in Percy's triangles or Peirce's triads?? Ah, well, I'll have to figure them out on my own, with a little help from Rhonda.... KP -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From piat1 at bellsouth.net Thu Aug 14 16:11:55 2003 From: piat1 at bellsouth.net (James Piat) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 16:11:55 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] gay marriage References: <1ce.f4d7679.2c6d0647@aol.com> Message-ID: <00d901c362a0$4f3998d0$210110ac@D68RS511> > > Jim - > Small world. When did you go to USF? I graduated from there in '64, when > USF had fewer buildings than it has campuses now, and most literature > professors were merely dotty. Some even liked and cared about literature, rather than > politics, which is all most of them seem to care about now. Dear Larry, I graduated HS in 59 (Hollywood, Fla), spent three yrs in the Army, flunked in and out of several colleges and finally graduated from USF in 67 or 68 I think. What I recall most fondly was helping to build the USF golf course with a chain saw and finding arrowheads which my then young son promptly lost. You make me chuckle -- yes all the lit professors seem now to be more interested in politics and post modernism than in lit. -- or at least more interested than many from the philosophy and political science departments it seems! That ought to stir our friend, Wade! Wade is our Percy-L resident Gonzo journalist and all around good fellow from the political science dept. Cheers, Jim From piat1 at bellsouth.net Thu Aug 14 16:27:10 2003 From: piat1 at bellsouth.net (James Piat) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 16:27:10 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] God's Gender and Ham Sandwiches References: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070590E6@exchangeserver.culver.org> <5.2.0.9.2.20030814145601.02bf9eb0@po2.bbn.com> Message-ID: <010001c362a2$70a9dc30$210110ac@D68RS511> Amen. I know of people who are aetheists, sadly, because they can't deal with the symbolism of a male God, but I also agree entirely with Steve's characterization that with respect to God, we are all female. It doesn't bother me at all to be spiritually female, that is the role of Church (and no, Jim, I'm not a homophobe that I know of.. ) Dear Mike, Aside from myself, I didn't mean to call anyone on list homophobic. I was just offering my opinion, in response to someone's question, as to what the term might mean -- or at least one of many ways I've heard it used. I've enjoyed and learned something from everyone's comments -- including of course yours. Best, Jim p -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tcole at adobe.com Thu Aug 14 19:48:52 2003 From: tcole at adobe.com (Tim Cole) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 16:48:52 -0700 Subject: [percy-l] God's Gender and Ham Sandwiches In-Reply-To: <011901c36293$551a5710$0301000a@AFAC955012> Message-ID: > > However, I don't think we do much good for anyone, including ourselves, by > judging others -- if we're busy taking the mote out of another's eye often we > have a log in our own - as someone on the list already said. We have so many > more important things to do for them. (Jesus declared our most important > admonishments are to love God first, and our neighbor and ourselves next.) > > Hi Karey, thanks for your reply. I differ with you here. Jesus did more than > love everyone. He told the woman at the well, for example to ?go and sin no > more.? He made a bit of a ruckus with the money changers as well. Both the OT > and NT are full of examples of followers of God/Jesus judging the behaviors of > others (Matt. 7:20) and fleeing or removing its influence. That sort of > example/admonition co-exists with the caution about motes and logs. And > there?s nothing in Jesus? summary of the Law to lead us to believe that we > are to embrace the disobedience of others (or ourselves for that matter). > > To love God and love others unconditionally does not entail that we turn a > blind eye to behaviors that the Scripture forbids. It does entail that we love > others in spite of their imperfections, because we ourselves need the same > charity. > > Do you really think the fact that the Pharisees never questioned Jesus about > homosexuality is the reason that he never mentioned it? > > We don?t know he never mentioned it. We only know it isn?t mentioned in the > Gospels, but other issues are. There are a lot of sins on which Jesus didn?t > comment in the Gospel record. Jesus? comments on sexual morality and marriage > indicate that his views were consistent (in general) with the Pharisees of his > day. He would be considered a very orthodox Jew, and would have condemned > homosexuality in the same way the Law does and the other writings of his era. > > Are all the things we have recorded about Jesus in direct response to the > Pharisees or issues of the day? > > No. Are you trying to say that if it really was a sin that Jesus would have > mentioned it? He doesn?t mention bestiality, child sacrifice or pederasty > either. Or insider trading. > > Jesus? ministry was primarily to Jews within their culture. The questions he > was asked were theological issues of the day. We aren't blessed with Jesus > views on every conceivable topic (which is unfortunate). Had homosexuality > been something practiced in Jerusalem of his day, as it was in the gentile > world, then we might have had a record. But, given the fact that it was rare > to nonexistent within Hebraic culture (because of the OT prohibition), it > wasn?t something he addressed. Paul on the other hand, whose ministry was to > gentiles, did address the issue directly. > > Better to pay attention to our own behavior than try to change others'.... If > we judge them, we put ourselves above them (pride - the greatest sin), and > usually we're not paying attention to what we need to do spiritually > ourselves. > > I don?t follow you here. Paying ?attention? to my own behavior implies that I > have a standard of right and wrong by which to do that. For Jews and > Christians, that standard comes from God via the Bible and the law in our > hearts. In order to judge myself, I put God above me. When I see behavior in > others that violates God?s law (whether it be pride, theft, adultery, > homosexual behavior or whatever), I?m not appealing to my own authority to > identify it as such, but to God?s. I?m not putting myself above anyone. I?m > putting right and wrong as defined by God above myself and others...the same > standard for all. > > I don?t see (in your statement or in Scripture) how from an awareness of my > imperfection that I lose the ability to identify sin as sin, whether it?s in > my life or in anyone else?s. > > Paul's comments were more culturally determined (the "po-mo-phobes" in the > bunch will probably hate that remark) and much of what he said regarding > social groups and social arrangements (women, homosexuality, marriage, > dressing, etc.) can be read as influenced by his social context. > > I think you?re painting with a brush that?s way too broad. Romans 1 isn?t a > culturally conditioned statement. It?s an elaboration of what the Torah says, > adapted to a gentile audience. I don?t see any cultural loopholes there at > all. > > Dante places the sexual sinners in the first or second (I forget which one, > but it's early) circle of his Inferno. That's because the sexual sins > (adultery, etc.) are a kind of "missing the mark" of the greatest virtue, > love. > > Well, we may differ here, but I don?t give Dante the same respect and > authority that I would Paul or the rest of the Bible. I think that both what > the Bible affirms and condemns with regard to marriage, family, love and the > significance of the union between man and woman clearly indicates that > homosexual unions are serious violations of the divine design and ought to be > treated as such. That said, I?d agree 100% that pride is still worse. > > > > Tim > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Robert_Pauley at oxy.com Thu Aug 14 20:58:31 2003 From: Robert_Pauley at oxy.com (Robert_Pauley at oxy.com) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 17:58:31 -0700 Subject: [percy-l]judgment Message-ID: <1E4B441CB5CF9D408D318BC697F086F5014B02E6@olawexc7.naoxy.com> Dear James: Argumentativeness is no crime in my book. But perhaps some things cannot be squared. Perhaps this is what Simone Weil means when she writes over and again of the beautiful distress of being a Christian. Some things are not reconcilable. It is not a tidy faith. But still how intense the effort to make it so, with all the chapters and verses. It seems to me to be Christian is to be out there, messing up left and right and working at making it better all the time. My chief point is if God engineered this mess he must understand (dare even approve?) of human judgment in all its folly and tragic splendor. Still, to judge someone may be only to make a reasoned conclusion based on one's experience at a given time, and a mutable one, subject to the laws of time and possibility of change. We judge somebody, but we do not say our judgment is final. To do that is also to deny our humanity. I think it is possible to make judgments as an intellectual and moral exercise with practical use while at the same time ultimately depositing our faith in the supreme judgment of a higher authority, or a book if you will. By exercising our judgment with a full awareness, as full a sense of responsibility as we can summon, can't we get closer to God in a way? But I am not a good Christian and believe in my sourer moods that the compulsion to judge on one hand and its proscription on the other may have been one more perverse snare of God's, and not to be taken meekly. To suspend judgment to me is to imitate a vegetable or mineral and not an option. As for the Bible, it is a motley collection of writings, some of it quite lovely and moral, but taken as a whole I wouldn't cede to it any more, and probably less, than I would to the selected writings of Orwell or Percy or, again, Weil. I think it is funny watching people grope with non-judgment. It is amusing in proportion to the zeal which they bring to their high-mindedness. Sooner or later it falls apart. I like being there when it does. It reminds me of "Serenity Now" on Seinfeld, screamed into the sky in futile appeal. It falls apart I think because they are trying to kill the impulse to judge altogether. They cannot. Regards, RP -----Original Message----- From: percy-l-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:percy-l-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of James Piat Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 8:53 PM To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Subject: Re: [percy-l] gay marriage Excellent stuff. To deny our faculty of judgment out of some sense of guilt or to cede it to a higher authority rather than embrace it with all the intelligence and conscience at our disposal is to deny our humanity. I take this as a given, whether Christian or not. RP Dear Robert, Given what you say above, how does a Christian square his humanity with faith in God or the Bible as the revealed word of God -- isn't faith in God and/or the Bible a form of ceding one's faculty of judgment to a higher authority? For example, can a Christian judge the Bible or is the Bible to be taken on faith and one's judgment limited only to determining what the Bible means and whether or not various behaviors are in accord with the teachings of the Bible? I'm not trying to be argumentative here -- I'm really curious how you sort this out. Jim Piat -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy From PARLINS at culver.org Thu Aug 14 21:38:55 2003 From: PARLINS at culver.org (Parlin, Steven) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 20:38:55 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] God's Gender and Ham Sandwiches Message-ID: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070590F7@exchangeserver.culver.org> A point of clarity. If the sacred scriptures are to be held as an authoritative text, someone has to be able to interpret it with absolute authority. Otherwise, we really are wasting our time debating whose interpretation is accurate. Yours? Mine? His? Hers? (Did someone mention the sin of pride?). No one has that authority except the author, the Church (by way of her divinely inspired writers). The sacred scriptures (at least the NT) came from the Church, not the reverse. The Church was established long before the Bible was ever compiled as an anthology. In fact, as far as we know....Jesus never said anything at all about writing matters down, not the Gospels, not the epistles, nothing. (In fact...theoretically...the Church could still exist without the Bible, and still have the same authority to preach the Good News). In other words, the Bible emerged from the Church. It was authored by (or at least through) the inspired members of the Church. Therefore, only the Church has the authority (and the Tradition) to interpret the Bible. Now... it's quite possible that this is all bunk. (God help us if it is). But, if it is bunk...then once again... we are wasting our time debating interpretations, for the Bible is, as I think Robert suggested, no more significant than the writings of Orwell, Percy, or Weil. It's just another interesting text. Moreover, if the Church is mistaken and such things, I'm hardly going to take my cues from anyone else. In short, either the RC Church has it right or she's full of crap. I'm placing my bets, as did Percy, that she's not full of crap. Steve -----Original Message----- From: Karey L. Perkins [mailto:karey at charter.net] Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 1:39 PM To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Subject: Re: [percy-l] God's Gender and Ham Sandwiches Tim - Thanks for the reasoned response - quick reply: You say we should judge for ourselves what is right and wrong. Yes - but to apply to our own behavior. (And, as a side note, it's a complicated involved and thoughtful process that isn't simply listening to what someone else says or a "literal interpretation of the Bible" (since it seems clear we've established that "literal" meanings vary depending on who's reading them - we here can't even decide on the meaning of "marriage" or "homophobe" or etc.). ) However, I don't think we do much good for anyone, including ourselves, by judging others -- if we're busy taking the mote out of another's eye often we have a log in our own - as someone on the list already said. We have so many more important things to do for them. (Jesus declared our most important admonishments are to love God first, and our neighbor and ourselves next.) Do you really think the fact that the Pharisees never questioned Jesus about homosexuality is the reason that he never mentioned it? Are all the things we have recorded about Jesus in direct response to the Pharisees or issues of the day? I was being slightly facetious with the cross-dressing and ham sandwich thing (as I guess you picked up) - the point was we go around violating God's law probably multiple times every day and others could just as easily admonish US for that. Better to pay attention to our own behavior than try to change others'.... If we judge them, we put ourselves above them (pride - the greatest sin), and usually we're not paying attention to what we need to do spiritually ourselves. Paul's comments were more culturally determined (the "po-mo-phobes" in the bunch will probably hate that remark) and much of what he said regarding social groups and social arrangements (women, homosexuality, marriage, dressing, etc.) can be read as influenced by his social context. Do you want to hear MY judgment (since I'm being accused of the "sin" of postmodernism by withholding it)? OK, let's get technical here: Dante places the sexual sinners in the first or second (I forget which one, but it's early) circle of his Inferno. That's because the sexual sins (adultery, etc.) are a kind of "missing the mark" of the greatest virtue, love. And that's where our homos would go IF indeed Paul is right that they are sinning. But those guilty of the sin of pride are MUCH further down in Dante's scheme. I'm with Dante on this (who was decidedly un-po-mo). KP ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim Cole To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 1:56 PM Subject: Re: [percy-l] God's Gender and Ham Sandwiches In addition, the surrounding words of this name of God have feminine inflection, further emphasizing the feminine nature of this side of God. I think it's reasonable to think that God is a mix of what we would label both male and female traits...and it has implications in what Genesis says about marriage between man and woman. In Jewish tradition, to say that God is only male and not female is blasphemy because it is limiting God. Agreed. We see through a glass darkly... And I firmly believe not only should we not judge, but we accomplish nothing (only harm) by judging. We are called to love. We are also called to discern, test the spirits, test doctrine, hold fast to that which is good. We can't do that without making moral or epistemic judgments. If you're saying that not judging means not being able to do this, then I disagree and think you have problems with both the OT and NT in what it affirms and commands with regard to conduct. I think what we're told not to do is judge the hearts of others...things that only God can know. Jesus also never said anything against homosexuality. Which is not surprising since there wasn't a gay rights movement in 1st century Palestine. It wasn't an issue, like divorce, around which there was much theological debate. The Pharisees tested Jesus on the hot potatoes of the day...homosexuality wasn't one of them because Hebraic culture and theology condemned it una Leviticus DOES say a man shall not lay with a man as a woman, but the literal interpretation means "DRESSED" as a woman (hence literally it's a polemic against cross-dressing???)(!). The literal interpretation of what word(s) in Leviticus 18 or 20, exactly? Shakab means to lie with sexually. Odd that an admonition about cross dressing would be so badly misinterpreted by Jewish scholars for so many centuries. ;^) Leviticus says it's an "abomination" for a man to lay with a man as a woman. However, Leviticus says exactly the same thing about eating pork - that is, uses exactly the same word - translated an "abomination" - to describe the act of eating pork. At the risk of getting sidetracked into a protracted debate about the Bible and homosexuality, the revisionist arguments of Boswell and others have been refuted thoroughly and frequently. Suffice it to say that ham and cross-dressing comparison isn't valid (there are both ceremonial and ethical abominations...they are different...one is associated with the Works of the Law that defined Jewishness [and about which Peter had to be sorted out via a vision in light of Gentile believers], the other is a fluxless universal ethical standard), and the Biblical teaching in the subject goes way beyond the statements in Leviticus. There's Romans 1, and, perhaps more importantly, there's the description of marriage in Genesis. You can understand the Biblical position on homosexuality not just based on the prohibitions, but also the affirmations. The marriage of man and woman is a picture of the full nature of God (as referenced above), and it is the divine plan...according to the Bible, at least. This union is what the Bible affirms and what both OT and NT morality are designed to protect and help flourish. Of course this is not an excuse for real 'homophobia,' whatever that is, or gay bashing, but it does constitute Biblical grounds for condemning the behavior...or so I believe. ;^) Tim _____ -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karey at charter.net Thu Aug 14 21:40:08 2003 From: karey at charter.net (Karey L. Perkins) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 21:40:08 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] The West Wing's comment on Biblical contradictions Message-ID: <000001c362cf$14b58aa0$0301000a@AFAC955012> The text is from the script of a "West Wing" episode; sound clip link included for those who'd rather hear it. Just another take on the whole conversation... (BTW, I wish Bartlett were president - really.) ----- Original Message ----- From: ken denney To: Karey L. Perkins Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 8:55 PM Subject: Re: Fw: [percy-l] Here's the sound clip: http://www.trosch.org/ant/bartlett-00j18.ram The president of the United States was about to address a gathering of radio talk show hosts in the White House. As the president entered the hall, they all stood and applauded. All, that is, except one ? a woman with strikingly blond hair, wearing a bright green suit. At first, her presence rattled the president. He lost his train of thought several times before he finally spoke directly to the sitting talk show host. ?Excuse me, doctor,? the president said to her. ?It?s good to have you here. Are you an M.D.?? ?A Ph.D.,? she retorted smartly. ?In psychology?? he pursued. ?No, sir,? she said. ?Theology?? ?No.? ?Social work?? ?I have a Ph.D. in English literature,? she replied. ?I?m asking,? continued the president, ?because on your show people call in for advice and you go by the title ?doctor,? and I didn?t know if maybe your listeners were confused by that and assumed you had advanced training in psychology, theology, or health care.? ?I don?t believe they are confused. No, sir,? she responded. ?Good,? said the president, raising his voice sarcastically. ?I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality an abomination.? ?I don?t say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President,? she replied haughtily. ?The Bible does.? ?Yes, it does!? he shouted. ?Leviticus 18:22.? The president was just warming up. ?I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I had you here. I?m interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She?s a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be?? After a brief moment, he continued: ?While thinking about that, can I ask another? My chief of staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it OK to call the police?? Now on a roll, the president steamed on triumphantly. ?Here?s one that?s really important, ?cause we?ve got a lot of sports fans in this town. Touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean, Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? ?Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? ?Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? ?Think about those questions, would you? One last thing. While you may be mistaking this for your monthly meeting of the ignorant tight-a** club, in this building when the president stands, nobody sits.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karey at charter.net Thu Aug 14 21:52:05 2003 From: karey at charter.net (Karey L. Perkins) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 21:52:05 -0400 Subject: [percy-l]judgment References: <1E4B441CB5CF9D408D318BC697F086F5014B02E6@olawexc7.naoxy.com> Message-ID: <001b01c362cf$d42172a0$0301000a@AFAC955012> RP, Full of wisdom in its awareness of paradox of ultimate truth. You have said what I have tried and failed to, far more eloquently... KP ----- Original Message ----- From: Robert_Pauley at oxy.com To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 8:58 PM Subject: RE: [percy-l]judgment Dear James: Argumentativeness is no crime in my book. But perhaps some things cannot be squared. Perhaps this is what Simone Weil means when she writes over and again of the beautiful distress of being a Christian. Some things are not reconcilable. It is not a tidy faith. But still how intense the effort to make it so, with all the chapters and verses. It seems to me to be Christian is to be out there, messing up left and right and working at making it better all the time. My chief point is if God engineered this mess he must understand (dare even approve?) of human judgment in all its folly and tragic splendor. Still, to judge someone may be only to make a reasoned conclusion based on one's experience at a given time, and a mutable one, subject to the laws of time and possibility of change. We judge somebody, but we do not say our judgment is final. To do that is also to deny our humanity. I think it is possible to make judgments as an intellectual and moral exercise with practical use while at the same time ultimately depositing our faith in the supreme judgment of a higher authority, or a book if you will. By exercising our judgment with a full awareness, as full a sense of responsibility as we can summon, can't we get closer to God in a way? But I am not a good Christian and believe in my sourer moods that the compulsion to judge on one hand and its proscription on the other may have been one more perverse snare of God's, and not to be taken meekly. To suspend judgment to me is to imitate a vegetable or mineral and not an option. As for the Bible, it is a motley collection of writings, some of it quite lovely and moral, but taken as a whole I wouldn't cede to it any more, and probably less, than I would to the selected writings of Orwell or Percy or, again, Weil. I think it is funny watching people grope with non-judgment. It is amusing in proportion to the zeal which they bring to their high-mindedness. Sooner or later it falls apart. I like being there when it does. It reminds me of "Serenity Now" on Seinfeld, screamed into the sky in futile appeal. It falls apart I think because they are trying to kill the impulse to judge altogether. They cannot. Regards, RP -----Original Message----- From: percy-l-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:percy-l-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of James Piat Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 8:53 PM To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Subject: Re: [percy-l] gay marriage Excellent stuff. To deny our faculty of judgment out of some sense of guilt or to cede it to a higher authority rather than embrace it with all the intelligence and conscience at our disposal is to deny our humanity. I take this as a given, whether Christian or not. RP Dear Robert, Given what you say above, how does a Christian square his humanity with faith in God or the Bible as the revealed word of God -- isn't faith in God and/or the Bible a form of ceding one's faculty of judgment to a higher authority? For example, can a Christian judge the Bible or is the Bible to be taken on faith and one's judgment limited only to determining what the Bible means and whether or not various behaviors are in accord with the teachings of the Bible? I'm not trying to be argumentative here -- I'm really curious how you sort this out. Jim Piat -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From PARLINS at culver.org Thu Aug 14 22:25:21 2003 From: PARLINS at culver.org (Parlin, Steven) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 21:25:21 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] The West Wing's comment on Biblical contradictions Message-ID: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070590F8@exchangeserver.culver.org> Yes...yes, Karey. I saw the episode, and Bartlett was brilliant in his delivery (very nicely crafted by the west wing writers, I must say...it was, I confess, very well done), and the ignorant tight-ass English Phd was of course rendered silent and helpless...of course. Convenient. However, I would like to have seem him tangle with an Orthodox Catholic Theologian, (or anyone who knows his/her way around the bible) on the matter (which the writers obviously knew they couldn't do without repercussions). But, while that would have been more fair, it wouldn't have been very interesting and it wouldn't have served the agenda of the writes of the WW. That is...He wouldn't have been able to proudly say..."Toby...that's how I beat him", for he would have been set straight on his self-stlyed interpretations of scripture --all of which was taken completely out of the context of the Creation and Salvation Narrative. None of what he said really made sense following the incarnation. Those were all proscriptions of the LAW that were done away with, or rather fulfilled and transformed... but natural law is fixed, like gravity. Moreover, the NT is rife with references to homosexuality as an "abomination". Romans, 1 Timothy, 1 Corinthians... But again... its the whole creation and salvation narrative that makes the case for how disordered homosexuality is, not just isolated biblical sound bites. Nevertheless... I agree with you. I'd vote for him too. Steve BTW: I think its a much stronger case to leave Christianity out of this... the Natural Law is unbiased and is quite clear on the matter. Sex is principally for procreation, not recreation. The penis is not designed for the anus. -----Original Message----- From: Karey L. Perkins [mailto:karey at charter.net] Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 8:40 PM To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Subject: [percy-l] The West Wing's comment on Biblical contradictions The text is from the script of a "West Wing" episode; sound clip link included for those who'd rather hear it. Just another take on the whole conversation... (BTW, I wish Bartlett were president - really.) ----- Original Message ----- From: ken denney To: Karey L. Perkins Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 8:55 PM Subject: Re: Fw: [percy-l] Here's the sound clip: http://www.trosch.org/ant/bartlett-00j18.ram The president of the United States was about to address a gathering of radio talk show hosts in the White House. As the president entered the hall, they all stood and applauded. All, that is, except one ? a woman with strikingly blond hair, wearing a bright green suit. At first, her presence rattled the president. He lost his train of thought several times before he finally spoke directly to the sitting talk show host. ?Excuse me, doctor,? the president said to her. ?It?s good to have you here. Are you an M.D.?? ?A Ph.D.,? she retorted smartly. ?In psychology?? he pursued. ?No, sir,? she said. ?Theology?? ?No.? ?Social work?? ?I have a Ph.D. in English literature,? she replied. ?I?m asking,? continued the president, ?because on your show people call in for advice and you go by the title ?doctor,? and I didn?t know if maybe your listeners were confused by that and assumed you had advanced training in psychology, theology, or health care.? ?I don?t believe they are confused. No, sir,? she responded. ?Good,? said the president, raising his voice sarcastically. ?I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality an abomination.? ?I don?t say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President,? she replied haughtily. ?The Bible does.? ?Yes, it does!? he shouted. ?Leviticus 18:22.? The president was just warming up. ?I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I had you here. I?m interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She?s a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be?? After a brief moment, he continued: ?While thinking about that, can I ask another? My chief of staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it OK to call the police?? Now on a roll, the president steamed on triumphantly. ?Here?s one that?s really important, ?cause we?ve got a lot of sports fans in this town. Touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean, Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? ?Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? ?Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? ?Think about those questions, would you? One last thing. While you may be mistaking this for your monthly meeting of the ignorant tight-a** club, in this building when the president stands, nobody sits.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From PARLINS at culver.org Thu Aug 14 22:27:01 2003 From: PARLINS at culver.org (Parlin, Steven) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 21:27:01 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] West Wing Message-ID: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070590F9@exchangeserver.culver.org> Yes...yes, Karey. I saw the episode, and Bartlett was brilliant in his delivery (very nicely crafted by the west wing writers, I must say...it was, I confess, very well done), and the ignorant tight-ass English Phd was of course rendered silent and helpless...of course. Convenient. However, I would like to have seem him tangle with an Orthodox Catholic Theologian, (or anyone who knows his/her way around the bible) on the matter (which the writers obviously knew they couldn't do without repercussions). But, while that would have been more fair, it wouldn't have been very interesting and it wouldn't have served the agenda of the writes of the WW. That is...He wouldn't have been able to proudly say..."Toby...that's how I beat him", for he would have been set straight on his self-stlyed interpretations of scripture --all of which was taken completely out of the context of the Creation and Salvation Narrative. None of what he said really made sense following the incarnation. Those were all proscriptions of the LAW that were done away with, or rather fulfilled and transformed... but natural law is fixed, like gravity. Moreover, the NT is rife with references to homosexuality as an "abomination". Romans, 1 Timothy, 1 Corinthians... But again... its the whole creation and salvation narrative that makes the case for how disordered homosexuality is, not just isolated biblical sound bites. Nevertheless... I agree with you. I'd vote for him too. Steve BTW: I think its a much stronger case to leave Christianity out of this... the Natural Law is unbiased and is quite clear on the matter. Sex is principally for procreation, not recreation. The penis is not designed for the anus. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From PARLINS at culver.org Thu Aug 14 22:31:14 2003 From: PARLINS at culver.org (Parlin, Steven) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 21:31:14 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] God's Gender and Ham Sandwiches Message-ID: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070590FA@exchangeserver.culver.org> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From PARLINS at culver.org Thu Aug 14 22:32:09 2003 From: PARLINS at culver.org (Parlin, Steven) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 21:32:09 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] West Wing Message-ID: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070590FB@exchangeserver.culver.org> Yes...yes, Karey. I saw the episode, and Bartlett was brilliant in his delivery (very nicely crafted by the west wing writers, I must say...it was, I confess, very well done), and the ignorant tight-ass English Phd was of course rendered silent and helpless...of course. Convenient. However, I would like to have seem him tangle with an Orthodox Catholic Theologian, (or anyone who knows his/her way around the bible) on the matter (which the writers obviously knew they couldn't do without repercussions). But, while that would have been more fair, it wouldn't have been very interesting and it wouldn't have served the agenda of the writes of the WW. That is...He wouldn't have been able to proudly say..."Toby...that's how I beat him", for he would have been set straight on his self-stlyed interpretations of scripture --all of which was taken completely out of the context of the Creation and Salvation Narrative. None of what he said really made sense following the incarnation. Those were all proscriptions of the LAW that were done away with, or rather fulfilled and transformed... but natural law is fixed, like gravity. Moreover, the NT is rife with references to homosexuality as an "abomination". Romans, 1 Timothy, 1 Corinthians... But again... its the whole creation and salvation narrative that makes the case for how disordered homosexuality is, not just isolated biblical sound bites. Nevertheless... I agree with you. I'd vote for him too. Steve BTW: I think its a much stronger case to leave Christianity out of this... the Natural Law is unbiased and is quite clear on the matter. Sex is principally for procreation, not recreation. The penis is not designed for the anus. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From PARLINS at culver.org Thu Aug 14 22:33:19 2003 From: PARLINS at culver.org (Parlin, Steven) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 21:33:19 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] God's Gender and Ham Sandwiches Message-ID: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070590FC@exchangeserver.culver.org> Karey... Are you censoring my replies? Steve -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dabeck at iupui.edu Thu Aug 14 22:45:18 2003 From: dabeck at iupui.edu (David Alan Beck) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 21:45:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: [percy-l] West Wing In-Reply-To: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070590FB@exchangeserver.culver.org> Message-ID: Steve, Why are we getting triplicates of your posting?? -DB On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Parlin, Steven wrote: [NON-Text Body part not included] David Beck From piat1 at bellsouth.net Thu Aug 14 22:53:48 2003 From: piat1 at bellsouth.net (James Piat) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 22:53:48 -0400 Subject: [percy-l]judgment References: <1E4B441CB5CF9D408D318BC697F086F5014B02E6@olawexc7.naoxy.com> Message-ID: <007301c362d8$73bfbf30$210110ac@D68RS511> But perhaps some things cannot be squared. Perhaps this is what Simone Weil means when she writes over and again of the beautiful distress of being a Christian. Some things are not reconcilable. It is not a tidy faith. But still how intense the effort to make it so, with all the chapters and verses. It seems to me to be Christian is to be out there, messing up left and right and working at making it better all the time. My chief point is if God engineered this mess he must understand (dare even approve?) of human judgment in all its folly and tragic splendor. Dear Robert, What a treat! I agree with Karey -- I wish I'd said that and in the future I will. A big tent -- I love it. Best wishes, Jim Piat From PARLINS at culver.org Thu Aug 14 22:52:09 2003 From: PARLINS at culver.org (Parlin, Steven) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 21:52:09 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] West Wing Message-ID: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070590FD@exchangeserver.culver.org> Hmmm... Because some of my replies that contradict Karey are not showing up in my inbox, I assumed (wrongly it seems) that I had angered her (isn't she the moderator?), and that she was preventing my postings from going to the list. I owe you an all an apology...but especially Karey. Please forgive my presumption. I'm an ass. Steve -----Original Message----- From: David Alan Beck [mailto:dabeck at iupui.edu] Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 9:45 PM To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Subject: Re: [percy-l] West Wing Steve, Why are we getting triplicates of your posting?? -DB On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Parlin, Steven wrote: [NON-Text Body part not included] David Beck -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy From dabeck at iupui.edu Thu Aug 14 23:21:11 2003 From: dabeck at iupui.edu (David Alan Beck) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 22:21:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: [percy-l] West Wing In-Reply-To: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070590FD@exchangeserver.culver.org> Message-ID: Well, Steve, I'm probably a bigger ass than you (and everyone on the list), but Karey isn't the moderator (and I have found, she doesn't anger easily). I don't know what is in your inbox, but your replies are in mine (and, hey, I'm not complaining--I welcome and appreciate your contributions!!). Actually, I'm not sure who is moderatator, but who cares?? No one is censoring anyone, and I'm having a grand ol' time reading and posting in this lively exchange. But I would like to see some responses to Jim F.'s posting about Elie's book. (This listserv seems to have a quanity of Jims.) I like the book, but haven't had time to get half-way through. But it is good and the Merton and O'Connor sections are worth the price of the book.) So, let's keep the ball rolling (and feel free to be an ass; that's what it's all about (forget the hokey-pokey). -David On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Parlin, Steven wrote: > Hmmm... > > Because some of my replies that contradict Karey are not showing up in my > inbox, I assumed (wrongly it seems) that I had angered her (isn't she the > moderator?), and that she was preventing my postings from going to the list. > > > I owe you an all an apology...but especially Karey. > > Please forgive my presumption. > > I'm an ass. > > Steve > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Alan Beck [mailto:dabeck at iupui.edu] > Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 9:45 PM > To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion > Subject: Re: [percy-l] West Wing > > > Steve, > Why are we getting triplicates of your posting?? > -DB > > On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Parlin, Steven wrote: > > > [NON-Text Body part not included] > > > > David Beck > > > -- > > An archive of all list discussion is available at > http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > > Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > -- > > An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > > Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > > > David Beck From piat1 at bellsouth.net Thu Aug 14 23:35:40 2003 From: piat1 at bellsouth.net (James Piat) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 23:35:40 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] The West Wing's comment on Biblical contradictions References: <000001c362cf$14b58aa0$0301000a@AFAC955012> Message-ID: <00a801c362de$4c8aea60$210110ac@D68RS511> Hey Larry, Did you read Karey's clip from the West wing? The Bartlett character is my idea of a smug, self satisfied prick -- "in this bldg when the president stands nobody sits..." Gimme a break -- an abuse of power. Plain and simple. It's one thing to challenge authority from a position of weakness (however juvenile); but to weild power smugly is -- well, it's not something that pleases me. Nobody needs a smart ass rebuke about "respect" from the most powerful man in the world. Just the opposite is called for -- some show of humility and restraint. That's my take. But obviously others see the Bartlett character differently. That's what makes this discussion so much fun for me. Steve and Karey seem to both like this Bartlett character but disagree about about his theology -- I tend to agree more with Karey's theology than with Steve's (though both know a whole lot more about the Bible than I do) but I disagree with both of them about this Bartlett fellow. Jim Piat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From piat1 at bellsouth.net Thu Aug 14 23:35:50 2003 From: piat1 at bellsouth.net (James Piat) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 23:35:50 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] West Wing References: Message-ID: <00a901c362de$52c5eab0$210110ac@D68RS511> > > Well, Steve, I'm probably a bigger ass than you (and everyone on the > list), Whoa there, David. I know being an ass. Being an ass is a friend of ine --- I'M the biggest ass on this list! Thanks for expressing all that, David. Jim (the one who's an ass, not the other Jims) From PARLINS at culver.org Thu Aug 14 23:35:29 2003 From: PARLINS at culver.org (Parlin, Steven) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 22:35:29 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] West Wing Message-ID: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070590FE@exchangeserver.culver.org> A lot of asses on this list. S -----Original Message----- From: James Piat [mailto:piat1 at bellsouth.net] Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 10:36 PM To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Subject: Re: [percy-l] West Wing > > Well, Steve, I'm probably a bigger ass than you (and everyone on the > list), Whoa there, David. I know being an ass. Being an ass is a friend of ine --- I'M the biggest ass on this list! Thanks for expressing all that, David. Jim (the one who's an ass, not the other Jims) -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy From daveduty at austin.rr.com Fri Aug 15 00:04:19 2003 From: daveduty at austin.rr.com (Dave Duty) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 23:04:19 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] re Paul Elie's book In-Reply-To: <34.3dd113ad.2c6cb973@cs.com> References: <34.3dd113ad.2c6cb973@cs.com> Message-ID: <3F3C5BC3.6010602@austin.rr.com> FYI -- Nikki is a him -- not a her -- and a wonderful guy! As for the Elie book -- I had the pleasure to read it on vacation a few weeks ago and I loved it. Paul is a brilliant researcher, writer, and story teller -- and even better literary critic. I knew Walker and wrote him over a 12 year period -- he was most open and kind to me. So when Paul did not bless all things Percy I bristled a little as I read on -- until I had to agree he, Paul, was right on target. Nikki made a few very positive remarks about the book several moths ago on this listserv. Perhaps this posting will steer the conversation to a move Percyesque bent. Dave Duty JHForest at cs.com wrote: > I'd especially like to ask Nikki her opinion of the portrait of > Walker Percry in Paull Elie's recent book, "The Life You > Save May Be Your Own", but I would be glad to hear comments > from any others on the list who have read it. I'm just over half > way and finding it a splendid read. > > Jim > > * * * > Jim & Nancy Forest > Kanisstraat 5 / 1811 GJ Alkmaar / The Netherlands > Jim's e-mail: > Nancy's e-mail: > tel: (+31-72) 511-2545 / fax: (+31-72) 515-4180 > Orthodox Peace Fellowship web site: http://www.incommunion.org > Jim & Nancy Forest web site: http://www.incommunion.org/home.htm > * * * > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >-- > >An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > >Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From padraig at well.com Fri Aug 15 02:18:30 2003 From: padraig at well.com (Patrick P. Lynch) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 23:18:30 -0700 Subject: [percy-l] The West Wing's comment on Biblical contradictions In-Reply-To: <00a801c362de$4c8aea60$210110ac@D68RS511> References: <000001c362cf$14b58aa0$0301000a@AFAC955012> <00a801c362de$4c8aea60$210110ac@D68RS511> Message-ID: In context of this particular show it needs to be recognized that she was the only reporter not standing in a group that were, by protocol to the office of the President, supposed to stand. She was doing so to make a political statement. His issue is not about her personally but about respect for the office itself, as I see it. Patrick >Hey Larry, > >Did you read Karey's clip from the West wing? The Bartlett >character is my idea of a smug, self satisfied prick -- "in this >bldg when the president stands nobody sits..." Gimme a break -- an >abuse of power. Plain and simple. It's one thing to challenge >authority from a position of weakness (however juvenile); but to >weild power smugly is -- well, it's not something that pleases me. >Nobody needs a smart ass rebuke about "respect" from the most >powerful man in the world. Just the opposite is called for -- some >show of humility and restraint. That's my take. But obviously >others see the Bartlett character differently. That's what makes >this discussion so much fun for me. Steve and Karey seem to both >like this Bartlett character but disagree about about his theology >-- I tend to agree more with Karey's theology than with Steve's >(though both know a whole lot more about the Bible than I do) but I >disagree with both of them about this Bartlett fellow. > >Jim Piat > >-- > >An archive of all list discussion is available at >http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > >Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -- Patrick Lynch (padraig at well.com and padrai6 at comcast.net) "Is it the water or the wave?" John Fowles, -The Magus- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tcole at adobe.com Fri Aug 15 02:45:16 2003 From: tcole at adobe.com (Tim Cole) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 23:45:16 -0700 Subject: [percy-l] West Wing, Works of the Law In-Reply-To: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070590FB@exchangeserver.culver.org> Message-ID: > None of what he said really made sense following the incarnation. Those were > all proscriptions of the LAW that were done away with, or rather fulfilled and > transformed... but natural law is fixed, like gravity. Moreover, the NT is > rife with references to homosexuality as an "abomination". Romans, 1 Timothy, > 1 Corinthians... > There?s an interesting distinction between moral and ceremonial law as described in Paul?s writings that makes for thought provoking reading. James Akin has a popularized version here: > I don?t see anything in the NT that indicates that the moral prescriptions and proscriptions in the OT are done away with. However, the ?Works of the Law,? the works that constituted the distinctive ceremonial markers for the Jews as followers of YHWH were done away with as requirements for gentiles...or so the thinking goes. It?s also the case that the Torah mixes the moral and ceremonial all the time...they?re not cleanly divided and organized in a nice, tidy, Western way...the Torah veers from one type of command to the other in a decidedly Eastern way. > > But again... its the whole creation and salvation narrative that makes the > case for how disordered homosexuality is, not just isolated biblical sound > bites. > The West Wing episode was well done...but it knocks down a straw man. Tim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From LTberrywtr at aol.com Fri Aug 15 08:24:08 2003 From: LTberrywtr at aol.com (LTberrywtr at aol.com) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 08:24:08 EDT Subject: [percy-l] The West Wing's comment on Biblical contradictions Message-ID: <106.263903a8.2c6e2ae8@aol.com> Jim - Exacto. I'm with you on Bartlett. I call the program Left Wing, and find the characters in it insufferable. Not a believable or sympathetic one in the lot. The program presents the liberals' wet dream of what being president would be like. --Larry From armstron at ohiou.edu Fri Aug 15 08:17:58 2003 From: armstron at ohiou.edu (Ken Armstrong) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 08:17:58 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] West Wing In-Reply-To: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070590FD@exchangeserver.cu lver.org> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20030815081555.00bbce60@oak.cats.ohiou.edu> At 09:52 PM 8/14/2003 -0500, you wrote: >Hmmm... > >Because some of my replies that contradict Karey are not showing up in my >inbox, I assumed (wrongly it seems) that I had angered her (isn't she the >moderator?), Just to make the point, no, she's not. Better check your listserv settings. Ken Armstrong From mfrentz at bbn.com Fri Aug 15 08:29:50 2003 From: mfrentz at bbn.com (Mike Frentz) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 08:29:50 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] God's Gender and Ham Sandwiches In-Reply-To: <010001c362a2$70a9dc30$210110ac@D68RS511> References: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070590E6@exchangeserver.culver.org> <5.2.0.9.2.20030814145601.02bf9eb0@po2.bbn.com> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20030815082331.02203998@po2.bbn.com> Dear Jim, I was only pulling your chain a bit (I guess I should have included a smiley -- no offense taken at all), in fact, I was very intrigued by your definition for homophobe (speaking of copyrights, I believe your definition is unique given common abusage of the term :-). I greatly admire your intellectual honesty. This has been an interesting exchange of points of view. Peace, Mike At 04:27 PM 8/14/2003 -0400, James Piat wrote: >Amen. I know of people who are aetheists, sadly, because they can't deal >with the symbolism of a male God, but I also agree entirely with Steve's >characterization that with respect to God, we are all female. It doesn't >bother me at all to be spiritually female, that is the role of Church (and >no, Jim, I'm not a homophobe that I know of.. ) > > >Dear Mike, > >Aside from myself, I didn't mean to call anyone on list homophobic. I was >just offering my opinion, in response to someone's question, as to what >the term might mean -- or at least one of many ways I've heard it >used. I've enjoyed and learned something from everyone's comments -- >including of course yours. > >Best, >Jim p >-- > >An archive of all list discussion is available at >http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > >Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From LTberrywtr at aol.com Fri Aug 15 08:57:50 2003 From: LTberrywtr at aol.com (LTberrywtr at aol.com) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 08:57:50 EDT Subject: [percy-l] The West Wing's comment on Biblical contradictions Message-ID: <167.245b3862.2c6e32ce@aol.com> Jim, et al - Might be fun to kick around the question: What would WP think about West Wing? I'll volunteer to go first. I don't think WP would have liked Bartlett, Toby, Josh, et al any better than he liked Hawkeye and Trapper John ("Thanatos," page 337 - Farrar Straus edition). Talk about your sin of pride. The puffed up little roosters in this program seem to think that everything in the universe - including the alignment of the stars - is determined by what they do. And they want to micromanage everything. (Challenge: Name three aspects of daily life the characters on Left Wing haven't at one time or other talked about passing legislation to control. OK, name one.) The program promotes a form of secular humanism - the particularly vacuous Hollywood branch - all directed out of Washington. Walker was a political liberal for a good deal of his life, but not this branch. Thanks to a life devoted to avoiding legitimate work, I've put in considerable time working in and around politics. It don't work the way it's shown on the program. I'm sure other folks like me, who've actually worked in politics, laugh at the show the same way cops laugh at cop shows. I guess the show can be justified as entertainment, if viewers realize that's what it is. LW gives us some snappy and funny lines, and Donna's sweaters have something to be said for them. But beyond that, it's a dead bang waste of an hour for me. -- Larry From mfrentz at bbn.com Fri Aug 15 09:26:28 2003 From: mfrentz at bbn.com (Mike Frentz) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 09:26:28 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] The West Wing's comment on Biblical contradictions In-Reply-To: <167.245b3862.2c6e32ce@aol.com> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20030815091901.022167a8@po2.bbn.com> I'll have to sit this one out, there's enough left wing fiction in the newspapers that I've never felt compelled to also watch it on TV. Mike At 08:57 AM 8/15/2003 -0400, you wrote: >Jim, et al - > Might be fun to kick around the question: What would WP think about West >Wing? I'll volunteer to go first. > I don't think WP would have liked Bartlett, Toby, Josh, et al any better >than he liked Hawkeye and Trapper John ("Thanatos," page 337 - Farrar Straus >edition). Talk about your sin of pride. The puffed up little roosters in this >program seem to think that everything in the universe - including the >alignment >of the stars - is determined by what they do. And they want to micromanage >everything. (Challenge: Name three aspects of daily life the characters on >Left >Wing haven't at one time or other talked about passing legislation to >control. >OK, name one.) The program promotes a form of secular humanism - the >particularly vacuous Hollywood branch - all directed out of Washington. >Walker was a >political liberal for a good deal of his life, but not this branch. > Thanks to a life devoted to avoiding legitimate work, I've put in >considerable time working in and around politics. It don't work the way >it's shown >on the program. I'm sure other folks like me, who've actually worked in >politics, laugh at the show the same way cops laugh at cop shows. > I guess the show can be justified as entertainment, if viewers realize >that's what it is. LW gives us some snappy and funny lines, and Donna's >sweaters have something to be said for them. But beyond that, it's a dead >bang waste >of an hour for me. >-- Larry >-- > >An archive of all list discussion is available at >http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > >Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy From LTberrywtr at aol.com Fri Aug 15 09:58:13 2003 From: LTberrywtr at aol.com (LTberrywtr at aol.com) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 09:58:13 EDT Subject: [percy-l] preppie twit branch Message-ID: <195.1e6c047e.2c6e40f5@aol.com> Wise choice Mike. In fact, I rarely watch the show myself nowadays. I caught it often in its early days. Field work in my lifetime study of the North American liberal - preppie twit branch (I ran into a fair number of these wastrels when, for a very curious year and change, I worked on Capitol Hill). I guess even early on I knew watching it wasn't the right thing to do. But it's sort of like passing a bad accident on the highway. You know you shouldn't look, but you have a hard time not looking. -- Larry From marcus at loyno.edu Fri Aug 15 12:04:15 2003 From: marcus at loyno.edu (marcus at loyno.edu) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 11:04:15 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] The West Wing's comment on Biblical contradictions Message-ID: <3f3d047f.2980a8.0@loyno.edu> The show I'd like to see would be "West Wing" blended with "The Sopranos." Do the characters on WW ever try to destroy each other? Real players in real political worlds (and law firms, even university departments) do, incessantly. Finally, I knew WP for nearly 20 years and he always had opinions and reactions that veered from what I was sure he'd say about some issue of the day, TV program, etc. His perceptions were very distinctive. That's why he was such an interesting person. I try not to say what WP would say about this or that, because I remember too many instances when I was sure he'd weigh in with a particular POV or position, only to discover that he didn't see something like I thought he would. Marcus Smith > > >Jim, et al - > Might be fun to kick around the question: What would WP think about West >Wing? I'll volunteer to go first. > I don't think WP would have liked Bartlett, Toby, Josh, et al any better >than he liked Hawkeye and Trapper John ("Thanatos," page 337 - Farrar Straus >edition). Talk about your sin of pride. The puffed up little roosters in this >program seem to think that everything in the universe - including the alignment >of the stars - is determined by what they do. And they want to micromanage >everything. (Challenge: Name three aspects of daily life the characters on Left >Wing haven't at one time or other talked about passing legislation to control. >OK, name one.) The program promotes a form of secular humanism - the >particularly vacuous Hollywood branch - all directed out of Washington. Walker was a >political liberal for a good deal of his life, but not this branch. > Thanks to a life devoted to avoiding legitimate work, I've put in >considerable time working in and around politics. It don't work the way it's shown >on the program. I'm sure other folks like me, who've actually worked in >politics, laugh at the show the same way cops laugh at cop shows. > I guess the show can be justified as entertainment, if viewers realize >that's what it is. LW gives us some snappy and funny lines, and Donna's >sweaters have something to be said for them. But beyond that, it's a dead bang waste >of an hour for me. >-- Larry >-- > >An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > >Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > From karey at charter.net Fri Aug 15 15:12:02 2003 From: karey at charter.net (Karey L. Perkins) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 15:12:02 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] God's Gender and Ham Sandwiches References: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070590FC@exchangeserver.culver.org> Message-ID: <002a01c36361$1c3fd9f0$0301000a@AFAC955012> No, I don't know what you mean? I have been getting repeat messages of the same message you are sending though.... Been out all day! Will respond later.... KP ----- Original Message ----- From: Parlin, Steven To: 'Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion' Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 10:33 PM Subject: RE: [percy-l] God's Gender and Ham Sandwiches Karey... Are you censoring my replies? Steve ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karey at charter.net Fri Aug 15 15:24:59 2003 From: karey at charter.net (Karey L. Perkins) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 15:24:59 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] gays, biblical authority and Percy's language theory -- References: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070590FD@exchangeserver.culver.org> Message-ID: <005001c36362$eac15730$0301000a@AFAC955012> No -- I'm certainly no moderator! But I am fascinated by the fact that gays and Biblical authority have garnered so much response, but Percy's language theory doesn't get much interest? There's so much he left unfinished and so much to investigate. If he had lived longer, I think something tremendous might have come out of it -- like, the answer to, what is the interpretant? He died before he could solve it. So, here's what I would discuss if I had the choice... What is the interpretant? Why did he use triangles instead of triads, even when a good argument was given against it? What did Susanne Langer drop that he picked up? (I believe he says what it is in one place, but I lost it somewhere) KP ----- Original Message ----- From: Parlin, Steven To: 'Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion' Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 10:52 PM Subject: RE: [percy-l] West Wing Hmmm... Because some of my replies that contradict Karey are not showing up in my inbox, I assumed (wrongly it seems) that I had angered her (isn't she the moderator?), and that she was preventing my postings from going to the list. I owe you an all an apology...but especially Karey. Please forgive my presumption. I'm an ass. Steve -----Original Message----- From: David Alan Beck [mailto:dabeck at iupui.edu] Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 9:45 PM To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Subject: Re: [percy-l] West Wing Steve, Why are we getting triplicates of your posting?? -DB On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Parlin, Steven wrote: [NON-Text Body part not included] David Beck -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mfrentz at bbn.com Fri Aug 15 16:04:04 2003 From: mfrentz at bbn.com (Mike Frentz) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 16:04:04 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] gays, biblical authority and Percy's language theory -- In-Reply-To: <005001c36362$eac15730$0301000a@AFAC955012> References: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070590FD@exchangeserver.culver.org> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20030815153101.029f3b38@po2.bbn.com> Karey, re your first question -- this paper was "discovered" yesterday and floated on the peirce-l list (though the paper is four years old, I wasn't aware of it either and I'm a big fan of Deacon). Interesting coupling of the "reproductive properties" of memes in terms of semiosis (interpretant spawning yet another sign). Terrence W. Deacon, Memes as Signs http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/epc/srb/srb/10-3edit.html Unfortunately the two other books he comments on as upcoming in "Note 10" still aren't to be found. Floyd Merrel's 1997 book on Peirce, Signs, and Meaning is also quite an interesting read in this area. re the second question -- I personally think this whole notion is irrelevant, as long as the triangle is interpreted by the area rather than the edges, all vertices are connected to the other two, a dyadic relationships aren't necessarily implied to me by this. I find it interesting that Peirce doesn't really seem to have used either notation in his various descriptions of the same concepts (at least not in the Collected Papers), yet he his existential graphs are nothing less than a graphical computer. BTW, a *great* reference for anyone attempting to surf the CP on their own is Charles S. Peirce's Philosophy of Signs: Essays in Comparative Semiotics (Advances in Semiotics) by Gerard Deledalle, 2001 (Deledalle, a French philosopher who did much to bring CSP to Europe's attention, just died a few months back). Like having a Fodor's to the CSP wilderness (I think WP would have loved to have had this book) I find it striking how different research is today because of the web vs. when Percy was working this a little over a decade ago (per Ketner's Thief of Peirce dialogues). Also, a lot of work has been done in this area since his death. re the third question: I dunno? I'd be interested if you do find the reference. I have on occasion started to look up Langer's work but came away with the impression that she had drifted so far off in less Pe*rc*an directions that aren't of particular interest to me that I've never followed through on what it was that Percy was fond of in Langer's work wrt CSP's legacy. Best, Mike At 03:24 PM 8/15/2003 -0400, you wrote: >No -- I'm certainly no moderator! But I am fascinated by the fact that >gays and Biblical authority have garnered so much response, but Percy's >language theory doesn't get much interest? There's so much he left >unfinished and so much to investigate. If he had lived longer, I think >something tremendous might have come out of it -- like, the answer to, >what is the interpretant? He died before he could solve it. > >So, here's what I would discuss if I had the choice... > >What is the interpretant? > >Why did he use triangles instead of triads, even when a good argument was >given against it? > >What did Susanne Langer drop that he picked up? (I believe he says what >it is in one place, but I lost it somewhere) > >KP > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Parlin, Steven >To: 'Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical >Discussion' >Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 10:52 PM >Subject: RE: [percy-l] West Wing > >Hmmm... > >Because some of my replies that contradict Karey are not showing up in my >inbox, I assumed (wrongly it seems) that I had angered her (isn't she the >moderator?), and that she was preventing my postings from going to the list. > > >I owe you an all an apology...but especially Karey. > >Please forgive my presumption. > >I'm an ass. > >Steve > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: David Alan Beck [mailto:dabeck at iupui.edu] >Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 9:45 PM >To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion >Subject: Re: [percy-l] West Wing > > >Steve, >Why are we getting triplicates of your posting?? >-DB > >On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Parlin, Steven wrote: > > > [NON-Text Body part not included] > > > >David Beck > > >-- > >An archive of all list discussion is available at >http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > >Visit the Walker Percy Project at >http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy >-- > >An archive of all list discussion is available at >http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > >Visit the Walker Percy Project at >http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy >-- > >An archive of all list discussion is available at >http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > >Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From PARLINS at culver.org Fri Aug 15 16:56:08 2003 From: PARLINS at culver.org (Parlin, Steven) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 15:56:08 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] gays, biblical authority and Percy's language theor y -- Message-ID: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE07059104@exchangeserver.culver.org> I agree, Karey, that the list should resume it's course... but this matter of "gay marriage" is not totally unrelated... a discussion of the word "marriage" and whether or not we can have it mean whatever we want it to mean is, I think, very relevant. By redifining it, we are transforming our understanding of it, and the larger repercussions will be devastating (historically, the breakdown of family has always preceded the collapse of a civilization). I don't think we should be tampering with it so willy-nilly. And, for this reason, I was not entering this discussion for "recreational" reasons. Marriage (and family), is one of the fundamental pillars of civilized society. As for the triangles and triads, could you or else someone bring us back up to speed on where that discussion left off, a brief summary would be helpful too. BTW: I can't open the link: http ://www.chass.utoronto.ca/epc/srb/srb/10-3edit.html even when I paste in manually. Steve -----Original Message----- From: Mike Frentz [mailto:mfrentz at bbn.com] Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 3:04 PM To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Subject: Re: [percy-l] gays, biblical authority and Percy's language theory -- Karey, re your first question -- this paper was "discovered" yesterday and floated on the peirce-l list (though the paper is four years old, I wasn't aware of it either and I'm a big fan of Deacon). Interesting coupling of the "reproductive properties" of memes in terms of semiosis (interpretant spawning yet another sign). Terrence W. Deacon, Memes as Signs http ://www.chass.utoronto.ca/epc/srb/srb/10-3edit.html Unfortunately the two other books he comments on as upcoming in "Note 10" still aren't to be found. Floyd Merrel's 1997 book on Peirce, Signs, and Meaning is also quite an interesting read in this area. re the second question -- I personally think this whole notion is irrelevant, as long as the triangle is interpreted by the area rather than the edges, all vertices are connected to the other two, a dyadic relationships aren't necessarily implied to me by this. I find it interesting that Peirce doesn't really seem to have used either notation in his various descriptions of the same concepts (at least not in the Collected Papers), yet he his existential graphs are nothing less than a graphical computer. BTW, a *great* reference for anyone attempting to surf the CP on their own is Charles S. Peirce's Philosophy of Signs: Essays in Comparative Semiotics (Advances in Semiotics) by Gerard Deledalle, 2001 (Deledalle, a French philosopher who did much to bring CSP to Europe's attention, just died a few months back). Like having a Fodor's to the CSP wilderness (I think WP would have loved to have had this book) I find it striking how different research is today because of the web vs. when Percy was working this a little over a decade ago (per Ketner's Thief of Peirce dialogues). Also, a lot of work has been done in this area since his death. re the third question: I dunno? I'd be interested if you do find the reference. I have on occasion started to look up Langer's work but came away with the impression that she had drifted so far off in less Pe*rc*an directions that aren't of particular interest to me that I've never followed through on what it was that Percy was fond of in Langer's work wrt CSP's legacy. Best, Mike At 03:24 PM 8/15/2003 -0400, you wrote: No -- I'm certainly no moderator! But I am fascinated by the fact that gays and Biblical authority have garnered so much response, but Percy's language theory doesn't get much interest? There's so much he left unfinished and so much to investigate. If he had lived longer, I think something tremendous might have come out of it -- like, the answer to, what is the interpretant? He died before he could solve it. So, here's what I would discuss if I had the choice... What is the interpretant? Why did he use triangles instead of triads, even when a good argument was given against it? What did Susanne Langer drop that he picked up? (I believe he says what it is in one place, but I lost it somewhere) KP ----- Original Message ----- From: Parlin, Steven To: 'Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion' Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 10:52 PM Subject: RE: [percy-l] West Wing Hmmm... Because some of my replies that contradict Karey are not showing up in my inbox, I assumed (wrongly it seems) that I had angered her (isn't she the moderator?), and that she was preventing my postings from going to the list. I owe you an all an apology...but especially Karey. Please forgive my presumption. I'm an ass. Steve -----Original Message----- From: David Alan Beck [ mailto:dabeck at iupui.edu ] Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 9:45 PM To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Subject: Re: [percy-l] West Wing Steve, Why are we getting triplicates of your posting?? -DB On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Parlin, Steven wrote: [NON-Text Body part not included] David Beck -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Robert_Pauley at oxy.com Fri Aug 15 19:24:06 2003 From: Robert_Pauley at oxy.com (Robert_Pauley at oxy.com) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 16:24:06 -0700 Subject: [percy-l] The West Wing's comment on Biblical contradictions Message-ID: <1E4B441CB5CF9D408D318BC697F086F5014B02EB@olawexc7.naoxy.com> I agree with Jim P and find the show insufferable. Bartlett's performance in the press conference was a classic bit of rigged liberal dramaturgy, the wet-dream dressing down worked up by the smart-ass editor of the Berkeley Univ. rag in his shabby office after a long night successfully killing all opposing-view submissions. Or Aaron Sorkin -- not that much different. The scene is also a total distortion of reality, of how something like that might really play out. I think Percy would have had a ball taking potshots at this new wave of liberals, the Sorkins, Robbins, Penns, their putative humanism and yet near contempt for a person who doesn't agree with them. Best, RP -----Original Message----- From: percy-l-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:percy-l-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Patrick P. Lynch Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 11:19 PM To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Subject: Re: [percy-l] The West Wing's comment on Biblical contradictions In context of this particular show it needs to be recognized that she was the only reporter not standing in a group that were, by protocol to the office of the President, supposed to stand. She was doing so to make a political statement. His issue is not about her personally but about respect for the office itself, as I see it. Patrick Hey Larry, Did you read Karey's clip from the West wing? The Bartlett character is my idea of a smug, self satisfied prick -- "in this bldg when the president stands nobody sits..." Gimme a break -- an abuse of power. Plain and simple. It's one thing to challenge authority from a position of weakness (however juvenile); but to weild power smugly is -- well, it's not something that pleases me. Nobody needs a smart ass rebuke about "respect" from the most powerful man in the world. Just the opposite is called for -- some show of humility and restraint. That's my take. But obviously others see the Bartlett character differently. That's what makes this discussion so much fun for me. Steve and Karey seem to both like this Bartlett character but disagree about about his theology -- I tend to agree more with Karey's theology than with Steve's (though both know a whole lot more about the Bible than I do) but I disagree with both of them about this Bartlett fellow. Jim Piat -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -- Patrick Lynch (padraig at well.com and padrai6 at comcast.net) "Is it the water or the wave?" John Fowles, -The Magus- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From LTberrywtr at aol.com Sat Aug 16 08:15:22 2003 From: LTberrywtr at aol.com (LTberrywtr at aol.com) Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 08:15:22 EDT Subject: [percy-l] The West Wing's comment on Biblical contradictions Message-ID: <15f.247eb901.2c6f7a5a@aol.com> Jim -- Exactly. Bartlett out Hawkeyes Haweye. -- Larry From marcus at loyno.edu Sat Aug 16 10:54:14 2003 From: marcus at loyno.edu (marcus at loyno.edu) Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 14:54:14 GMT Subject: [percy-l] "West Wing" and shadows of the "Real" Message-ID: <3f3e4596.1c9.1ee0dc.20155@loyno.edu> There's an article worth reading in The New Left Review. Some ideology, but more semiotics. Despite focus problems, I would have recommended it to WP. Here's an excerpt and the link. Marcus Smith ********************************* SUSAN WILLIS EMPIRE?S SHADOW ?The elaborate underground system of bunkers is not the only shadow government. The Bush White House is also paralleled by the fictional presidency of Josiah Bartlett in NBC?s West Wing. Inaugurated during the Clinton era, Martin Sheen?s rendition of the president was a left-liberal dream. While Clinton was busy instituting a neo-conservative economic agenda and driving coffin nails into welfare and health care, Jed Bartlett was fighting to maintain the country?s social-safety net. Because The West Wing was so clearly Clinton?s foil, many devoted viewers felt the show would lose its relevance with the Bush presidency. The fictional Bartlett and the real Bush would simply be polar opposites, unable to generate grist for utopian desires. ?While West Wing narratives are indeed liberal fantasies, the key to understanding the role the show plays may be found in yet another fictional shadow government. Unveiled on CBS?s 60 Minutes, a revival of Point, Counterpoint is a weekly wrangle between Clinton and Bob Dole. In their debates, the former president and the former presidential candidate shadow the Bush government with alternative visions of what once was or might have been. Thus, viewers can experience a full range of parallel realities (for example, Bartlett intervenes to prevent a Rwanda-like genocide), all the while de-realizing the Bush narrative. Here, the question is not which presidency is a fiction and which real, or whether the unseen vice president is the true puppet master. Rather, the structure of all these clones reveals what many Americans believe to be the truth of the Bush presidency, that it is itself a fiction produced out of voter fraud and Supreme Court chicanery.? http://www.newleftreview.net/NLR25604.shtml From karey at charter.net Sat Aug 16 12:16:49 2003 From: karey at charter.net (Karey L. Perkins) Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 12:16:49 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] Peirce/Percy References: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070590FD@exchangeserver.culver.org> <5.2.0.9.2.20030815153101.029f3b38@po2.bbn.com> Message-ID: <000001c36417$892c40b0$0301000a@AFAC955012> Mike, Thanks for the references, that was just what I was looking for. The Peirce literature is so comprehensive it's overwhelming, and unlike my studies of Percy, I have no idea where to start. I almost didn't do this topic because I am not trained in semiotics (semeiotics?) and most of this is now self taught. But I have been reading "American Signatures" which says that most semioticians are self taught (as was Percy). So I'm not alone, but I still don't have a clear path of reading mapped out. Percy says in several places that Susanne Langer dropped the ball and he intended to pick it up -- he says it in the essays, the conversations, etc. But only one place do I recall that he actually says WHAT she dropped -- what she missed. I believe it was early in my reading, in "Message," but I don't remember what it was and I'm going to have to go back and look. I thought someone else might have been familiar with it. Peirce, unlike Percy, was eagerly ready to reject that which did not conform to "the method of science" as a manner of fixing belief. So he rejected the "method of tradition" "method of authority" and "method of fashion." The infallibility of the Catholic church would fall under those. And if anyone has read Peirce's "Fixation of Belief," which was the first essay I read, Peirce clearly asserts that the idea of transubstantiation just can't be. I don't know if he continued with this opinion or not for the rest of his life, as it seems he changed as he grew older. However, this is clearly contradictory to Percy's beliefs, and explains why Percy called himself only a "Thief of Peirce" rather than embracing Peirce's whole philosophy. Still, Percy gives no reason (that I have found) for rejecting the triad in favor of the triangle. Your solution of viewing the AREA of the triangle as the triadic content is one resolution to the problem, but was Percy viewing it that way? I think he wanted to put it all on the interpretant (one point of the triangle) to differentiate it from dyadic behavior and to say something special was happening there, within the interpretant. That's where the triadic event was taking place. But then why do we need the idea of the triangle at all? It gets back to Cartesian dualism (something non-material is within man) and this is why I think Percy was expressing in his letters to Ken Ketner some doubt as to whether Peirce's triads (notwithstanding Peirce's other writings) could refute Descartes. However, I don't quite get how Peirce's triads solve the problem either. Just some things I'm wondering about. I am interested in the work that has been done on this after Percy. Any way to find out what that is? KP ----- Original Message ----- From: Mike Frentz To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 4:04 PM Subject: Re: [percy-l] gays, biblical authority and Percy's language theory -- Karey, re your first question -- this paper was "discovered" yesterday and floated on the peirce-l list (though the paper is four years old, I wasn't aware of it either and I'm a big fan of Deacon). Interesting coupling of the "reproductive properties" of memes in terms of semiosis (interpretant spawning yet another sign). Terrence W. Deacon, Memes as Signs http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/epc/srb/srb/10-3edit.html Unfortunately the two other books he comments on as upcoming in "Note 10" still aren't to be found. Floyd Merrel's 1997 book on Peirce, Signs, and Meaning is also quite an interesting read in this area. re the second question -- I personally think this whole notion is irrelevant, as long as the triangle is interpreted by the area rather than the edges, all vertices are connected to the other two, a dyadic relationships aren't necessarily implied to me by this. I find it interesting that Peirce doesn't really seem to have used either notation in his various descriptions of the same concepts (at least not in the Collected Papers), yet he his existential graphs are nothing less than a graphical computer. BTW, a *great* reference for anyone attempting to surf the CP on their own is Charles S. Peirce's Philosophy of Signs: Essays in Comparative Semiotics (Advances in Semiotics) by Gerard Deledalle, 2001 (Deledalle, a French philosopher who did much to bring CSP to Europe's attention, just died a few months back). Like having a Fodor's to the CSP wilderness (I think WP would have loved to have had this book) I find it striking how different research is today because of the web vs. when Percy was working this a little over a decade ago (per Ketner's Thief of Peirce dialogues). Also, a lot of work has been done in this area since his death. re the third question: I dunno? I'd be interested if you do find the reference. I have on occasion started to look up Langer's work but came away with the impression that she had drifted so far off in less Pe*rc*an directions that aren't of particular interest to me that I've never followed through on what it was that Percy was fond of in Langer's work wrt CSP's legacy. Best, Mike At 03:24 PM 8/15/2003 -0400, you wrote: No -- I'm certainly no moderator! But I am fascinated by the fact that gays and Biblical authority have garnered so much response, but Percy's language theory doesn't get much interest? There's so much he left unfinished and so much to investigate. If he had lived longer, I think something tremendous might have come out of it -- like, the answer to, what is the interpretant? He died before he could solve it. So, here's what I would discuss if I had the choice... What is the interpretant? Why did he use triangles instead of triads, even when a good argument was given against it? What did Susanne Langer drop that he picked up? (I believe he says what it is in one place, but I lost it somewhere) KP ----- Original Message ----- From: Parlin, Steven To: 'Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion' Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 10:52 PM Subject: RE: [percy-l] West Wing Hmmm... Because some of my replies that contradict Karey are not showing up in my inbox, I assumed (wrongly it seems) that I had angered her (isn't she the moderator?), and that she was preventing my postings from going to the list. I owe you an all an apology...but especially Karey. Please forgive my presumption. I'm an ass. Steve -----Original Message----- From: David Alan Beck [mailto:dabeck at iupui.edu] Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 9:45 PM To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Subject: Re: [percy-l] West Wing Steve, Why are we getting triplicates of your posting?? -DB On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Parlin, Steven wrote: [NON-Text Body part not included] David Beck -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From PARLINS at culver.org Sat Aug 16 16:09:52 2003 From: PARLINS at culver.org (Parlin, Steven) Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 15:09:52 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] gays, biblical authority and Percy's language theor y -- Message-ID: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE07059108@exchangeserver.culver.org> Karey, I am imensely interested in Percy's language theory, and I hope to resume that discussion either concurrently or a little later. But, I am also matters of eathly concern. On the one hand, inquirey into theory is exciting, fun, and even necessary. Let's roll up our sleaves. But, let us not become like that scientist Percy mentions in Lost in the Cosmos who spends all of his time in the abstacted orbit of theory never being able to successfuly achieve re-entry. Homsexuality, among the many deviant sexual behaviors, is one of the most odd behaviors in the Cosmos. I think it's worthy, even necessary, to wrestle with this...especially since it's impossible to ignore it. in fact, this is my point...It's really only possible to entertain the idea of homosexual marriage when we are in orbit and lost. We have lost our moorings. The center is not holding. We really don't understand ourselves -- We are indeed the strangest of cosmic phenomena. [For fun-- I adapted the below dialogue from a few excerpts in Lost in the Cosmos] Interviewer: Are you more confused about sexuality than any other phenomenon in the Cosmos? Subject: What do you mean? Interviewer: I mean... gay marriage? C'mon. Subject: I don't follow...what's wrong with it. It's no different than any other marriage. It's all about love after all. Interviewer: Love? Is sex necessary for love? And, is marriage a necessary arrangement for love? Isn't marriage primarily for ensuring the health and well-being of family life; that is, for having and rasing children...obviously homosexuality... Subject: Well...if you mean do gay lovers need to get married, no they don't. . Interviewer: If there's no real need, then why the fuss? Homosexuals have been "loving" each other for centuries. Why now the need for marriage? Subject: Ceremony, validation, recognition...they have rights you know. And why not? Interviewer: Why? Subject: Why not? Interviewer: I asked you first. Subject: Well...there's nothing wrong with it, and they deserve the same benefits as other married couples. Interviewer: Such as. Subject: Taxes...health care... you know Interviewer: I see. Subject: They have rights. Interviewer: I see. Just like two friends living together. Why not call that a marriage too? Subject: No...that's different. Interviewer: How? Subject: Well...two friends aren't a couple; they aren't in love. Interviewer: Hmmm...so the state should only give benefits to people who are in love. Subject: No...not just in love...committed. Interviewer: Friends can be committed...so can brothers...sisters... I'm even committed to my cat. Subject: But that's different. Interviewer: How? Subject: Well... homosexuals love each other in a special way. Interviewer: You mean they please each other sexually. Subject: No...they're "intimate". Interviewer: I see...how do you measure that? Even though I'm not sleeping with him, I'm probably more "intimate" with my best friend than a lot married men and women. Subject: It's different. Interviewer: Perhaps....but how? Can you explain it? Subject: No...but... I mean...It's still perfectly natural. At least as much as heterosexual marriage. Interviewer: Perfectly natural? Subject: Yeah Interviewer: Can you explain why it is that men and women exhibit sexual behavior undreamed of among the other several million species, with every conceivable sexual relation between persons [or animals] or with only one person [their self] or between a male and female, or between two male persons, or two female persons, or two males and one femaile, or two females and one male; relationships moreover which can implicate every orifice and appendage of the human body and which bear no relation to the reproduction and survival of the species? Subject: No. Interviewer: Odd isn't it? Is this sort of behavior natural? Subject: I dunno...but heterosexual desires...well, some of those aren't exactly "natural" either. Interviewer: True, heterosexuals can be just as depraved. But then isn't that why marriage is so important for helping to keep these behaviors in order... if for no other reason than for the sake of rasing children? Subect: Perhaps....but there's still nothing WRONG with homosexual marriage. Interviewer: That's another mattter... But what about the children? Isn't child-reering natural AND necessary? Subject: Yeah... but homosexuals can adopt. In fact, they can adopt children that heterosexuals have discarded. Interviewer: Hmm...that's an interesting point, and a shame that there are some children who need to be adopted...but aside from not knowing what affect this would have on children, isn't it obvious that without heterosexuals there wouldn't be any children at all? No next generation. No one to adopt? Subject: Science is changing all that. Interviewer: I see. Subject: And, I never said that homosexual marriage should replace heterosexual marriage. Interviewer: No, but we still haven't figured out what homosexual marriage means...how is it different than any two people living together. Moreover, I was making a point. That is, I was illustrating that marriage is necessary for raising children. Subject: Government is changing all that. Interviewer: I see. -----Original Message----- From: Karey L. Perkins [mailto:karey at charter.net] Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 2:25 PM To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Subject: [percy-l] gays, biblical authority and Percy's language theory -- No -- I'm certainly no moderator! But I am fascinated by the fact that gays and Biblical authority have garnered so much response, but Percy's language theory doesn't get much interest? There's so much he left unfinished and so much to investigate. If he had lived longer, I think something tremendous might have come out of it -- like, the answer to, what is the interpretant? He died before he could solve it. So, here's what I would discuss if I had the choice... What is the interpretant? Why did he use triangles instead of triads, even when a good argument was given against it? What did Susanne Langer drop that he picked up? (I believe he says what it is in one place, but I lost it somewhere) KP ----- Original Message ----- From: Parlin, Steven To: 'Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion' Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 10:52 PM Subject: RE: [percy-l] West Wing Hmmm... Because some of my replies that contradict Karey are not showing up in my inbox, I assumed (wrongly it seems) that I had angered her (isn't she the moderator?), and that she was preventing my postings from going to the list. I owe you an all an apology...but especially Karey. Please forgive my presumption. I'm an ass. Steve -----Original Message----- From: David Alan Beck [mailto:dabeck at iupui.edu] Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 9:45 PM To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Subject: Re: [percy-l] West Wing Steve, Why are we getting triplicates of your posting?? -DB On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Parlin, Steven wrote: [NON-Text Body part not included] David Beck -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Nikkibar at aol.com Sun Aug 17 01:32:05 2003 From: Nikkibar at aol.com (Nikkibar at aol.com) Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 01:32:05 EDT Subject: [percy-l] God's Gender and Ham Sandwiches Message-ID: <6.1704cb6d.2c706d55@aol.com> My word, What another sensible observation from Karey. Keep those cards and letters coming boys and girls. And others. Nikki Barranger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From piat1 at bellsouth.net Sun Aug 17 12:49:52 2003 From: piat1 at bellsouth.net (James Piat) Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 12:49:52 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] Peirce/Percy References: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070590FD@exchangeserver.culver.org><5.2.0.9.2.20030815153101.029f3b38@po2.bbn.com> <000001c36417$892c40b0$0301000a@AFAC955012> Message-ID: <001701c364df$94ad8430$210110ac@D68RS511> Percy says in several places that Susanne Langer dropped the ball and he intended to pick it up -- he says it in the essays, the conversations, etc. But only one place do I recall that he actually says WHAT she dropped -- what she missed. I believe it was early in my reading, in "Message," but I don't remember what it was and I'm going to have to go back and look. I thought someone else might have been familiar with it. Dear Karey, Perhaps the passage you are looking for is on page 220 of _The Message in the Bottle_ . A footnote in Percy's essay "Culture: The Antinomy of the Scientific Method". "As Susanne Langer says, we may, if we like, interpret language as a sequence of events entailing signs, sounds in the air, vibrations of ear drums, nerve excitation, brain events, response and so on. All this does happen. But something has been left out and it is the most important thing of all. It is that the symbol symbolizes something." Cheers, Jim Piat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From piat1 at bellsouth.net Sun Aug 17 14:57:14 2003 From: piat1 at bellsouth.net (James Piat) Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 14:57:14 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] In and About the world References: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070590FD@exchangeserver.culver.org><5.2.0.9.2.20030815153101.029f3b38@po2.bbn.com><000001c36417$892c40b0$0301000a@AFAC955012> <001701c364df$94ad8430$210110ac@D68RS511> Message-ID: <003d01c364f1$5fa30140$210110ac@D68RS511> Dear Folks, I think Percy talks a bit about the notion of having a world and the distinction between an event occuring "in" the world vs talking "about" or symbolizing such an event. Granted symbolizing occurs in part as an event "in" the world but symbolizing is also a way of stepping back from the world and talking "about" events that are merely "in" (and not one step back so to speak) from the world. The question is: How does this seeming ability to partially transcend the world arise and what are its theological, philosophical and psychological implications. Fundamental to this discussion is of course the distinction between the nature of an event which is merely "in" the world vs an event such as symbolizing which is "about" events in the world. That these are in principle two fundamentally different kinds of events is (it seems to me) one of the first and main points Percy attempts to get across and is a theme he repeatedly returns to in both his essays and novels. Unless I misunderstand him he concludes or strongly hints that the ability to symbolize is at least for him a powerfully persausive sign of God's presense in the world. Something of this specific point is I think is also coveryed in the Biblical parable of the Garden of Eden. When man eats of the apple he becomes in some ways god like in the sense of being able to step back from events in the world and evaluate them against a moral criteria. Without the ability to step back from the world of which he was a part man could not have discerned the "aboutness" of moral judgments and was thus previously unaware of their existence. One more elaboration and I'll stop -- seems to me Percy was also very keen on exploring how the insights of the existentialist helped reveal the nature of symbolization. I agree and one of the reasons I do is because I believe that symbolization is a kind of meta knowledge or knowledge about knowledge. Specifically I believe that the ability to symbolize itself ultimately gave rise to the knowledge of existence (as a generalization from specific experiences of objects being present and absent in time and space) and that this is the key to the riddle of consciousness. Consciousness is knowledge of the "existence" of objects not mere aquaintance with the the objects themselves. Hope all this hasn't been two circular or otherwise inchoherent. Just trying to stir up and join the discussion of symbolization which is also a favorite topic of mine. Cheers, Jim Piat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From PARLINS at culver.org Sun Aug 17 15:00:53 2003 From: PARLINS at culver.org (Parlin, Steven) Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 14:00:53 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Judgement and Pride Message-ID: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE0705910A@exchangeserver.culver.org> Again, our problem is not that we judge too much, but too little...far far too little. We are too tolerant of wrongful behaviors, (and the Church is no exception to this). If a parishoner admonishes (judges) a priest for fondling her teenage son/daughter, is that prideful? (Apropos, I think...this hideous scandal was only possible because of a LACK of judging by Church authorities!!! And look at the terrible consequences!!!). If a woman admonishes (judges) her next door neighbor for showing the neighborhood children pornographic pictures, is that "prideful"? If a parent admonishes (judges) a boy for kicking the dog...is that "prideful"? If a teacher admonishes (judges) a student for cheating, is that "prideful"? If a friend admonishes (judges) his diabetic friend for eating too much ice cream, is that "prideful"? If a pastor or priest admonishes a couple for having adulterous swinger parties because it's not only unhealthy for their relationship (and their children's well-being), but because it's scandalous and unhealthy for the community (for it flies in the face of healthy social structure evidenced in all socieities, and not merely supported by theology but also history and research and dare I say common sense), is that prideful? If a man admonishes his friend for having incestuous relations with own his daughter, is that prideful? If a woman admonishes her friend for her promiscuity, is that prideful? HARDLY...in each case (and there are an infinite number of cases like this) they are acts of LOVE...fierce and courageous acts of love. AND they are absolutely NECESSARY. Karey... we MUST judge. In each of the above cases the person doing the judging obviously sees a little clearer than the person being judged. True, we should not attempt to remove the speck from another's eye until the plank has been removed from our own. For example, if I were sleeping with 20 different women, some of who were married, I could hardly judge my friend for cheating on his wife. But, if I then stopped philandering...l could...and indeed must... admonish him for his adultery ---out of LOVE for him (and his family). In each of the above cases, the plank HAS (more or less) been removed from the eye of the person who is doing the judging, at least in so far as the plank obscures one's ability to see that particular wrong. It's wrong to kick a dog; wrong to molest; wrong to cheat; wrong to risk one's health; wrong to show porno to children; wrong to do any number of things. Moreover, in each case above the person doing the judging has not determined the wrongness of the behavior on his/her own. The rightness or wrongness is clear and self-evident. Why? Among other things, our experience and common sense which is informed, or at least directed, by the Natural Moral Law. (Which is as changeless as the law of gravity, by the way, and great harm is done to those who ignore it's binding properties). However, if no one were to point these wrongs out --Indeed if they are enthusiatically inverted-- the clarity can become muddled and less and less self-evident. And is demonstrated with the recent priest scandal....terrible harm is done. This is what has happened with homosexuality --or any number of deviant or immodest or behaviors. Unless this sort of behavior is challenged, only great harm can come of it. Now, there is no question that men and women feel overwhelmingly compelled to their own sex. But, that alone means absolutely nothing. Homosexuality is a deviant and unhealthy expression of love. There are people who fell overwhelmingly compelled toward food, acts of agression, little children, etc... So, in the same way that violence is a deviant and unhealthy expression of anger, homosexulaity is a deviant and unhealthy expression of love. Simply because the impulse is there, no matter how overwhelming it may be, acting on it is wrong and harmful. It's harmful to those involved and to society. And, so long as I can resist acting out my own perverted desires (keep the plank out of my own eye), I will continue to judge the perverted behaviors of others. In fact, I am counting on others to judge me, for I am weak...and were it not for the accountability that I have to the judgements of my community, family, friends, God and church... well... I would be a very bad boy. Steve -----Original Message----- From: Karey L. Perkins [mailto:karey at charter.net] Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 1:39 PM To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Subject: Re: [percy-l] God's Gender and Ham Sandwiches Tim - Thanks for the reasoned response - quick reply: You say we should judge for ourselves what is right and wrong. Yes - but to apply to our own behavior. (And, as a side note, it's a complicated involved and thoughtful process that isn't simply listening to what someone else says or a "literal interpretation of the Bible" (since it seems clear we've established that "literal" meanings vary depending on who's reading them - we here can't even decide on the meaning of "marriage" or "homophobe" or etc.). ) However, I don't think we do much good for anyone, including ourselves, by judging others -- if we're busy taking the mote out of another's eye often we have a log in our own - as someone on the list already said. We have so many more important things to do for them. (Jesus declared our most important admonishments are to love God first, and our neighbor and ourselves next.) Do you really think the fact that the Pharisees never questioned Jesus about homosexuality is the reason that he never mentioned it? Are all the things we have recorded about Jesus in direct response to the Pharisees or issues of the day? I was being slightly facetious with the cross-dressing and ham sandwich thing (as I guess you picked up) - the point was we go around violating God's law probably multiple times every day and others could just as easily admonish US for that. Better to pay attention to our own behavior than try to change others'.... If we judge them, we put ourselves above them (pride - the greatest sin), and usually we're not paying attention to what we need to do spiritually ourselves. Paul's comments were more culturally determined (the "po-mo-phobes" in the bunch will probably hate that remark) and much of what he said regarding social groups and social arrangements (women, homosexuality, marriage, dressing, etc.) can be read as influenced by his social context. Do you want to hear MY judgment (since I'm being accused of the "sin" of postmodernism by withholding it)? OK, let's get technical here: Dante places the sexual sinners in the first or second (I forget which one, but it's early) circle of his Inferno. That's because the sexual sins (adultery, etc.) are a kind of "missing the mark" of the greatest virtue, love. And that's where our homos would go IF indeed Paul is right that they are sinning. But those guilty of the sin of pride are MUCH further down in Dante's scheme. I'm with Dante on this (who was decidedly un-po-mo). KP ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim Cole To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 1:56 PM Subject: Re: [percy-l] God's Gender and Ham Sandwiches In addition, the surrounding words of this name of God have feminine inflection, further emphasizing the feminine nature of this side of God. I think it's reasonable to think that God is a mix of what we would label both male and female traits...and it has implications in what Genesis says about marriage between man and woman. In Jewish tradition, to say that God is only male and not female is blasphemy because it is limiting God. Agreed. We see through a glass darkly... And I firmly believe not only should we not judge, but we accomplish nothing (only harm) by judging. We are called to love. We are also called to discern, test the spirits, test doctrine, hold fast to that which is good. We can't do that without making moral or epistemic judgments. If you're saying that not judging means not being able to do this, then I disagree and think you have problems with both the OT and NT in what it affirms and commands with regard to conduct. I think what we're told not to do is judge the hearts of others...things that only God can know. Jesus also never said anything against homosexuality. Which is not surprising since there wasn't a gay rights movement in 1st century Palestine. It wasn't an issue, like divorce, around which there was much theological debate. The Pharisees tested Jesus on the hot potatoes of the day...homosexuality wasn't one of them because Hebraic culture and theology condemned it una Leviticus DOES say a man shall not lay with a man as a woman, but the literal interpretation means "DRESSED" as a woman (hence literally it's a polemic against cross-dressing???)(!). The literal interpretation of what word(s) in Leviticus 18 or 20, exactly? Shakab means to lie with sexually. Odd that an admonition about cross dressing would be so badly misinterpreted by Jewish scholars for so many centuries. ;^) Leviticus says it's an "abomination" for a man to lay with a man as a woman. However, Leviticus says exactly the same thing about eating pork - that is, uses exactly the same word - translated an "abomination" - to describe the act of eating pork. At the risk of getting sidetracked into a protracted debate about the Bible and homosexuality, the revisionist arguments of Boswell and others have been refuted thoroughly and frequently. Suffice it to say that ham and cross-dressing comparison isn't valid (there are both ceremonial and ethical abominations...they are different...one is associated with the Works of the Law that defined Jewishness [and about which Peter had to be sorted out via a vision in light of Gentile believers], the other is a fluxless universal ethical standard), and the Biblical teaching in the subject goes way beyond the statements in Leviticus. There's Romans 1, and, perhaps more importantly, there's the description of marriage in Genesis. You can understand the Biblical position on homosexuality not just based on the prohibitions, but also the affirmations. The marriage of man and woman is a picture of the full nature of God (as referenced above), and it is the divine plan...according to the Bible, at least. This union is what the Bible affirms and what both OT and NT morality are designed to protect and help flourish. Of course this is not an excuse for real 'homophobia,' whatever that is, or gay bashing, but it does constitute Biblical grounds for condemning the behavior...or so I believe. ;^) Tim _____ -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From PARLINS at culver.org Sun Aug 17 15:28:33 2003 From: PARLINS at culver.org (Parlin, Steven) Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 14:28:33 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] In and About the world Message-ID: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE0705910B@exchangeserver.culver.org> Jim, I think you're on to something with Percy's conclusions about the ability to "symbolize" as evidence of God's presence. Moreover...I think there is a very strong connection to the Incarnation --which is one reason why Gnosticism is so offensive. The Incarnation is God's embodied pronouncement of the eternal Word, Jesus. In some way...God "spoke", he uttered THE WORD (see Genesis and John's Gospel), and through this the world was created. And then later in a more precise way, Jesus was made...The word made flesh. I haven't seen Percy describe it just this way, but if he has please let me know... A theory that I have been trying to work out (hardly unique since John has mostly outlined it in his Gospel) is that somehow, concepts (and our words for them) are "conceived" in our thoughts in much the same way that Jesus (THE WORD) was conceived in Mary...which is also why she was a virgin. The creation of the world is a mystery to us, and so it is with the creation of Jesus in Mary's womb (I like to think also that Mary had made her particularly receptive to God's inpregnation in her prayers...which is what prayer is, making ones self available). More than just real human persons who figure importantly in our history, Mary and Jesus are also manifestations of much larger cosmic truths; and they show the way God works in our very language. In love, especially when we make ourselves available in prayer, silence, and contemplation, we are somehow "impregnated" by our creator, and we "conceive" of ideas, intuitions, feelings, perceptions, etc, ...and we then give birth to words. (This is one reason why I am holding to our Creator's masculine nature, at least in so far as it demonstrates our relationship to him...Of course God is not a man, nor a woman. God is both and neither. Nothing sexist about viewing it this way...It's merely fitting). This is also, I believe, why humans are so unique among the beasts -- our ability to use language in this particular way. Cheers! Steve -----Original Message----- From: James Piat [mailto:piat1 at bellsouth.net] Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2003 1:57 PM To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Subject: [percy-l] In and About the world Dear Folks, I think Percy talks a bit about the notion of having a world and the distinction between an event occuring "in" the world vs talking "about" or symbolizing such an event. Granted symbolizing occurs in part as an event "in" the world but symbolizing is also a way of stepping back from the world and talking "about" events that are merely "in" (and not one step back so to speak) from the world. The question is: How does this seeming ability to partially transcend the world arise and what are its theological, philosophical and psychological implications. Fundamental to this discussion is of course the distinction between the nature of an event which is merely "in" the world vs an event such as symbolizing which is "about" events in the world. That these are in principle two fundamentally different kinds of events is (it seems to me) one of the first and main points Percy attempts to get across and is a theme he repeatedly returns to in both his essays and novels. Unless I misunderstand him he concludes or strongly hints that the ability to symbolize is at least for him a powerfully persausive sign of God's presense in the world. Something of this specific point is I think is also coveryed in the Biblical parable of the Garden of Eden. When man eats of the apple he becomes in some ways god like in the sense of being able to step back from events in the world and evaluate them against a moral criteria. Without the ability to step back from the world of which he was a part man could not have discerned the "aboutness" of moral judgments and was thus previously unaware of their existence. One more elaboration and I'll stop -- seems to me Percy was also very keen on exploring how the insights of the existentialist helped reveal the nature of symbolization. I agree and one of the reasons I do is because I believe that symbolization is a kind of meta knowledge or knowledge about knowledge. Specifically I believe that the ability to symbolize itself ultimately gave rise to the knowledge of existence (as a generalization from specific experiences of objects being present and absent in time and space) and that this is the key to the riddle of consciousness. Consciousness is knowledge of the "existence" of objects not mere aquaintance with the the objects themselves. Hope all this hasn't been two circular or otherwise inchoherent. Just trying to stir up and join the discussion of symbolization which is also a favorite topic of mine. Cheers, Jim Piat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From piat1 at bellsouth.net Sun Aug 17 16:37:16 2003 From: piat1 at bellsouth.net (James Piat) Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 16:37:16 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] In and About the world References: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE0705910B@exchangeserver.culver.org> Message-ID: <007001c364ff$5911e950$210110ac@D68RS511> I haven't seen Percy describe it just this way, but if he has please let me know... A theory that I have been trying to work out (hardly unique since John has mostly outlined it in his Gospel) is that somehow, concepts (and our words for them) are "conceived" in our thoughts in much the same way that Jesus (THE WORD) was conceived in Mary...which is also why she was a virgin. The creation of the world is a mystery to us, and so it is with the creation of Jesus in Mary's womb (I like to think also that Mary had made her particularly receptive to God's inpregnation in her prayers...which is what prayer is, making ones self available). Dear Steve, Off hand I don't recall Percy putting it quite that way (doesn't mean he didn't), but my sense is that his body of work is consistent with the spirit of what you are outlining above -- especially the notion of conception (of life or symbols) being a manifestation of the divine. Peirce said humans were themselves symbols and I think Percy agreed. In fact I think both Percy and Peirce viewed all symbols and semiosis as the most compelling manifestation of the divine -- or proof of the existence of something beyond the mere material or ideational. A third that ties or couples the two together. Best, Jim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karey at charter.net Sun Aug 17 17:16:27 2003 From: karey at charter.net (Karey L. Perkins) Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 17:16:27 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] Peirce/Percy References: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070590FD@exchangeserver.culver.org><5.2.0.9.2.20030815153101.029f3b38@po2.bbn.com><000001c36417$892c40b0$0301000a@AFAC955012> <001701c364df$94ad8430$210110ac@D68RS511> Message-ID: <001201c36504$d28ee300$0301000a@AFAC955012> Thanks...I think that's what I was looking for. But again, it's still pretty mysterious. KP ----- Original Message ----- From: James Piat To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2003 12:49 PM Subject: Re: [percy-l] Peirce/Percy Percy says in several places that Susanne Langer dropped the ball and he intended to pick it up -- he says it in the essays, the conversations, etc. But only one place do I recall that he actually says WHAT she dropped -- what she missed. I believe it was early in my reading, in "Message," but I don't remember what it was and I'm going to have to go back and look. I thought someone else might have been familiar with it. Dear Karey, Perhaps the passage you are looking for is on page 220 of _The Message in the Bottle_ . A footnote in Percy's essay "Culture: The Antinomy of the Scientific Method". "As Susanne Langer says, we may, if we like, interpret language as a sequence of events entailing signs, sounds in the air, vibrations of ear drums, nerve excitation, brain events, response and so on. All this does happen. But something has been left out and it is the most important thing of all. It is that the symbol symbolizes something." Cheers, Jim Piat ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From piat1 at bellsouth.net Sun Aug 17 18:03:45 2003 From: piat1 at bellsouth.net (James Piat) Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 18:03:45 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] Judgement and Pride References: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE0705910A@exchangeserver.culver.org> Message-ID: <008001c3650b$6e0542b0$210110ac@D68RS511> Re: [percy-l] God's Gender and Ham SandwichesDear Steve, Karey... we MUST judge. In each of the above cases the person doing the judging obviously sees a little clearer than the person being judged. >>maybe so, but could it be that he just pridefully imagines he sees more clearly? True, we should not attempt to remove the speck from another's eye until the plank has been removed from our own. For example, if I were sleeping with 20 different women, some of who were married, I could hardly judge my friend for cheating on his wife. But, if I then stopped philandering...l could...and indeed must... admonish him for his adultery ---out of LOVE for him >>Steve I don't see how admonishing others for some wrongdoing must necessarily follow from not engaging in the wrongful >>behavior oneself. Does it also follow that not admonishing others is evidence that one is himself engaged in the wrongful >>behavior? Something seems fishy about the logic of this to me. Perhaps I've misunderstood. I'll grant you that we must try to >>discern and judge the consequences of acts (both our own and others) but must we as well take it upon ourselves to admonish >>those we don't agree with -- isn't this better left to their parents or their own consciences? Plus, in my experience punishment >>only supresses behavior; it doesn't teach new behavior -- only love can do that. Or so it seems to me. Cheers, Jim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From piat1 at bellsouth.net Sun Aug 17 18:05:34 2003 From: piat1 at bellsouth.net (James Piat) Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 18:05:34 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] Peirce/Percy References: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070590FD@exchangeserver.culver.org><5.2.0.9.2.20030815153101.029f3b38@po2.bbn.com><000001c36417$892c40b0$0301000a@AFAC955012><001701c364df$94ad8430$210110ac@D68RS511> <001201c36504$d28ee300$0301000a@AFAC955012> Message-ID: <009301c3650b$aecb23a0$210110ac@D68RS511> Yes, very mysterious to me as well! Jim Thanks...I think that's what I was looking for. But again, it's still pretty mysterious. KP -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From PARLINS at culver.org Sun Aug 17 18:24:52 2003 From: PARLINS at culver.org (Parlin, Steven) Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 17:24:52 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Judgement and Pride Message-ID: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE07059111@exchangeserver.culver.org> Given the examples I provided, Jim... is there any argument that the person doing the judging is seeing more clearly? I mean...C'mon. I didn't say that admonitions must come from those not engaged in the behavior. Nor did I imply that. But, it would be the height of hypocrisy to judge others before removing the plank. Also, I never said anything about punishment... but only corrective admonition and love-based intervention. LOVE, is what I said, Jim, not punitive measures. Steve -----Original Message----- From: James Piat [mailto:piat1 at bellsouth.net] Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2003 5:04 PM To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Subject: Re: [percy-l] Judgement and Pride Dear Steve, Karey... we MUST judge. In each of the above cases the person doing the judging obviously sees a little clearer than the person being judged. >>maybe so, but could it be that he just pridefully imagines he sees more clearly? True, we should not attempt to remove the speck from another's eye until the plank has been removed from our own. For example, if I were sleeping with 20 different women, some of who were married, I could hardly judge my friend for cheating on his wife. But, if I then stopped philandering...l could...and indeed must... admonish him for his adultery ---out of LOVE for him >>Steve I don't see how admonishing others for some wrongdoing must necessarily follow from not engaging in the wrongful >>behavior oneself. Does it also follow that not admonishing others is evidence that one is himself engaged in the wrongful >>behavior? Something seems fishy about the logic of this to me. Perhaps I've misunderstood. I'll grant you that we must try to >>discern and judge the consequences of acts (both our own and others) but must we as well take it upon ourselves to admonish >>those we don't agree with -- isn't this better left to their parents or their own consciences? Plus, in my experience punishment >>only supresses behavior; it doesn't teach new behavior -- only love can do that. Or so it seems to me. Cheers, Jim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From piat1 at bellsouth.net Sun Aug 17 18:47:58 2003 From: piat1 at bellsouth.net (James Piat) Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 18:47:58 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] Judgement and Pride References: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE07059111@exchangeserver.culver.org> Message-ID: <00a601c36511$9acf6b80$210110ac@D68RS511> Re: [percy-l] God's Gender and Ham SandwichesGood points all, Steve. I stand corrected ... oops, I mean LOVED As are you. Jim Given the examples I provided, Jim... is there any argument that the person doing the judging is seeing more clearly? I mean...C'mon. I didn't say that admonitions must come from those not engaged in the behavior. Nor did I imply that. But, it would be the height of hypocrisy to judge others before removing the plank. Also, I never said anything about punishment... but only corrective admonition and love-based intervention. LOVE, is what I said, Jim, not punitive measures. Steve -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From PARLINS at culver.org Sun Aug 17 18:50:46 2003 From: PARLINS at culver.org (Parlin, Steven) Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 17:50:46 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Judgement and Pride Message-ID: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE07059115@exchangeserver.culver.org> Bueno. Peace. Steve -----Original Message----- From: James Piat [mailto:piat1 at bellsouth.net] Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2003 5:48 PM To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Subject: Re: [percy-l] Judgement and Pride Good points all, Steve. I stand corrected ... oops, I mean LOVED As are you. Jim Given the examples I provided, Jim... is there any argument that the person doing the judging is seeing more clearly? I mean...C'mon. I didn't say that admonitions must come from those not engaged in the behavior. Nor did I imply that. But, it would be the height of hypocrisy to judge others before removing the plank. Also, I never said anything about punishment... but only corrective admonition and love-based intervention. LOVE, is what I said, Jim, not punitive measures. Steve -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From armstron at ohiou.edu Sun Aug 17 19:28:20 2003 From: armstron at ohiou.edu (Ken Armstrong) Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 19:28:20 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] In and About the world In-Reply-To: <003d01c364f1$5fa30140$210110ac@D68RS511> References: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070590FD@exchangeserver.culver.org> <5.2.0.9.2.20030815153101.029f3b38@po2.bbn.com> <000001c36417$892c40b0$0301000a@AFAC955012> <001701c364df$94ad8430$210110ac@D68RS511> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20030817185400.02698970@oak.cats.ohiou.edu> Jim, Steve, Karey, This is a terrific discussion, especially this post from Jim. I'm wondering if I can add a complication that is hopefully not a confusion. It seems to me, too, that the event Percy is dealing with in his triadic relationship is symbolization. Jim makes good points about what the ability to symbolize does in giving us distance from and therefore some measure of power over what it is that we symbolize. But what is mysterious about it or what keeps it mysterious is that we get "distance from" while even more "participating in" the event symbolized. In this respect, it is we, too, who are symbolized in the actualization of a triadic event. It is one of those things that might be seen as contradictory or as paradoxical: by gaining distance from and knowledge of something, we participate in it more deeply. Or maybe deeply is not the right word. Problem come when one aspect or the other is emphasized to the diminishment or exclusion of the other (the old culture vs. science contretemps). But as Jim notes, we know that we know (thus the beaming smile on the young child in Percy's example when he says the word "ball!"). I think Peirce's problem with transubstantiation might (I emphasize "might") have been his concentrating on the leverage gained over physical events and the expectations raised to the exclusion of the event of communion. Steve said "This is also, I believe, why humans are so unique among the beasts -- our ability to use language in this particular way." Hmm. I seem to be stuck in Steve's blue font. Oh well. Steve, I'm not sure I'm quite following your statement quoted above as it follows your quick outline of conception. It seems to me as though in your example it is not we who are using language, but God. That is just an observation. What I think Percy and many others say about language is that it is a human activity; the beasts don't have language. Period. BTW, I think this is only a phenomenological judgement, not a value judgement, tho it is not untied to the reason human beings have dominion over the beasts. Speaking of which, mine won't stop barking, so adieu for now. Ken Armstrong At 02:57 PM 8/17/2003 -0400, you wrote: >Dear Folks, > >I think Percy talks a bit about the notion of having a world and the >distinction between an event occuring "in" the world vs talking "about" or >symbolizing such an event. Granted symbolizing occurs in part as an event >"in" the world but symbolizing is also a way of stepping back from the >world and talking "about" events that are merely "in" (and not one step >back so to speak) from the world. The question is: How does this seeming >ability to partially transcend the world arise and what are its >theological, philosophical and psychological implications. > >Fundamental to this discussion is of course the distinction between the >nature of an event which is merely "in" the world vs an event such as >symbolizing which is "about" events in the world. That these are in >principle two fundamentally different kinds of events is (it seems to me) >one of the first and main points Percy attempts to get across and is a >theme he repeatedly returns to in both his essays and novels. From dabeck at iupui.edu Sun Aug 17 20:16:04 2003 From: dabeck at iupui.edu (David Alan Beck) Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 19:16:04 -0500 (EST) Subject: [percy-l] In and About the world In-Reply-To: <007001c364ff$5911e950$210110ac@D68RS511> Message-ID: Jim P., I agree with this and your previous posting. As for the incarnational aspect, isn't that where Marcel comes in? Some secondary sources (I can't remember who--that was back in my graduate schools days) point out the incarnational aspect of Marcel's writings. But, if "the other" leads us to a greater realization of our selves, isn't there something incarnational about our encounters with others (of course, Buber and Levinas have a similar view, without the incarnational understanding (at least not in the Christian sense). But I think that is what Marcel is getting at in Creative Fidelity and Being and Having. I wish I had more time to pull out my Marcel books and revisit them, but the semester begins on Wednesday, and I need to buckle down and get ready (no time for this fun stuff--the hoofbeats are approaching!). -David On Sun, 17 Aug 2003, James Piat wrote: [NON-Text Body part not included] David Beck From piat1 at bellsouth.net Sun Aug 17 23:52:38 2003 From: piat1 at bellsouth.net (James Piat) Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 23:52:38 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] In and About the world References: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070590FD@exchangeserver.culver.org><5.2.0.9.2.20030815153101.029f3b38@po2.bbn.com><000001c36417$892c40b0$0301000a@AFAC955012><001701c364df$94ad8430$210110ac@D68RS511> <5.1.0.14.2.20030817185400.02698970@oak.cats.ohiou.edu> Message-ID: <00e201c3653c$3e37bff0$210110ac@D68RS511> Dear Ken, Thanks for the kind remark. > Jim makes good points about what the ability > to symbolize does in giving us distance from and therefore some measure of > power over what it is that we symbolize. But what is mysterious about it or > what keeps it mysterious is that we get "distance from" while even more > "participating in" the event symbolized. In this respect, it is we, too, > who are symbolized in the actualization of a triadic event. Yes, I agree. I think that symbolization somehow creates or depends upon the ability to "step back" and with it the realization that both oneself, the symbolizer, and the object symbolized exist in a world. With this awareness of existence comes also a sense of our participation in the world along with the objects we symbolize. -- A kind of reverence and closest for all of God's creation, so to speak. It is one of > those things that might be seen as contradictory or as paradoxical: by > gaining distance from and knowledge of something, we participate in it more > deeply. Or maybe deeply is not the right word. Problem come when one aspect > or the other is emphasized to the diminishment or exclusion of the other > (the old culture vs. science contretemps). Yes yes. > I think Peirce's problem with transubstantiation > might (I emphasize "might") have been his concentrating on the leverage > gained over physical events and the expectations raised to the exclusion of > the event of communion. Oh I think Peirce was just being cranky -- he seemed to have a thing about the infallability of the Pope. I think he was plenty capable of appreciating the communion aspect of symbolization (including transubstantiation) but chose instead on this occassion to become literal to make a point. > > Steve said "This is also, I believe, why humans are so unique among the > beasts -- our ability to use language in this particular way." > > Hmm. I seem to be stuck in Steve's blue font. Oh well. Steve, I'm not > sure I'm quite following your statement quoted above as it follows > your quick outline of conception. It seems to me as though in your example > it is not we who are using language, but God. I think that Peirce sometimes spoke of man "partaking" in the process of symbolization rather than conceiving symbols from scratch. Just as we don't ourselves create life but we participate in it's conception. Maybe we partake of God when we use language. In a way it is God speaking. We swim in a semiotic sea of which we are also part -- but we have not ourselves created the sea. Just a thought. Thanks again for the encouragement, Ken -- you sure you want to do that! Cheers, Jim From PARLINS at culver.org Mon Aug 18 11:47:29 2003 From: PARLINS at culver.org (Parlin, Steven) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 10:47:29 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] In and About the world Message-ID: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE07059119@exchangeserver.culver.org> Jim wrote: I think that Peirce sometimes spoke of man "partaking" in the process of symbolization rather than conceiving symbols from scratch. Just as we don't ourselves create life but we participate in it's conception. Maybe we partake of God when we use language. In a way it is God speaking. We swim in a semiotic sea of which we are also part -- but we have not ourselves created the sea. Just a thought. Well stated Jim. Saves me a reply. My school year is gearing up... beginning of the year stuff. Much to the delight of some of you, I'll not be reporting to the list at any great length for awhile. And, I was having so much fun.... I'll must likely still be lurking a little, though. Til then, Steve -----Original Message----- From: James Piat [mailto:piat1 at bellsouth.net] Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2003 10:53 PM To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Subject: Re: [percy-l] In and About the world Dear Ken, Thanks for the kind remark. > Jim makes good points about what the ability > to symbolize does in giving us distance from and therefore some measure of > power over what it is that we symbolize. But what is mysterious about it or > what keeps it mysterious is that we get "distance from" while even more > "participating in" the event symbolized. In this respect, it is we, too, > who are symbolized in the actualization of a triadic event. Yes, I agree. I think that symbolization somehow creates or depends upon the ability to "step back" and with it the realization that both oneself, the symbolizer, and the object symbolized exist in a world. With this awareness of existence comes also a sense of our participation in the world along with the objects we symbolize. -- A kind of reverence and closest for all of God's creation, so to speak. It is one of > those things that might be seen as contradictory or as paradoxical: by > gaining distance from and knowledge of something, we participate in it more > deeply. Or maybe deeply is not the right word. Problem come when one aspect > or the other is emphasized to the diminishment or exclusion of the other > (the old culture vs. science contretemps). Yes yes. > I think Peirce's problem with transubstantiation > might (I emphasize "might") have been his concentrating on the leverage > gained over physical events and the expectations raised to the exclusion of > the event of communion. Oh I think Peirce was just being cranky -- he seemed to have a thing about the infallability of the Pope. I think he was plenty capable of appreciating the communion aspect of symbolization (including transubstantiation) but chose instead on this occassion to become literal to make a point. > > Steve said "This is also, I believe, why humans are so unique among the > beasts -- our ability to use language in this particular way." > > Hmm. I seem to be stuck in Steve's blue font. Oh well. Steve, I'm not > sure I'm quite following your statement quoted above as it follows > your quick outline of conception. It seems to me as though in your example > it is not we who are using language, but God. I think that Peirce sometimes spoke of man "partaking" in the process of symbolization rather than conceiving symbols from scratch. Just as we don't ourselves create life but we participate in it's conception. Maybe we partake of God when we use language. In a way it is God speaking. We swim in a semiotic sea of which we are also part -- but we have not ourselves created the sea. Just a thought. Thanks again for the encouragement, Ken -- you sure you want to do that! Cheers, Jim -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy From mfrentz at bbn.com Mon Aug 18 11:55:00 2003 From: mfrentz at bbn.com (Mike Frentz) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 11:55:00 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] gays, biblical authority and Percy's language theor y -- In-Reply-To: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE07059104@exchangeserver.cu lver.org> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20030818114455.02167d30@po2.bbn.com> Steve. I agree entirely with your recognition and focus on this gay marriage agenda as being potentially watershed event "down the slippery slope" for the culture. This is not something to be ignored in the name of pseudo "tolerance" to be observed by all except by the Christianophobes (copyright 2003) :-). Try the Toronto link again -- I initially had problems getting to this (possibly related to the power crisis up North). I have no problems reaching it now (even worked from your forwarded message). http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/epc/srb/srb/10-3edit.html Mike At 03:56 PM 8/15/2003 -0500, Parlin, Steven wrote: >I agree, Karey, that the list should resume it's course... but this matter >of "gay marriage" is not totally unrelated... a discussion of the word >"marriage" and whether or not we can have it mean whatever we want it to >mean is, I think, very relevant. By redifining it, we are transforming our >understanding of it, and the larger repercussions will be devastating >(historically, the breakdown of family has always preceded the collapse of >a civilization). I don't think we should be tampering with it so willy-nilly. > >And, for this reason, I was not entering this discussion for >"recreational" reasons. Marriage (and family), is one of the fundamental >pillars of civilized society. > >As for the triangles and triads, could you or else someone bring us back >up to speed on where that discussion left off, a brief summary would be >helpful too. > >BTW: I can't open the link: >http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/epc/srb/srb/10-3edit.html even when I paste >in manually. > >Steve > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Mike Frentz [mailto:mfrentz at bbn.com] >Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 3:04 PM >To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion >Subject: Re: [percy-l] gays, biblical authority and Percy's language theory -- > >Karey, > >re your first question -- this paper was "discovered" yesterday and >floated on the peirce-l list (though the paper is four years old, I wasn't >aware of it either and I'm a big fan of Deacon). Interesting coupling of >the "reproductive properties" of memes in terms of semiosis (interpretant >spawning yet another sign). > >Terrence W. Deacon, Memes as Signs > http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/epc/srb/srb/10-3edit.html > >Unfortunately the two other books he comments on as upcoming in "Note 10" >still aren't to be found. Floyd Merrel's 1997 book on Peirce, Signs, and >Meaning is also quite an interesting read in this area. > >re the second question -- I personally think this whole notion is >irrelevant, as long as the triangle is interpreted by the area rather than >the edges, all vertices are connected to the other two, a dyadic >relationships aren't necessarily implied to me by this. I find it >interesting that Peirce doesn't really seem to have used either notation >in his various descriptions of the same concepts (at least not in the >Collected Papers), yet he his existential graphs are nothing less than a >graphical computer. BTW, a *great* reference for anyone attempting to >surf the CP on their own is >Charles >S. Peirce's Philosophy of Signs: Essays in Comparative Semiotics (Advances >in Semiotics) >by Gerard Deledalle, 2001 (Deledalle, a French philosopher who did much to >bring CSP to Europe's attention, just died a few months back). Like >having a Fodor's to the CSP wilderness (I think WP would have loved to >have had this book) > >I find it striking how different research is today because of the web vs. >when Percy was working this a little over a decade ago (per Ketner's Thief >of Peirce dialogues). Also, a lot of work has been done in this area >since his death. > >re the third question: I dunno? I'd be interested if you do find the >reference. I have on occasion started to look up Langer's work but came >away with the impression that she had drifted so far off in less Pe*rc*an >directions that aren't of particular interest to me that I've never >followed through on what it was that Percy was fond of in Langer's work >wrt CSP's legacy. > > >Best, >Mike > > >At 03:24 PM 8/15/2003 -0400, you wrote: >>No -- I'm certainly no moderator! But I am fascinated by the fact that >>gays and Biblical authority have garnered so much response, but Percy's >>language theory doesn't get much interest? There's so much he left >>unfinished and so much to investigate. If he had lived longer, I think >>something tremendous might have come out of it -- like, the answer to, >>what is the interpretant? He died before he could solve it. >> >>So, here's what I would discuss if I had the choice... >> >>What is the interpretant? >> >>Why did he use triangles instead of triads, even when a good argument was >>given against it? >> >>What did Susanne Langer drop that he picked up? (I believe he says what >>it is in one place, but I lost it somewhere) >> >>KP >> >> >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: Parlin, Steven >>To: 'Percy-L: Literary and >>Philosophical Discussion' >>Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 10:52 PM >>Subject: RE: [percy-l] West Wing >> >>Hmmm... >> >>Because some of my replies that contradict Karey are not showing up in my >>inbox, I assumed (wrongly it seems) that I had angered her (isn't she the >>moderator?), and that she was preventing my postings from going to the list. >> >> >>I owe you an all an apology...but especially Karey. >> >>Please forgive my presumption. >> >>I'm an ass. >> >>Steve >> >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: David Alan Beck [mailto:dabeck at iupui.edu] >>Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 9:45 PM >>To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion >>Subject: Re: [percy-l] West Wing >> >> >>Steve, >>Why are we getting triplicates of your posting?? >>-DB >> >>On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Parlin, Steven wrote: >> >> >> [NON-Text Body part not included] >> >> >> >>David Beck >> >> >>-- >> >>An archive of all list discussion is available at >>http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail >> >>Visit the Walker Percy Project at >>http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy >>-- >> >>An archive of all list discussion is available at >>http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail >> >>Visit the Walker Percy Project at >>http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy >>-- >> >>An archive of all list discussion is available at >>http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail >> >>Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > >-- > >An archive of all list discussion is available at >http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > >Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From PARLINS at culver.org Mon Aug 18 11:58:49 2003 From: PARLINS at culver.org (Parlin, Steven) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 10:58:49 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] gays, biblical authority and Percy's language theor y -- Message-ID: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE0705911C@exchangeserver.culver.org> Thanks Mike. Steve -----Original Message----- From: Mike Frentz [mailto:mfrentz at bbn.com] Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 10:55 AM To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Subject: RE: [percy-l] gays, biblical authority and Percy's language theor y -- Steve. I agree entirely with your recognition and focus on this gay marriage agenda as being potentially watershed event "down the slippery slope" for the culture. This is not something to be ignored in the name of pseudo "tolerance" to be observed by all except by the Christianophobes (copyright 2003) :-). Try the Toronto link again -- I initially had problems getting to this (possibly related to the power crisis up North). I have no problems reaching it now (even worked from your forwarded message). http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/epc/srb/srb/10-3edit.html Mike At 03:56 PM 8/15/2003 -0500, Parlin, Steven wrote: I agree, Karey, that the list should resume it's course... but this matter of "gay marriage" is not totally unrelated... a discussion of the word "marriage" and whether or not we can have it mean whatever we want it to mean is, I think, very relevant. By redifining it, we are transforming our understanding of it, and the larger repercussions will be devastating (historically, the breakdown of family has always preceded the collapse of a civilization). I don't think we should be tampering with it so willy-nilly. And, for this reason, I was not entering this discussion for "recreational" reasons. Marriage (and family), is one of the fundamental pillars of civilized society. As for the triangles and triads, could you or else someone bring us back up to speed on where that discussion left off, a brief summary would be helpful too. BTW: I can't open the link: http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/epc/srb/srb/10-3edit.html even when I paste in manually. Steve -----Original Message----- From: Mike Frentz [ mailto:mfrentz at bbn.com ] Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 3:04 PM To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Subject: Re: [percy-l] gays, biblical authority and Percy's language theory -- Karey, re your first question -- this paper was "discovered" yesterday and floated on the peirce-l list (though the paper is four years old, I wasn't aware of it either and I'm a big fan of Deacon). Interesting coupling of the "reproductive properties" of memes in terms of semiosis (interpretant spawning yet another sign). Terrence W. Deacon, Memes as Signs http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/epc/srb/srb/10-3edit.html Unfortunately the two other books he comments on as upcoming in "Note 10" still aren't to be found. Floyd Merrel's 1997 book on Peirce, Signs, and Meaning is also quite an interesting read in this area. re the second question -- I personally think this whole notion is irrelevant, as long as the triangle is interpreted by the area rather than the edges, all vertices are connected to the other two, a dyadic relationships aren't necessarily implied to me by this. I find it interesting that Peirce doesn't really seem to have used either notation in his various descriptions of the same concepts (at least not in the Collected Papers), yet he his existential graphs are nothing less than a graphical computer. BTW, a *great* reference for anyone attempting to surf the CP on their own is Charles S. Peirce's Philosophy of Signs: Essays in Comparative Semiotics (Advances in Semiotics) by Gerard Deledalle, 2001 (Deledalle, a French philosopher who did much to bring CSP to Europe's attention, just died a few months back). Like having a Fodor's to the CSP wilderness (I think WP would have loved to have had this book) I find it striking how different research is today because of the web vs. when Percy was working this a little over a decade ago (per Ketner's Thief of Peirce dialogues). Also, a lot of work has been done in this area since his death. re the third question: I dunno? I'd be interested if you do find the reference. I have on occasion started to look up Langer's work but came away with the impression that she had drifted so far off in less Pe*rc*an directions that aren't of particular interest to me that I've never followed through on what it was that Percy was fond of in Langer's work wrt CSP's legacy. Best, Mike At 03:24 PM 8/15/2003 -0400, you wrote: No -- I'm certainly no moderator! But I am fascinated by the fact that gays and Biblical authority have garnered so much response, but Percy's language theory doesn't get much interest? There's so much he left unfinished and so much to investigate. If he had lived longer, I think something tremendous might have come out of it -- like, the answer to, what is the interpretant? He died before he could solve it. So, here's what I would discuss if I had the choice... What is the interpretant? Why did he use triangles instead of triads, even when a good argument was given against it? What did Susanne Langer drop that he picked up? (I believe he says what it is in one place, but I lost it somewhere) KP ----- Original Message ----- From: Parlin, Steven To: 'Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion' Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 10:52 PM Subject: RE: [percy-l] West Wing Hmmm... Because some of my replies that contradict Karey are not showing up in my inbox, I assumed (wrongly it seems) that I had angered her (isn't she the moderator?), and that she was preventing my postings from going to the list. I owe you an all an apology...but especially Karey. Please forgive my presumption. I'm an ass. Steve -----Original Message----- From: David Alan Beck [ mailto:dabeck at iupui.edu ] Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 9:45 PM To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Subject: Re: [percy-l] West Wing Steve, Why are we getting triplicates of your posting?? -DB On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Parlin, Steven wrote: [NON-Text Body part not included] David Beck -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mfrentz at bbn.com Mon Aug 18 12:04:19 2003 From: mfrentz at bbn.com (Mike Frentz) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 12:04:19 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] Peirce/Percy In-Reply-To: <001201c36504$d28ee300$0301000a@AFAC955012> References: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070590FD@exchangeserver.culver.org> <5.2.0.9.2.20030815153101.029f3b38@po2.bbn.com> <000001c36417$892c40b0$0301000a@AFAC955012> <001701c364df$94ad8430$210110ac@D68RS511> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20030818115629.02155a18@po2.bbn.com> If anyone is seriously interested in this question, Deacon's book "The Symbolic Species" (1997) has by far the most lucid description I've read of how symbols are composed (composable) from Peircean icons and indices. His work on the origins of language (and the virtual absence of it in all species but our own) is very much in line with Percy's insight, but very well grounded in contemporary hands-on scientific experimentation and findings. Someone on Peirce-L also noted that Deacon's Homunculus book is still cited as being underway on his website. Something to look forward to. Mike At 05:16 PM 8/17/2003 -0400, you wrote: >Thanks...I think that's what I was looking for. But again, it's still >pretty mysterious. > >KP > >----- Original Message ----- >From: James Piat >To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical >Discussion >Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2003 12:49 PM >Subject: Re: [percy-l] Peirce/Percy > >Percy says in several places that Susanne Langer dropped the ball and he >intended to pick it up -- he says it in the essays, the conversations, >etc. But only one place do I recall that he actually says WHAT she >dropped -- what she missed. I believe it was early in my reading, in >"Message," but I don't remember what it was and I'm going to have to go >back and look. I thought someone else might have been familiar with it. > >Dear Karey, > >Perhaps the passage you are looking for is on page 220 of _The Message in >the Bottle_ . A footnote in Percy's essay "Culture: The Antinomy of the >Scientific Method". > >"As Susanne Langer says, we may, if we like, interpret language as a >sequence of events entailing signs, sounds in the air, vibrations of ear >drums, nerve excitation, brain events, response and so on. All this does >happen. But something has been left out and it is the most important >thing of all. It is that the symbol symbolizes something." > >Cheers, >Jim Piat > > >---------- >-- > >An archive of all list discussion is available at >http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > >Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy >-- > >An archive of all list discussion is available at >http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > >Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mfrentz at bbn.com Mon Aug 18 17:46:11 2003 From: mfrentz at bbn.com (Mike Frentz) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 17:46:11 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] Peirce/Percy In-Reply-To: <000001c36417$892c40b0$0301000a@AFAC955012> References: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070590FD@exchangeserver.culver.org> <5.2.0.9.2.20030815153101.029f3b38@po2.bbn.com> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20030818173132.020c0c00@po2.bbn.com> Karey, Sorry for the delay, I missed this note until now. Deledalle and Deacon are the two places I would start (Deacon, mainly for one of the best applications I am aware of some of the core ideas, not to mention right in line with WP's language theories. Unfortunately Deacon is by far my best reference in this vein -- to my chagrin (and no doubt Percy's if he were alive today -- CSP is still very much an outcast among most respectable Cambridge scholars, per my personal sampling..). I assume that you know that the Collected Papers are available on CD from Intelex for about $125. A nice implementation (great search capabilities). Great deal. Peirce is interesting (and difficult) because he published for fifty odd years, and seemed to have terrible problems with some type of mental illness, not to mention his rather wordy and abstract way of expressing things even in good times. Somebody like Deledalle (who spent his life studying Peirce) is invaluable for tracing the larger patterns in his thought rather than getting caught up in the hills and valleys of each article. Meanings of words changed somewhat throughout CSP's professional life, and he wrote also wrote differently depending on who he was writing to. Deledalle makes it all make more sense (the easy way). The Essential Peirce two volumes are (truly) essential. Takes a lot of the gibberish of the CP's (that apparently were dropped on the floor a few too many times) and recompiles articles in a much more coherent fashion (same info, radically different presentation, not to mention chronologically arranged). The Chronological edition will be a boon, but I hope both of us live long enough to see it to completion (no offense, Ken K! Keep it up!) As you've gathered, WP was of the opinion that CSP was anti-Catholic in a lot of ways (some of which he was). Definitely had problems with organized religion, but, to my read, many of CSP's present day scholars like to overly read their own pantheistic theologies onto CSP (that I believe are totally off). Despite being raised a Unitarian, he was apparently a practicing Trinitarian (Episcopalian to be exact, non-gay variety, presumably) for the last two decades of his life. His famous letter of 1892, where he basically feels the need to confess having taken "Holy Communion" unworthily after having what he termed a mystical experience seemed to precede his return to Trinitarian practice. A mature Trinitarian viewpoint (which is entirely unknown [indeed, incomprehensible?] to most present day CSP scholars it does appear), is actually very consistent with CSP's struggles. I, personally, think WP was a little too hard on CSP in this regard -- CSP was voicing very common misconceptions/prejudices of the Catholic faith in that place and time that would have been hard to overcome without proper guidance (e.g. bumping into John Henry Newman :-). I think he was more ignorant, than malicious, for the most part. One of CSP's discussions of transubstantiation was actually kind of Frank Sheed-like in its profundity (it's not in the CP), but it went something like "transubstantiation is changing of substance while keeping the same form; while transformation is the changing of form while keeping the same substance". Kind of makes the Eucharist seem more believable than a butterfly. The thing I find most fascinating about the triangle is this: interpretation of the triad from any two starting points gives a different mode of inference. Start with representamen and interpretant and you get deductive reasoning (resulting in a semiotic object -- examples are reading simple text or following a marked trail), start with interpretant and (semiotic) object and you get inductive reasoning (resulting in a sign -- examples are writing prose or tool-making), start with representaman and (semiotic) object and you get abductive reasoning (resulting in an interpretant -- examples are two seemingly serendipitous independent scientific observations, or a rock balanced precariously above your doorway). Best, Mike At 12:16 PM 8/16/2003 -0400, you wrote: >Mike, > >Thanks for the references, that was just what I was looking for. The >Peirce literature is so comprehensive it's overwhelming, and unlike my >studies of Percy, I have no idea where to start. I almost didn't do this >topic because I am not trained in semiotics (semeiotics?) and most of this >is now self taught. But I have been reading "American Signatures" which >says that most semioticians are self taught (as was Percy). So I'm not >alone, but I still don't have a clear path of reading mapped out. > >Percy says in several places that Susanne Langer dropped the ball and he >intended to pick it up -- he says it in the essays, the conversations, >etc. But only one place do I recall that he actually says WHAT she >dropped -- what she missed. I believe it was early in my reading, in >"Message," but I don't remember what it was and I'm going to have to go >back and look. I thought someone else might have been familiar with it. > >Peirce, unlike Percy, was eagerly ready to reject that which did not >conform to "the method of science" as a manner of fixing belief. So he >rejected the "method of tradition" "method of authority" and "method of >fashion." The infallibility of the Catholic church would fall under >those. And if anyone has read Peirce's "Fixation of Belief," which was >the first essay I read, Peirce clearly asserts that the idea of >transubstantiation just can't be. I don't know if he continued with this >opinion or not for the rest of his life, as it seems he changed as he grew >older. However, this is clearly contradictory to Percy's beliefs, and >explains why Percy called himself only a "Thief of Peirce" rather than >embracing Peirce's whole philosophy. Still, Percy gives no reason (that I >have found) for rejecting the triad in favor of the triangle. Your >solution of viewing the AREA of the triangle as the triadic content is one >resolution to the problem, but was Percy viewing it that way? I think he >wanted to put it all on the interpretant (one point of the triangle) to >differentiate it from dyadic behavior and to say something special was >happening there, within the interpretant. That's where the triadic event >was taking place. But then why do we need the idea of the triangle at >all? It gets back to Cartesian dualism (something non-material is within >man) and this is why I think Percy was expressing in his letters to Ken >Ketner some doubt as to whether Peirce's triads (notwithstanding Peirce's >other writings) could refute Descartes. However, I don't quite get how >Peirce's triads solve the problem either. > >Just some things I'm wondering about. I am interested in the work that >has been done on this after Percy. Any way to find out what that is? > >KP > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Mike Frentz >To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical >Discussion >Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 4:04 PM >Subject: Re: [percy-l] gays, biblical authority and Percy's language theory -- > >Karey, > >re your first question -- this paper was "discovered" yesterday and >floated on the peirce-l list (though the paper is four years old, I wasn't >aware of it either and I'm a big fan of Deacon). Interesting coupling of >the "reproductive properties" of memes in terms of semiosis (interpretant >spawning yet another sign). > >Terrence W. Deacon, Memes as Signs > http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/epc/srb/srb/10-3edit.html > >Unfortunately the two other books he comments on as upcoming in "Note 10" >still aren't to be found. Floyd Merrel's 1997 book on Peirce, Signs, and >Meaning is also quite an interesting read in this area. > >re the second question -- I personally think this whole notion is >irrelevant, as long as the triangle is interpreted by the area rather than >the edges, all vertices are connected to the other two, a dyadic >relationships aren't necessarily implied to me by this. I find it >interesting that Peirce doesn't really seem to have used either notation >in his various descriptions of the same concepts (at least not in the >Collected Papers), yet he his existential graphs are nothing less than a >graphical computer. BTW, a *great* reference for anyone attempting to >surf the CP on their own is >Charles >S. Peirce's Philosophy of Signs: Essays in Comparative Semiotics (Advances >in Semiotics) >by Gerard Deledalle, 2001 (Deledalle, a French philosopher who did much to >bring CSP to Europe's attention, just died a few months back). Like >having a Fodor's to the CSP wilderness (I think WP would have loved to >have had this book) > >I find it striking how different research is today because of the web vs. >when Percy was working this a little over a decade ago (per Ketner's Thief >of Peirce dialogues). Also, a lot of work has been done in this area >since his death. > >re the third question: I dunno? I'd be interested if you do find the >reference. I have on occasion started to look up Langer's work but came >away with the impression that she had drifted so far off in less Pe*rc*an >directions that aren't of particular interest to me that I've never >followed through on what it was that Percy was fond of in Langer's work >wrt CSP's legacy. > > >Best, >Mike > > >At 03:24 PM 8/15/2003 -0400, you wrote: >>No -- I'm certainly no moderator! But I am fascinated by the fact that >>gays and Biblical authority have garnered so much response, but Percy's >>language theory doesn't get much interest? There's so much he left >>unfinished and so much to investigate. If he had lived longer, I think >>something tremendous might have come out of it -- like, the answer to, >>what is the interpretant? He died before he could solve it. >> >>So, here's what I would discuss if I had the choice... >> >>What is the interpretant? >> >>Why did he use triangles instead of triads, even when a good argument was >>given against it? >> >>What did Susanne Langer drop that he picked up? (I believe he says what >>it is in one place, but I lost it somewhere) >> >>KP >> >> >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: Parlin, Steven >>To: 'Percy-L: Literary and >>Philosophical Discussion' >>Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 10:52 PM >>Subject: RE: [percy-l] West Wing >> >>Hmmm... >> >>Because some of my replies that contradict Karey are not showing up in my >>inbox, I assumed (wrongly it seems) that I had angered her (isn't she the >>moderator?), and that she was preventing my postings from going to the list. >> >> >>I owe you an all an apology...but especially Karey. >> >>Please forgive my presumption. >> >>I'm an ass. >> >>Steve >> >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: David Alan Beck [mailto:dabeck at iupui.edu] >>Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 9:45 PM >>To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion >>Subject: Re: [percy-l] West Wing >> >> >>Steve, >>Why are we getting triplicates of your posting?? >>-DB >> >>On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Parlin, Steven wrote: >> >> >> [NON-Text Body part not included] >> >> >> >>David Beck >> >> >>-- >> >>An archive of all list discussion is available at >>http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail >> >>Visit the Walker Percy Project at >>http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy >>-- >> >>An archive of all list discussion is available at >>http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail >> >>Visit the Walker Percy Project at >>http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy >>-- >> >>An archive of all list discussion is available at >>http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail >> >>Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > > >---------- >-- > >An archive of all list discussion is available at >http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > >Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy >-- > >An archive of all list discussion is available at >http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > >Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rhonda_mcdonnell at msn.com Mon Aug 18 21:38:00 2003 From: rhonda_mcdonnell at msn.com (RHONDA MCDONNELL) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 18:38:00 -0700 Subject: [percy-l] gay marriage References: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070590CF@exchangeserver.culver.org> <00ac01c361d4$973bde30$0301000a@AFAC955012> Message-ID: MessageHi Karey: You might be interested in Harold Bloom's contention that the Hebrew pronouns which refer to God in the original Old Testament are genderless. Since I don't read Hebrew, I can't check this, but I do know that Milton also agrees with you. Not bad company to be in. And we may as well throw in Plato's SYMPOSIUM as another argument that precedes yours. Rhonda ----- Original Message ----- From: Karey L. Perkins To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 12:53 PM Subject: Re: [percy-l] gay marriage I think our spirits/souls ultimately transcend gender -- God has no genitals (although we traditionally and misleadingly refer to "Him" as a "He," gender is by definition a physical trait and God is not physical - only Jesus). I -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Robert_Pauley at oxy.com Mon Aug 18 21:45:46 2003 From: Robert_Pauley at oxy.com (Robert_Pauley at oxy.com) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 18:45:46 -0700 Subject: [percy-l] gay marriage Message-ID: <1E4B441CB5CF9D408D318BC697F086F5014B02F1@olawexc7.naoxy.com> Can anyone refer me to a well-reasoned and well-referenced intellectual/moral argument in opposition to gay marriage and, perhaps, to homosexuality in general. No screeds or strictly religious arguments, please. Many thanks. RP -----Original Message----- From: percy-l-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:percy-l-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of RHONDA MCDONNELL Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 6:38 PM To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Subject: Re: [percy-l] gay marriage Hi Karey: You might be interested in Harold Bloom's contention that the Hebrew pronouns which refer to God in the original Old Testament are genderless. Since I don't read Hebrew, I can't check this, but I do know that Milton also agrees with you. Not bad company to be in. And we may as well throw in Plato's SYMPOSIUM as another argument that precedes yours. Rhonda ----- Original Message ----- From: Karey L. Perkins To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 12:53 PM Subject: Re: [percy-l] gay marriage I think our spirits/souls ultimately transcend gender -- God has no genitals (although we traditionally and misleadingly refer to "Him" as a "He," gender is by definition a physical trait and God is not physical - only Jesus). I -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rhonda_mcdonnell at msn.com Mon Aug 18 22:18:56 2003 From: rhonda_mcdonnell at msn.com (RHONDA MCDONNELL) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 19:18:56 -0700 Subject: [percy-l] West Wing References: Message-ID: I have yet to read Elie's book as well, although one of my students did give it to me as a gift last spring. What delights me most about the book third hand is the number of people who have discovered Percy (and the others for that matter) thanks to Elie. One of my colleague's said to me, seemingly out of the blue, "All right, all right. I'll read Percy!" Good ol' Elie was behind it. Look for new editions of everyone's work! Rhonda ----- Original Message ----- From: David Alan Beck To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 8:21 PM Subject: RE: [percy-l] West Wing But I would like to see some responses to Jim F.'s posting about Elie's book. (This listserv seems to have a quanity of Jims.) I like the book, but haven't had time to get half-way through. But it is good and the Merton and O'Connor sections are worth the price of the book.) -David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rhonda_mcdonnell at msn.com Mon Aug 18 22:19:50 2003 From: rhonda_mcdonnell at msn.com (RHONDA MCDONNELL) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 19:19:50 -0700 Subject: [percy-l] The West Wing's comment on Biblical contradictions References: <000001c362cf$14b58aa0$0301000a@AFAC955012> <00a801c362de$4c8aea60$210110ac@D68RS511> Message-ID: I'm with you on Bartlett, Jim. ----- Original Message ----- From: James Piat To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 8:35 PM Subject: Re: [percy-l] The West Wing's comment on Biblical contradictions Hey Larry, Did you read Karey's clip from the West wing? The Bartlett character is my idea of a smug, self satisfied prick -- "in this bldg when the president stands nobody sits..." Gimme a break -- an abuse of power. Plain and simple. It's one thing to challenge authority from a position of weakness (however juvenile); but to weild power smugly is -- well, it's not something that pleases me. Nobody needs a smart ass rebuke about "respect" from the most powerful man in the world. Just the opposite is called for -- some show of humility and restraint. That's my take. But obviously others see the Bartlett character differently. That's what makes this discussion so much fun for me. Steve and Karey seem to both like this Bartlett character but disagree about about his theology -- I tend to agree more with Karey's theology than with Steve's (though both know a whole lot more about the Bible than I do) but I disagree with both of them about this Bartlett fellow. Jim Piat ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From piat1 at bellsouth.net Mon Aug 18 23:07:07 2003 From: piat1 at bellsouth.net (James Piat) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 23:07:07 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] In and About the world References: Message-ID: <016601c365fe$f97be210$210110ac@D68RS511> David Alan Beck wrote: > I wish I had more time to pull out my Marcel books and revisit them, but > the semester begins on Wednesday, and I need to buckle down and get ready > (no time for this fun stuff--the hoofbeats are approaching!). Dear David, You sent me scurrying to Friedman's The Worlds of Existentialism and a very enjoyable hour with your friends Marcel and the intersubjectivists. Hope you have a great time this semester! And fun too -- why the hell not. The students and university are lucky to have you. Best, Jim From piat1 at bellsouth.net Mon Aug 18 23:12:24 2003 From: piat1 at bellsouth.net (James Piat) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 23:12:24 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] The West Wing's comment on Biblical contradictions References: <000001c362cf$14b58aa0$0301000a@AFAC955012><00a801c362de$4c8aea60$210110ac@D68RS511> Message-ID: <017901c365ff$b66983a0$210110ac@D68RS511> Good to hear from you Rhonda. What's the subject of your dissertation? I still recall the good times I had BS-ing with you and others about Flanery O'Connor's short stories. Jim Piat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rhonda_mcdonnell at msn.com Mon Aug 18 23:30:31 2003 From: rhonda_mcdonnell at msn.com (RHONDA MCDONNELL) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 20:30:31 -0700 Subject: [percy-l] The West Wing's comment on Biblical contradictions References: <000001c362cf$14b58aa0$0301000a@AFAC955012><00a801c362de$4c8aea60$210110ac@D68RS511> <017901c365ff$b66983a0$210110ac@D68RS511> Message-ID: I'm trying to nail down Percy's philosophy, since it's seems we lost him before he could do so himself in the complete manner the proposed CONTRA GENTILES would have. Of course, I'm spending most of my time feeling like an incredible imposter. But, I think that's the point when Percy says, "You might as well write--what have you got to lose?" Recently, the list has provided a welcomed distraction. However, in the midst of everyone's very eloquent and lucid comments regarding all matters modern and post-modern, I keep thinking of Tom Moore as the maculate Christ, saying, "y'all help me," knowing they would, and that they would love each other, because they loved him. I tend to see WP as having gotten beyond all this Po-Mo BS, ironically pointing out that they more purveyors of such ideologies maintain that meaning is relative, that there is no truth, etc., the more rabidly such folks assert their ideologies as the only truth and their non-meaning as the only meaning, thereby shooting themselves in the philosophical foot. In any case, good to hear from all, and particularly you, Jim. Your wryness and self-deprecation is always fresh air. Rhonda ----- Original Message ----- From: James Piat To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 8:12 PM Subject: Re: [percy-l] The West Wing's comment on Biblical contradictions Good to hear from you Rhonda. What's the subject of your dissertation? I still recall the good times I had BS-ing with you and others about Flanery O'Connor's short stories. Jim Piat ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mitchdl at email.unc.edu Tue Aug 19 00:34:51 2003 From: mitchdl at email.unc.edu (mitchdl at email.unc.edu) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 00:34:51 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] gays, biblical authority and Percy's language theory Message-ID: <1061267691.3f41a8eb77ae5@webmail7.isis.unc.edu> Folks, I've just now awaking from the Long Sleep of the list. Unfortunately, I awoke into the groggy confusion of the digest message format and spent most of my time trying to figure out what the heck was going on (where's the coffee?). Anyway, I got that sorted out and just read Steve's take-off on Lost in the Cosmos--hilarious stuff. The interviewer is pitch-perfect. This may have already come up in somewhere back in those indecipherable digests, but I thought I'd throw out my take about homosexuality, angelism/bestialism, and our estrangement from ourselves. First, divorced from the proper end of our physical/sexual nature, sex is something to be enjoyed, experimented with, manipulated in Ye Old Bayou Love Lab. The overly abstracted scientific mind hovers over the varying combinations of flesh and monitors responses, etc. (all while feeling a response within himself that makes him want to get jiggy with the nearest nurse). It is the fact of pregnancy, birth, paternity/maternity, student drivers, etc., that grounds us in the mundane, connects sex to birth (and death) and returns us to our mortality and the conditions of our existence. Donne's lovers will find themselves changing diapers soon enough--not as an accident, not as a choice for some charming Russian baby, but as an outgrowth of the act itself--its very nature. Homosexuality (particularly as a cultural phenomenon) is connected to the aesthetic realm (the Gay Eye, guys who can match socks) because it is intrinsically linked to the desire of all lovers--eros without time- -false transcendence. Needless to say, writers and artists of all stripes feel the same desire keenly. Read this way, Lost in San Francisco is another version of one of Percy's institutes--with happy-slappy by night (beast) and tastefully arranged chinese landscapes by day (angel)--with the artist in place of the scientist as abstracted intellect. Certainly gays/lesbians are not alone in this. Our desire to separate sex and procreation dominates most everywhere. The difference, however, as is said over and over, is that homosexuality by its nature separates the two. A gay man might recover meaningful selfhood to a great extent, but it is in spite of his sexuality (or use of it); a straight man frequently achieves 'reentry' through fruitful marriage-- as my wife might say, through submission to the nature of things (yes, dear). Basta, doug Postscript: When I started working with the Percy Project, I was finishing grad school at Chapel Hill. I'm now slogging about in south Alabama at the University of Mobile--a Baptist school which would be the perfect setting for a Percy novel (Jesus Christ--Greatest Pro of Them All). ----- Original Message ----- From: Parlin, Steven To: 'Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion' Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 3:09 PM Subject: RE: [percy-l] gays, biblical authority and Percy's language theor y -- Karey, I am imensely interested in Percy's language theory, and I hope to resume that discussion either concurrently or a little later. But, I am also matters of eathly concern. On the one hand, inquirey into theory is exciting, fun, and even necessary. Let's roll up our sleaves. But, let us not become like that scientist Percy mentions in Lost in the Cosmos who spends all of his time in the abstacted orbit of theory never being able to successfuly achieve re-entry. Homsexuality, among the many deviant sexual behaviors, is one of the most odd behaviors in the Cosmos. I think it's worthy, even necessary, to wrestle with this...especially since it's impossible to ignore it. in fact, this is my point...It's really only possible to entertain the idea of homosexual marriage when we are in orbit and lost. We have lost our moorings. The center is not holding. We really don't understand ourselves -- We are indeed the strangest of cosmic phenomena. [For fun-- I adapted the below dialogue from a few excerpts in Lost in the Cosmos] Interviewer: Are you more confused about sexuality than any other phenomenon in the Cosmos? Subject: What do you mean? Interviewer: I mean... gay marriage? C'mon. Subject: I don't follow...what's wrong with it. It's no different than any other marriage. It's all about love after all. Interviewer: Love? Is sex necessary for love? And, is marriage a necessary arrangement for love? Isn't marriage primarily for ensuring the health and well-being of family life; that is, for having and rasing children...obviously homosexuality... Subject: Well...if you mean do gay lovers need to get married, no they don't. . Interviewer: If there's no real need, then why the fuss? Homosexuals have been "loving" each other for centuries. Why now the need for marriage? Subject: Ceremony, validation, recognition...they have rights you know. And why not? Interviewer: Why? Subject: Why not? Interviewer: I asked you first. Subject: Well...there's nothing wrong with it, and they deserve the same benefits as other married couples. Interviewer: Such as. Subject: Taxes...health care... you know Interviewer: I see. Subject: They have rights. Interviewer: I see. Just like two friends living together. Why not call that a marriage too? Subject: No...that's different. Interviewer: How? Subject: Well...two friends aren't a couple; they aren't in love. Interviewer: Hmmm...so the state should only give benefits to people who are in love. Subject: No...not just in love...committed. Interviewer: Friends can be committed...so can brothers...sisters... I'm even committed to my cat. Subject: But that's different. Interviewer: How? Subject: Well... homosexuals love each other in a special way. Interviewer: You mean they please each other sexually. Subject: No...they're "intimate". Interviewer: I see...how do you measure that? Even though I'm not sleeping with him, I'm probably more "intimate" with my best friend than a lot married men and women. Subject: It's different. Interviewer: Perhaps....but how? Can you explain it? Subject: No...but... I mean...It's still perfectly natural. At least as much as heterosexual marriage. Interviewer: Perfectly natural? Subject: Yeah Interviewer: Can you explain why it is that men and women exhibit sexual behavior undreamed of among the other several million species, with every conceivable sexual relation between persons [or animals] or with only one person [their self] or between a male and female, or between two male persons, or two female persons, or two males and one femaile, or two females and one male; relationships moreover which can implicate every orifice and appendage of the human body and which bear no relation to the reproduction and survival of the species? Subject: No. Interviewer: Odd isn't it? Is this sort of behavior natural? Subject: I dunno...but heterosexual desires...well, some of those aren't exactly "natural" either. Interviewer: True, heterosexuals can be just as depraved. But then isn't that why marriage is so important for helping to keep these behaviors in order... if for no other reason than for the sake of rasing children? Subect: Perhaps....but there's still nothing WRONG with homosexual marriage. Interviewer: That's another mattter... But what about the children? Isn't child-reering natural AND necessary? Subject: Yeah... but homosexuals can adopt. In fact, they can adopt children that heterosexuals have discarded. Interviewer: Hmm...that's an interesting point, and a shame that there are some children who need to be adopted...but aside from not knowing what affect this would have on children, isn't it obvious that without heterosexuals there wouldn't be any children at all? No next generation. No one to adopt? Subject: Science is changing all that. Interviewer: I see. Subject: And, I never said that homosexual marriage should replace heterosexual marriage. Interviewer: No, but we still haven't figured out what homosexual marriage means...how is it different than any two people living together. Moreover, I was making a point. That is, I was illustrating that marriage is necessary for raising children. Subject: Government is changing all that. Interviewer: I see. -----Original Message----- From: Karey L. Perkins [mailto:karey at charter.net] Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 2:25 PM To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Subject: [percy-l] gays, biblical authority and Percy's language theory -- No -- I'm certainly no moderator! But I am fascinated by the fact that gays and Biblical authority have garnered so much response, but Percy's language theory doesn't get much interest? There's so much he left unfinished and so much to investigate. If he had lived longer, I think something tremendous might have come out of it -- like, the answer to, what is the interpretant? He died before he could solve it. So, here's what I would discuss if I had the choice... What is the interpretant? Why did he use triangles instead of triads, even when a good argument was given against it? What did Susanne Langer drop that he picked up? (I believe he says what it is in one place, but I lost it somewhere) KP ----- Original Message ----- From: Parlin, Steven To: 'Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion' Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 10:52 PM Subject: RE: [percy-l] West Wing Hmmm... Because some of my replies that contradict Karey are not showing up in my inbox, I assumed (wrongly it seems) that I had angered her (isn't she the moderator?), and that she was preventing my postings from going to the list. I owe you an all an apology...but especially Karey. Please forgive my presumption. I'm an ass. Steve -----Original Message----- From: David Alan Beck [mailto:dabeck at iupui.edu] Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 9:45 PM To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Subject: Re: [percy-l] West Wing Steve, Why are we getting triplicates of your posting?? -DB On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Parlin, Steven wrote: [NON-Text Body part not included] David Beck -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy From tcole at adobe.com Tue Aug 19 03:07:06 2003 From: tcole at adobe.com (Tim Cole) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 00:07:06 -0700 Subject: [percy-l] The West Wing's comment on Biblical contradictions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Roger Scruton (I think in his Modern Philosophy) puts it...well, succinctly and memorably when he says something to the effect that if you turn Po-Mo/Deconstructionism on itself, it "...disappears up its own backside leaving nothing but a puff of smoke and a whif of sulfur." > I tend to see WP as having gotten beyond all this Po-Mo BS, ironically > pointing out that they more purveyors of such ideologies maintain that meaning > is relative, that there is no truth, etc., the more rabidly such folks assert > their ideologies as the only truth and their non-meaning as the only meaning, > thereby shooting themselves in the philosophical foot. From LTberrywtr at aol.com Tue Aug 19 10:49:42 2003 From: LTberrywtr at aol.com (LTberrywtr at aol.com) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 10:49:42 EDT Subject: [percy-l] The West Wing's comment on Biblical contradictions Message-ID: <187.1e153be9.2c739306@aol.com> Scruton is right, of course, though I would have said a whiff of methane. Deconstructionism and postmodernism are nothing more than nihilism tricked up in academic frizzies. They are - as one of the Democratic candidates for president was recently described by an opponent - tickets to nowhere. I'm sure WP treated then with the contempt they so richly deserve. I'm a bit surprised through that fiscally conservative state legislators haven't picked up on what may be the only upside to this nonsense. Following the logic of post-everything, we could all save a bundle of tax money by firing every literature professor in the republic. I mean, what do we need them for? All we have to do is have a graduate assistant - or since we really no longer need literature phds, a janitor would do - on hand to tell all students arriving for their first day in literature classes, "Folks, just read anything you want to. Nothing is better than anything else, and it all means whatever you want it to mean. You don't have to come back. Have a nice life." Of course I'm kidding - sort of - because if we really followed the logic of post-everything and cashiered all literature professors (and professors of just about everything else on the liberal arts side) then a lot of you fine folks in this fun but funky forum would have to get real jobs. Lord knows, I'm not suggesting that. Cheers, --Larry From marcus at loyno.edu Tue Aug 19 11:09:35 2003 From: marcus at loyno.edu (marcus at loyno.edu) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 15:09:35 GMT Subject: [percy-l] The West Wing's comment on Biblical contradictions Message-ID: <3f423daf.2e7.a80a8.16985@loyno.edu> A question for Larry: What is your "real" job? Marcus Smith From: LTberrywtr at aol.com To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org Subject: Re: [percy-l] The West Wing's comment on Biblical contradictions Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 10:49:42 EDT ----- Original Message Follows ----- > > > > > > > > Scruton is right, of course, though I would have said > a whiff of methane. > Deconstructionism and postmodernism are nothing more > than nihilism tricked up in academic frizzies. They are - > as one of the Democratic candidates for president was > recently described by an opponent - tickets to nowhere. > I'm sure WP treated then with the contempt they so richly > deserve. > I'm a bit surprised through that fiscally conservative > state legislators haven't picked up on what may be the > only upside to this nonsense. Following the logic of > post-everything, we could all save a bundle of tax money > by firing every literature professor in the republic. I > mean, what do we need them for? All we have to do is have > a graduate assistant - or since we really no longer need > literature phds, a janitor would do - on hand to tell all > students arriving for their first day in literature > classes, "Folks, just read anything you want to. Nothing > is better than anything else, and it all means whatever > you want it to mean. You don't have to come back. Have a > nice life." > Of course I'm kidding - sort of - because if we really > followed the logic of post-everything and cashiered all > literature professors (and professors of just about > everything else on the liberal arts side) then a lot of > you fine folks in this fun but funky forum would have to > get real jobs. Lord knows, I'm not suggesting that. > Cheers, > --Larry > -- > > An archive of all list discussion is available at > http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > > Visit the Walker Percy Project at > http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy From kenneth.ketner at ttu.edu Tue Aug 19 16:12:17 2003 From: kenneth.ketner at ttu.edu (Kenneth Ketner) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 15:12:17 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Peirce/Percy References: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070590FD@exchangeserver.culver.org> <5.2.0.9.2.20030815153101.029f3b38@po2.bbn.com> <000001c36417$892c40b0$0301000a@AFAC955012> Message-ID: <3F4284A1.3070601@ttu.edu> Been thinking about Karey's remark about Peirce's methods of fixing belief, etc. I don't agree that the infallibility of the Catholic Church falls under Peirce's first three methods (tenacity, authority, fashion) - but I could be wrong. I say that from being familiar with Peirce's writings. However, to be thorough, it is proper to consider the other half of the remark and ask just what is considered infallible within the Roman Church? Are all Papal encyclicals infallible? all teachings? or just one or two items? A friend once told me that the doctrine of the assumption of Mary is the only infallible teaching so far since the doctrine of infallibility was announced late in the nineteenth century (wasn't it Pius IX?). I don't mean these as picky questions - I am inquiring to find out, since my knowledge is weak in that area. It seems wise to find out the meaning and scope of infallibility in this setting before thinking further about it. Karey L. Perkins wrote: > Mike, > > Thanks for the references, that was just what I was looking for. The > Peirce literature is so comprehensive it's overwhelming, and unlike my > studies of Percy, I have no idea where to start. I almost didn't do > this topic because I am not trained in semiotics (semeiotics?) and most > of this is now self taught. But I have been reading "American > Signatures" which says that most semioticians are self taught (as was > Percy). So I'm not alone, but I still don't have a clear path of > reading mapped out. > > Percy says in several places that Susanne Langer dropped the ball and he > intended to pick it up -- he says it in the essays, the conversations, > etc. But only one place do I recall that he actually says WHAT she > dropped -- what she missed. I believe it was early in my reading, in > "Message," but I don't remember what it was and I'm going to have to go > back and look. I thought someone else might have been familiar with it. > > Peirce, unlike Percy, was eagerly ready to reject that which did not > conform to "the method of science" as a manner of fixing belief. So he > rejected the "method of tradition" "method of authority" and "method of > fashion." The infallibility of the Catholic church would fall under > those. And if anyone has read Peirce's "Fixation of Belief," which was > the first essay I read, Peirce clearly asserts that the idea of > transubstantiation just can't be. I don't know if he continued with > this opinion or not for the rest of his life, as it seems he changed as > he grew older. However, this is clearly contradictory to Percy's > beliefs, and explains why Percy called himself only a "Thief of Peirce" > rather than embracing Peirce's whole philosophy. Still, Percy gives no > reason (that I have found) for rejecting the triad in favor of the > triangle. Your solution of viewing the AREA of the triangle as the > triadic content is one resolution to the problem, but was Percy viewing > it that way? I think he wanted to put it all on the interpretant (one > point of the triangle) to differentiate it from dyadic behavior and to > say something special was happening there, within the interpretant. > That's where the triadic event was taking place. But then why do we > need the idea of the triangle at all? It gets back to Cartesian dualism > (something non-material is within man) and this is why I think Percy was > expressing in his letters to Ken Ketner some doubt as to whether > Peirce's triads (notwithstanding Peirce's other writings) could refute > Descartes. However, I don't quite get how Peirce's triads solve the > problem either. > > Just some things I'm wondering about. I am interested in the work that > has been done on this after Percy. Any way to find out what that is? > > KP > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Mike Frentz > To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion > > Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 4:04 PM > Subject: Re: [percy-l] gays, biblical authority and Percy's language > theory -- > > Karey, > > re your first question -- this paper was "discovered" yesterday and > floated on the peirce-l list (though the paper is four years old, I > wasn't aware of it either and I'm a big fan of Deacon). Interesting > coupling of the "reproductive properties" of memes in terms of semiosis > (interpretant spawning yet another sign). > > Terrence W. Deacon, Memes as Signs > http > ://www.chass.utoronto.ca/epc/srb/srb/10-3edit.html > > > Unfortunately the two other books he comments on as upcoming in "Note > 10" still aren't to be found. Floyd Merrel's 1997 book on Peirce, > Signs, and Meaning is also quite an interesting read in this area. > > re the second question -- I personally think this whole notion is > irrelevant, as long as the triangle is interpreted by the area rather > than the edges, all vertices are connected to the other two, a dyadic > relationships aren't necessarily implied to me by this. I find it > interesting that Peirce doesn't really seem to have used either notation > in his various descriptions of the same concepts (at least not in the > Collected Papers), yet he his existential graphs are nothing less than a > graphical computer. BTW, a *great* reference for anyone attempting to > surf the CP on their own is Charles S. Peirce's Philosophy of Signs: > Essays in Comparative Semiotics (Advances in Semiotics) > > > by Gerard Deledalle, 2001 (Deledalle, a French philosopher who did much > to bring CSP to Europe's attention, just died a few months back). Like > having a Fodor's to the CSP wilderness (I think WP would have loved to > have had this book) > > I find it striking how different research is today because of the web > vs. when Percy was working this a little over a decade ago (per Ketner's > Thief of Peirce dialogues). Also, a lot of work has been done in this > area since his death. > > re the third question: I dunno? I'd be interested if you do find the > reference. I have on occasion started to look up Langer's work but came > away with the impression that she had drifted so far off in less > Pe*rc*an directions that aren't of particular interest to me that I've > never followed through on what it was that Percy was fond of in Langer's > work wrt CSP's legacy. > > > Best, > Mike > > > At 03:24 PM 8/15/2003 -0400, you wrote: > >> No -- I'm certainly no moderator! But I am fascinated by the fact >> that gays and Biblical authority have garnered so much response, but >> Percy's language theory doesn't get much interest? There's so much he >> left unfinished and so much to investigate. If he had lived longer, I >> think something tremendous might have come out of it -- like, the >> answer to, what is the interpretant? He died before he could solve it. >> >> So, here's what I would discuss if I had the choice... >> >> What is the interpretant? >> >> Why did he use triangles instead of triads, even when a good argument >> was given against it? >> >> What did Susanne Langer drop that he picked up? (I believe he says >> what it is in one place, but I lost it somewhere) >> >> KP >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Parlin, Steven >> To: 'Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion' >> >> Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 10:52 PM >> Subject: RE: [percy-l] West Wing >> >> Hmmm... >> >> Because some of my replies that contradict Karey are not showing up in my >> inbox, I assumed (wrongly it seems) that I had angered her (isn't she the >> moderator?), and that she was preventing my postings from going to the >> list. >> >> >> I owe you an all an apology...but especially Karey. >> >> Please forgive my presumption. >> >> I'm an ass. >> >> Steve >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: David Alan Beck [mailto:dabeck at iupui.edu] >> Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 9:45 PM >> To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion >> Subject: Re: [percy-l] West Wing >> >> >> Steve, >> Why are we getting triplicates of your posting?? >> -DB >> >> On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Parlin, Steven wrote: >> >> >> [NON-Text Body part not included] >> >> >> >> David Beck >> >> >> -- >> >> An archive of all list discussion is available at >> http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail >> >> Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy >> -- >> >> An archive of all list discussion is available at >> http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail >> >> Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy >> -- >> >> An archive of all list discussion is available at >> http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail >> >> Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > -- > > An archive of all list discussion is available at > http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > > Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > -- > > An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > > Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -- Kenneth L. Ketner Paul Whitfield Horn Professor Institute for Studies in Pragmaticism Texas Tech University Charles Sanders Peirce Interdisciplinary Professor School of Nursing Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center Lubbock, TX 79409-0002 806 742 3128 Office email: kenneth.ketner at ttu.edu Home email: ketner at arisbeassociates.com Office website: http://www.pragmaticism.net Personal website: http://www.wyttynys.net From piat1 at bellsouth.net Tue Aug 19 19:31:02 2003 From: piat1 at bellsouth.net (James Piat) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 19:31:02 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] Peirce/Percy References: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070590FD@exchangeserver.culver.org> <5.2.0.9.2.20030815153101.029f3b38@po2.bbn.com><000001c36417$892c40b0$0301000a@AFAC955012> <3F4284A1.3070601@ttu.edu> Message-ID: <004001c366a9$f5697060$210110ac@D68RS511> > Been thinking about Karey's remark about Peirce's methods of fixing > belief, etc. > > I don't agree that the infallibility of the Catholic Church falls under > Peirce's first three methods (tenacity, authority, fashion) - but I > could be wrong. > > I say that from being familiar with Peirce's writings. Dear Ken, Folks- I respect your expertise, Ken, and I'm curious as to the specific reasons you have reached this conclusion. Actually I, myself, don't think Church teachings are intended as a method of fixing belief but rather as a way of clarifying for Catholics what the Church teaches to be true as regards certain matters of faith and morals. Whether members of the church align or fix their beliefs accordingly (which presumeably they do) is another matter. OTOH, by what method or rationale those individual Church members go about fixing their belief in accordance with Church teachings is I believe a matter of one or some combination of the four methods Peirce outlined in his fixing belief essay. . Hmmm -- maybe not now that I think some more. Perhaps there is a fifth way known only to the faithful. I also want to amend my somewhat flip earlier comment on transubstantiation. I think Peirce in his essay on how to make our ideas clear was making the point that Protestants and Catholics "mean" something different by the words wine and wafer in Holy Communion but seem to share a common meaning for the terms outside of the context of Holy Communion. They can't in one sense be said to be disagreeing with one another because, in so far they are talking about Holy Communion, at some point they part ways and are "clearly" not speaking the same language. That's my more careful reading of what I think he might be saying on the issue in his fixing of belief essay. Best wishes, Jim From PARLINS at culver.org Tue Aug 19 21:06:08 2003 From: PARLINS at culver.org (Parlin, Steven) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 20:06:08 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] gay marriage Message-ID: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE07059136@exchangeserver.culver.org> Yes... that is one of the hazards of English... we have no genderless personal pronouns. -----Original Message----- From: RHONDA MCDONNELL [mailto:rhonda_mcdonnell at msn.com] Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 8:38 PM To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Subject: Re: [percy-l] gay marriage Hi Karey: You might be interested in Harold Bloom's contention that the Hebrew pronouns which refer to God in the original Old Testament are genderless. Since I don't read Hebrew, I can't check this, but I do know that Milton also agrees with you. Not bad company to be in. And we may as well throw in Plato's SYMPOSIUM as another argument that precedes yours. Rhonda ----- Original Message ----- From: Karey L. Perkins To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 12:53 PM Subject: Re: [percy-l] gay marriage I think our spirits/souls ultimately transcend gender -- God has no genitals (although we traditionally and misleadingly refer to "Him" as a "He," gender is by definition a physical trait and God is not physical - only Jesus). I -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mfrentz at bbn.com Tue Aug 19 21:21:20 2003 From: mfrentz at bbn.com (Mike Frentz) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 21:21:20 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] Peirce/Percy In-Reply-To: <3F4284A1.3070601@ttu.edu> References: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070590FD@exchangeserver.culver.org> <5.2.0.9.2.20030815153101.029f3b38@po2.bbn.com> <000001c36417$892c40b0$0301000a@AFAC955012> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20030819200637.021622c0@127.0.0.1> At 03:12 PM 8/19/2003 -0500, Ken wrote: >However, to be thorough, it is proper to consider the other half of the >remark and ask just what is considered infallible within the Roman Church? >Are all Papal encyclicals infallible? all teachings? or just one or two >items? A friend once told me that the doctrine of the assumption of Mary >is the only infallible teaching so far since the doctrine of infallibility >was announced late in the nineteenth century (wasn't it Pius IX?). I don't >mean these as picky questions - I am inquiring to find out, since my >knowledge is weak in that area. It seems wise to find out the meaning and >scope of infallibility in this setting before thinking further about it. Ken, Infallibility tends to be very poorly misunderstood (along with a lot of other doctrines, we're extremely poorly catechized today; I'm in major catchup mode). Like virtually all of the doctrines, infallibility was implicit in early Church teaching, and only codified at a later point when there was a reason where it was necessary to explicitly call it out as official Church teaching. The statement: "Rome has spoken; the case is concluded" is attributed to Augustine. Per my handy Catholic Encyclopedia, there are two senses in which infallibility is attributed to the RCC, designated ordinary and extraordinary. The ordinary way has to do with the collective (but not individual) infallibility of the bishops as the magisterium of the Church. The extraordinary way can have two modes: either by the bishops "assembled in an ecumenical council when acting as teachers and judges for the universal Church in matters of faith and morals", or by the pope, when he defines something ex cathedra (Petri) (from the chair of Peter). Four conditions must be fulfilled (per Vatican I) for a papal proclamation to be infallible: 1. He must be acting as supreme pastor and teacher of all Christians, 2. he must use his supreme apostolic authority (i.e. as successor of Peter), 3. the subject matter must be concerning faith and morals, 4. he must expressly indicate that the doctrine is to be held definitively by all. Most doctrines in the catechism have never been formally defined by an official papal statement, but there are probably fairly few topics on which it would be possible for a pope to make an infallible decision without duplicating one or more infallible pronouncements from ecumenical councils or the traditions exemplified by the ordinary magisterium of the Church. There were definitely popes that were total scoundrels (as there are bishops aplenty today), however, they were too busy with their intrigues to ever bother with muddling the doctrine (for whatever reason you want to believe). The pope's private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching. There is no omniscience, or impeccability, or even conscientiousness implied in infallibility (i.e. lack of action doesn't count, popes are most definitely human) -- it's that if an action is taken with the above conditions, it is to be taken as infallible. As to encyclicals, unless explicitly defined as ex cathedra, they are not considered infallible (per 2.) (many of the encyclicals are social, addressing specific needs of the times.) The definition of the Assumption (Pius XII in 1950) is the only papal encyclical that I also explicitly know of as being ex cathedra (though I am by no means authoritative on any of this). The thing I find striking, is that the things that are considered most Catholic (i.e. "controversial" today, e.g. abortion, true presence, papal authority, etc.) are also those things that are readily found in the continuous string of Church writings extant today. These are infallible. I have an Evangelical friend who once told me his biggest fear was that the RCC would change its mind on abortion one day -- it's actually about as big a worry as the sun not rising tomorrow, it won't happen. Mike >Karey L. Perkins wrote: >>Mike, >> >>Thanks for the references, that was just what I was looking for. The >>Peirce literature is so comprehensive it's overwhelming, and unlike my >>studies of Percy, I have no idea where to start. I almost didn't do this >>topic because I am not trained in semiotics (semeiotics?) and most of >>this is now self taught. But I have been reading "American Signatures" >>which says that most semioticians are self taught (as was Percy). So I'm >>not alone, but I still don't have a clear path of reading mapped out. >> >>Percy says in several places that Susanne Langer dropped the ball and he >>intended to pick it up -- he says it in the essays, the conversations, >>etc. But only one place do I recall that he actually says WHAT she >>dropped -- what she missed. I believe it was early in my reading, in >>"Message," but I don't remember what it was and I'm going to have to go >>back and look. I thought someone else might have been familiar with it. >> >>Peirce, unlike Percy, was eagerly ready to reject that which did not >>conform to "the method of science" as a manner of fixing belief. So he >>rejected the "method of tradition" "method of authority" and "method of >>fashion." The infallibility of the Catholic church would fall under >>those. And if anyone has read Peirce's "Fixation of Belief," which was >>the first essay I read, Peirce clearly asserts that the idea of >>transubstantiation just can't be. I don't know if he continued with this >>opinion or not for the rest of his life, as it seems he changed as he >>grew older. However, this is clearly contradictory to Percy's beliefs, >>and explains why Percy called himself only a "Thief of Peirce" rather >>than embracing Peirce's whole philosophy. Still, Percy gives no reason >>(that I have found) for rejecting the triad in favor of the >>triangle. Your solution of viewing the AREA of the triangle as the >>triadic content is one resolution to the problem, but was Percy viewing >>it that way? I think he wanted to put it all on the interpretant (one >>point of the triangle) to differentiate it from dyadic behavior and to >>say something special was happening there, within the interpretant. >>That's where the triadic event was taking place. But then why do we need >>the idea of the triangle at all? It gets back to Cartesian dualism >>(something non-material is within man) and this is why I think Percy was >>expressing in his letters to Ken Ketner some doubt as to whether Peirce's >>triads (notwithstanding Peirce's other writings) could refute >>Descartes. However, I don't quite get how Peirce's triads solve the >>problem either. >> >>Just some things I'm wondering about. I am interested in the work that >>has been done on this after Percy. Any way to find out what that is? >> >>KP >> >> >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: Mike Frentz >>To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion >> >>Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 4:04 PM >>Subject: Re: [percy-l] gays, biblical authority and Percy's language >>theory -- >>Karey, >>re your first question -- this paper was "discovered" yesterday and >>floated on the peirce-l list (though the paper is four years old, I >>wasn't aware of it either and I'm a big fan of Deacon). Interesting >>coupling of the "reproductive properties" of memes in terms of semiosis >>(interpretant spawning yet another sign). >>Terrence W. Deacon, Memes as Signs >> http >> ://www.chass.utoronto.ca/epc/srb/srb/10-3edit.html >> >>Unfortunately the two other books he comments on as upcoming in "Note 10" >>still aren't to be found. Floyd Merrel's 1997 book on Peirce, Signs, and >>Meaning is also quite an interesting read in this area. >>re the second question -- I personally think this whole notion is >>irrelevant, as long as the triangle is interpreted by the area rather >>than the edges, all vertices are connected to the other two, a dyadic >>relationships aren't necessarily implied to me by this. I find it >>interesting that Peirce doesn't really seem to have used either notation >>in his various descriptions of the same concepts (at least not in the >>Collected Papers), yet he his existential graphs are nothing less than a >>graphical computer. BTW, a *great* reference for anyone attempting to >>surf the CP on their own is Charles S. Peirce's Philosophy of Signs: >>Essays in Comparative Semiotics (Advances in Semiotics) >> >> >>by Gerard Deledalle, 2001 (Deledalle, a French philosopher who did much >>to bring CSP to Europe's attention, just died a few months back). Like >>having a Fodor's to the CSP wilderness (I think WP would have loved to >>have had this book) >>I find it striking how different research is today because of the web vs. >>when Percy was working this a little over a decade ago (per Ketner's >>Thief of Peirce dialogues). Also, a lot of work has been done in this >>area since his death. >>re the third question: I dunno? I'd be interested if you do find the >>reference. I have on occasion started to look up Langer's work but came >>away with the impression that she had drifted so far off in less Pe*rc*an >>directions that aren't of particular interest to me that I've never >>followed through on what it was that Percy was fond of in Langer's work >>wrt CSP's legacy. >> >>Best, >>Mike >> >>At 03:24 PM 8/15/2003 -0400, you wrote: >> >>>No -- I'm certainly no moderator! But I am fascinated by the fact that >>>gays and Biblical authority have garnered so much response, but Percy's >>>language theory doesn't get much interest? There's so much he left >>>unfinished and so much to investigate. If he had lived longer, I think >>>something tremendous might have come out of it -- like, the answer to, >>>what is the interpretant? He died before he could solve it. >>> >>>So, here's what I would discuss if I had the choice... >>> >>>What is the interpretant? >>> >>>Why did he use triangles instead of triads, even when a good argument >>>was given against it? >>> >>>What did Susanne Langer drop that he picked up? (I believe he says what >>>it is in one place, but I lost it somewhere) >>> >>>KP >>> >>> >>>----- Original Message ----- >>>From: Parlin, Steven >>>To: 'Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion' >>> >>>Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 10:52 PM >>>Subject: RE: [percy-l] West Wing >>> >>>Hmmm... >>> >>>Because some of my replies that contradict Karey are not showing up in my >>>inbox, I assumed (wrongly it seems) that I had angered her (isn't she the >>>moderator?), and that she was preventing my postings from going to the list. >>> >>> >>>I owe you an all an apology...but especially Karey. >>> >>>Please forgive my presumption. >>> >>>I'm an ass. >>>Steve >>> >>> >>> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: David Alan Beck [mailto:dabeck at iupui.edu] >>>Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 9:45 PM >>>To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion >>>Subject: Re: [percy-l] West Wing >>> >>> >>>Steve, >>>Why are we getting triplicates of your posting?? >>>-DB >>> >>>On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Parlin, Steven wrote: >>> >>> >>> [NON-Text Body part not included] >>> >>> >>> >>>David Beck >>> >>> >>>-- >>> >>>An archive of all list discussion is available at >>>http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail >>> >>>Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy >>>-- >>> >>>An archive of all list discussion is available at >>>http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail >>> >>>Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy >>>-- >>> >>>An archive of all list discussion is available at >>>http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail >>> >>>Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy >>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>-- >>An archive of all list discussion is available at >>http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail >>Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy >> >>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>-- >>An archive of all list discussion is available at >>http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail >>Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > > >-- > Kenneth L. Ketner >Paul Whitfield Horn Professor >Institute for Studies in Pragmaticism >Texas Tech University > Charles Sanders Peirce Interdisciplinary Professor > School of Nursing > Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center >Lubbock, TX 79409-0002 >806 742 3128 > Office email: kenneth.ketner at ttu.edu > Home email: ketner at arisbeassociates.com >Office website: http://www.pragmaticism.net >Personal website: http://www.wyttynys.net > >-- > >An archive of all list discussion is available at >http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > >Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From PARLINS at culver.org Tue Aug 19 22:06:47 2003 From: PARLINS at culver.org (Parlin, Steven) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 21:06:47 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] The West Wing's comment on Biblical contradictions Message-ID: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE07059137@exchangeserver.culver.org> Excellent!! I'm keeping that one tucked away in my back pocket for later referal. -----Original Message----- From: Tim Cole [mailto:tcole at adobe.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 2:07 AM To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Subject: Re: [percy-l] The West Wing's comment on Biblical contradictions Roger Scruton (I think in his Modern Philosophy) puts it...well, succinctly and memorably when he says something to the effect that if you turn Po-Mo/Deconstructionism on itself, it "...disappears up its own backside leaving nothing but a puff of smoke and a whif of sulfur." > I tend to see WP as having gotten beyond all this Po-Mo BS, ironically > pointing out that they more purveyors of such ideologies maintain that meaning > is relative, that there is no truth, etc., the more rabidly such folks assert > their ideologies as the only truth and their non-meaning as the only meaning, > thereby shooting themselves in the philosophical foot. -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy From PARLINS at culver.org Tue Aug 19 22:07:19 2003 From: PARLINS at culver.org (Parlin, Steven) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 21:07:19 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] gays, biblical authority and Percy's language theor y Message-ID: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE07059138@exchangeserver.culver.org> Thanks, Doug....don't know if its perfect pitch or not, but I had fun writing it. -----Original Message----- From: mitchdl at email.unc.edu [mailto:mitchdl at email.unc.edu] Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 11:35 PM To: "Percy-L@"@email.unc.edu; Literary and Philosophical Discussion; "@"@email.unc.edu Subject: Re: [percy-l] gays, biblical authority and Percy's language theory Folks, I've just now awaking from the Long Sleep of the list. Unfortunately, I awoke into the groggy confusion of the digest message format and spent most of my time trying to figure out what the heck was going on (where's the coffee?). Anyway, I got that sorted out and just read Steve's take-off on Lost in the Cosmos--hilarious stuff. The interviewer is pitch-perfect. This may have already come up in somewhere back in those indecipherable digests, but I thought I'd throw out my take about homosexuality, angelism/bestialism, and our estrangement from ourselves. First, divorced from the proper end of our physical/sexual nature, sex is something to be enjoyed, experimented with, manipulated in Ye Old Bayou Love Lab. The overly abstracted scientific mind hovers over the varying combinations of flesh and monitors responses, etc. (all while feeling a response within himself that makes him want to get jiggy with the nearest nurse). It is the fact of pregnancy, birth, paternity/maternity, student drivers, etc., that grounds us in the mundane, connects sex to birth (and death) and returns us to our mortality and the conditions of our existence. Donne's lovers will find themselves changing diapers soon enough--not as an accident, not as a choice for some charming Russian baby, but as an outgrowth of the act itself--its very nature. Homosexuality (particularly as a cultural phenomenon) is connected to the aesthetic realm (the Gay Eye, guys who can match socks) because it is intrinsically linked to the desire of all lovers--eros without time- -false transcendence. Needless to say, writers and artists of all stripes feel the same desire keenly. Read this way, Lost in San Francisco is another version of one of Percy's institutes--with happy-slappy by night (beast) and tastefully arranged chinese landscapes by day (angel)--with the artist in place of the scientist as abstracted intellect. Certainly gays/lesbians are not alone in this. Our desire to separate sex and procreation dominates most everywhere. The difference, however, as is said over and over, is that homosexuality by its nature separates the two. A gay man might recover meaningful selfhood to a great extent, but it is in spite of his sexuality (or use of it); a straight man frequently achieves 'reentry' through fruitful marriage-- as my wife might say, through submission to the nature of things (yes, dear). Basta, doug Postscript: When I started working with the Percy Project, I was finishing grad school at Chapel Hill. I'm now slogging about in south Alabama at the University of Mobile--a Baptist school which would be the perfect setting for a Percy novel (Jesus Christ--Greatest Pro of Them All). ----- Original Message ----- From: Parlin, Steven To: 'Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion' Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 3:09 PM Subject: RE: [percy-l] gays, biblical authority and Percy's language theor y -- Karey, I am imensely interested in Percy's language theory, and I hope to resume that discussion either concurrently or a little later. But, I am also matters of eathly concern. On the one hand, inquirey into theory is exciting, fun, and even necessary. Let's roll up our sleaves. But, let us not become like that scientist Percy mentions in Lost in the Cosmos who spends all of his time in the abstacted orbit of theory never being able to successfuly achieve re-entry. Homsexuality, among the many deviant sexual behaviors, is one of the most odd behaviors in the Cosmos. I think it's worthy, even necessary, to wrestle with this...especially since it's impossible to ignore it. in fact, this is my point...It's really only possible to entertain the idea of homosexual marriage when we are in orbit and lost. We have lost our moorings. The center is not holding. We really don't understand ourselves -- We are indeed the strangest of cosmic phenomena. [For fun-- I adapted the below dialogue from a few excerpts in Lost in the Cosmos] Interviewer: Are you more confused about sexuality than any other phenomenon in the Cosmos? Subject: What do you mean? Interviewer: I mean... gay marriage? C'mon. Subject: I don't follow...what's wrong with it. It's no different than any other marriage. It's all about love after all. Interviewer: Love? Is sex necessary for love? And, is marriage a necessary arrangement for love? Isn't marriage primarily for ensuring the health and well-being of family life; that is, for having and rasing children...obviously homosexuality... Subject: Well...if you mean do gay lovers need to get married, no they don't. . Interviewer: If there's no real need, then why the fuss? Homosexuals have been "loving" each other for centuries. Why now the need for marriage? Subject: Ceremony, validation, recognition...they have rights you know. And why not? Interviewer: Why? Subject: Why not? Interviewer: I asked you first. Subject: Well...there's nothing wrong with it, and they deserve the same benefits as other married couples. Interviewer: Such as. Subject: Taxes...health care... you know Interviewer: I see. Subject: They have rights. Interviewer: I see. Just like two friends living together. Why not call that a marriage too? Subject: No...that's different. Interviewer: How? Subject: Well...two friends aren't a couple; they aren't in love. Interviewer: Hmmm...so the state should only give benefits to people who are in love. Subject: No...not just in love...committed. Interviewer: Friends can be committed...so can brothers...sisters... I'm even committed to my cat. Subject: But that's different. Interviewer: How? Subject: Well... homosexuals love each other in a special way. Interviewer: You mean they please each other sexually. Subject: No...they're "intimate". Interviewer: I see...how do you measure that? Even though I'm not sleeping with him, I'm probably more "intimate" with my best friend than a lot married men and women. Subject: It's different. Interviewer: Perhaps....but how? Can you explain it? Subject: No...but... I mean...It's still perfectly natural. At least as much as heterosexual marriage. Interviewer: Perfectly natural? Subject: Yeah Interviewer: Can you explain why it is that men and women exhibit sexual behavior undreamed of among the other several million species, with every conceivable sexual relation between persons [or animals] or with only one person [their self] or between a male and female, or between two male persons, or two female persons, or two males and one femaile, or two females and one male; relationships moreover which can implicate every orifice and appendage of the human body and which bear no relation to the reproduction and survival of the species? Subject: No. Interviewer: Odd isn't it? Is this sort of behavior natural? Subject: I dunno...but heterosexual desires...well, some of those aren't exactly "natural" either. Interviewer: True, heterosexuals can be just as depraved. But then isn't that why marriage is so important for helping to keep these behaviors in order... if for no other reason than for the sake of rasing children? Subect: Perhaps....but there's still nothing WRONG with homosexual marriage. Interviewer: That's another mattter... But what about the children? Isn't child-reering natural AND necessary? Subject: Yeah... but homosexuals can adopt. In fact, they can adopt children that heterosexuals have discarded. Interviewer: Hmm...that's an interesting point, and a shame that there are some children who need to be adopted...but aside from not knowing what affect this would have on children, isn't it obvious that without heterosexuals there wouldn't be any children at all? No next generation. No one to adopt? Subject: Science is changing all that. Interviewer: I see. Subject: And, I never said that homosexual marriage should replace heterosexual marriage. Interviewer: No, but we still haven't figured out what homosexual marriage means...how is it different than any two people living together. Moreover, I was making a point. That is, I was illustrating that marriage is necessary for raising children. Subject: Government is changing all that. Interviewer: I see. -----Original Message----- From: Karey L. Perkins [mailto:karey at charter.net] Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 2:25 PM To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Subject: [percy-l] gays, biblical authority and Percy's language theory -- No -- I'm certainly no moderator! But I am fascinated by the fact that gays and Biblical authority have garnered so much response, but Percy's language theory doesn't get much interest? There's so much he left unfinished and so much to investigate. If he had lived longer, I think something tremendous might have come out of it -- like, the answer to, what is the interpretant? He died before he could solve it. So, here's what I would discuss if I had the choice... What is the interpretant? Why did he use triangles instead of triads, even when a good argument was given against it? What did Susanne Langer drop that he picked up? (I believe he says what it is in one place, but I lost it somewhere) KP ----- Original Message ----- From: Parlin, Steven To: 'Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion' Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 10:52 PM Subject: RE: [percy-l] West Wing Hmmm... Because some of my replies that contradict Karey are not showing up in my inbox, I assumed (wrongly it seems) that I had angered her (isn't she the moderator?), and that she was preventing my postings from going to the list. I owe you an all an apology...but especially Karey. Please forgive my presumption. I'm an ass. Steve -----Original Message----- From: David Alan Beck [mailto:dabeck at iupui.edu] Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 9:45 PM To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Subject: Re: [percy-l] West Wing Steve, Why are we getting triplicates of your posting?? -DB On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Parlin, Steven wrote: [NON-Text Body part not included] David Beck -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy From PARLINS at culver.org Tue Aug 19 22:23:42 2003 From: PARLINS at culver.org (Parlin, Steven) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 21:23:42 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] gay marriage Message-ID: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE0705913B@exchangeserver.culver.org> Alexander Pope was an insightful man... I think this is apropos to parts of our discussion. Vice is a monster of so frightful mien, As to be hated needs but to be seen; Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face, We first endure, then pity, then embrace. Robert, while this is not a "screeds" free citation (I'm not quite sure if that is even possible) it is among the most clearly stated intellectual positions regarding this matter of homosexuality (which in the end really isn't an issue of its own, but is the banner for a much larger cultural shift regarding family, marriage, and sexuality), that I have read. In fact, for anyone really interested in understanding the Church's concerns, I think this is probably one of the finer "lay" documents available. http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9403/articles/homo.html Steve -----Original Message----- From: Robert_Pauley at oxy.com [mailto:Robert_Pauley at oxy.com] Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 8:46 PM To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org Subject: RE: [percy-l] gay marriage Can anyone refer me to a well-reasoned and well-referenced intellectual/moral argument in opposition to gay marriage and, perhaps, to homosexuality in general. No screeds or strictly religious arguments, please. Many thanks. RP -----Original Message----- From: percy-l-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:percy-l-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of RHONDA MCDONNELL Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 6:38 PM To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Subject: Re: [percy-l] gay marriage Hi Karey: You might be interested in Harold Bloom's contention that the Hebrew pronouns which refer to God in the original Old Testament are genderless. Since I don't read Hebrew, I can't check this, but I do know that Milton also agrees with you. Not bad company to be in. And we may as well throw in Plato's SYMPOSIUM as another argument that precedes yours. Rhonda ----- Original Message ----- From: Karey L. Perkins To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 12:53 PM Subject: Re: [percy-l] gay marriage I think our spirits/souls ultimately transcend gender -- God has no genitals (although we traditionally and misleadingly refer to "Him" as a "He," gender is by definition a physical trait and God is not physical - only Jesus). I -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Robert_Pauley at oxy.com Tue Aug 19 23:18:32 2003 From: Robert_Pauley at oxy.com (Robert_Pauley at oxy.com) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 20:18:32 -0700 Subject: [percy-l] gay marriage Message-ID: <1E4B441CB5CF9D408D318BC697F086F5014B02F4@olawexc7.naoxy.com> Steve: Thanks so much. RP -----Original Message----- From: percy-l-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:percy-l-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Parlin, Steven Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 7:24 PM To: 'Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion' Subject: RE: [percy-l] gay marriage Alexander Pope was an insightful man... I think this is apropos to parts of our discussion. Vice is a monster of so frightful mien, As to be hated needs but to be seen; Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face, We first endure, then pity, then embrace. Robert, while this is not a "screeds" free citation (I'm not quite sure if that is even possible) it is among the most clearly stated intellectual positions regarding this matter of homosexuality (which in the end really isn't an issue of its own, but is the banner for a much larger cultural shift regarding family, marriage, and sexuality), that I have read. In fact, for anyone really interested in understanding the Church's concerns, I think this is probably one of the finer "lay" documents available. http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9403/articles/homo.html Steve -----Original Message----- From: Robert_Pauley at oxy.com [mailto:Robert_Pauley at oxy.com] Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 8:46 PM To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org Subject: RE: [percy-l] gay marriage Can anyone refer me to a well-reasoned and well-referenced intellectual/moral argument in opposition to gay marriage and, perhaps, to homosexuality in general. No screeds or strictly religious arguments, please. Many thanks. RP -----Original Message----- From: percy-l-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:percy-l-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of RHONDA MCDONNELL Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 6:38 PM To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Subject: Re: [percy-l] gay marriage Hi Karey: You might be interested in Harold Bloom's contention that the Hebrew pronouns which refer to God in the original Old Testament are genderless. Since I don't read Hebrew, I can't check this, but I do know that Milton also agrees with you. Not bad company to be in. And we may as well throw in Plato's SYMPOSIUM as another argument that precedes yours. Rhonda ----- Original Message ----- From: Karey L. Perkins To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 12:53 PM Subject: Re: [percy-l] gay marriage I think our spirits/souls ultimately transcend gender -- God has no genitals (although we traditionally and misleadingly refer to "Him" as a "He," gender is by definition a physical trait and God is not physical - only Jesus). I -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marcus at loyno.edu Tue Aug 19 23:25:33 2003 From: marcus at loyno.edu (marcus at loyno.edu) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 03:25:33 GMT Subject: [percy-l] The West Wing's comment on Biblical contradictions Message-ID: <3f42ea2d.f4.3f00c8.24229@loyno.edu> Percy deliberately and explicitly embraced a post-modern view of things--as early as LIR. He even uses the term. And his PoMo is founded on the notion that Modernism has run its course and left us stranded. He had little to say (to me)about deconstructionism. He was curious, but I suspect he read about it and didn't do more than dip a toe in the prime materials. Maybe Nikki can add something. There are some good post-modern readings of Percy. The best I've seen is Michael Kobre WP's Voices. U. of Georgia. Couple of years ago. I think this book is outstanding. Marcus From: "Parlin, Steven" To: "'Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion'" Subject: RE: [percy-l] The West Wing's comment on Biblical contradictions Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 21:06:47 -0500 ----- Original Message Follows ----- > > Excellent!! I'm keeping that one tucked away in my back > pocket for later referal. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tim Cole [mailto:tcole at adobe.com] > Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 2:07 AM > To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion > Subject: Re: [percy-l] The West Wing's comment on Biblical > contradictions > > > > > Roger Scruton (I think in his Modern Philosophy) puts > it...well, succinctly and memorably when he says something > to the effect that if you turn Po-Mo/Deconstructionism on > itself, it "...disappears up its own backside leaving > nothing but a puff of smoke and a whif of sulfur." > > > > > > I tend to see WP as having gotten beyond all this Po-Mo > > BS, ironically pointing out that they more purveyors of > such ideologies maintain that meaning > > is relative, that there is no truth, etc., the more > rabidly such folks assert > > their ideologies as the only truth and their non-meaning > as the only meaning, > > thereby shooting themselves in the philosophical foot. > > > > -- > > An archive of all list discussion is available at > http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > > Visit the Walker Percy Project at > http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -- > > An archive of all list discussion is available at > http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > > Visit the Walker Percy Project at > http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy From piat1 at bellsouth.net Tue Aug 19 23:36:15 2003 From: piat1 at bellsouth.net (James Piat) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 23:36:15 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] Post modernism References: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE0705913B@exchangeserver.culver.org> Message-ID: <010501c366cc$36642480$210110ac@D68RS511> MessageDear Folks, I wonder if there is something like the Heisenberg uncertainty principle that applies truth and meaning. Perhaps we can not simultaneously know both the meaning and the truth of what we are talking about. When the meaning of assertion is completely specified its truth becomes trivial. Conversely the more general the truth the less clear its meaning. But they are complementary in such a way that makes simultaneous specification of them impossible. Maybe there is some measure of either truth or meaning in what the post moderist are trying to convey. Aha -- I just got your comments about Percy and post modernism, Marcus! I'm glad to hear that. Jim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rhonda_mcdonnell at msn.com Tue Aug 19 23:45:19 2003 From: rhonda_mcdonnell at msn.com (RHONDA MCDONNELL) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 20:45:19 -0700 Subject: [percy-l] The West Wing's comment on Biblical contradictions References: <3f42ea2d.f4.3f00c8.24229@loyno.edu> Message-ID: To say Percy was unimpressed with deconstructionism seems to be an understatement, based on his writings. And, while I imagine that there are good post-modernist readings of Percy, a great deal of post-modernist art, it seems to me, denies meaning and asserts a sliding scale of values and truths. But maybe post-modernism isn't the worst of atheistic existentialism, nihilism, deconstruction, and positivism dressed in glitzy wrappings. While I made my earlier point in a bit of a smart-assed fashion, just a consideration of LITC shows that he has moved beyond post-modernism (having never succumbed to the posturing that much of it--Baz Luhrman films, for example--is). The point is that the bomb hasn't dropped, immediate total annihilation isn't imminent (still to this day) so we'd better find a new way of dealing with each other and our world. For Percy, (and I state the obvious, with apologies) the center of that new way is language. Rhonda ----- Original Message ----- From: marcus at loyno.edu To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 8:25 PM Subject: RE: [percy-l] The West Wing's comment on Biblical contradictions Percy deliberately and explicitly embraced a post-modern view of things--as early as LIR. He even uses the term. And his PoMo is founded on the notion that Modernism has run its course and left us stranded. He had little to say (to me)about deconstructionism. He was curious, but I suspect he read about it and didn't do more than dip a toe in the prime materials. Maybe Nikki can add something. There are some good post-modern readings of Percy. The best I've seen is Michael Kobre WP's Voices. U. of Georgia. Couple of years ago. I think this book is outstanding. Marcus From: "Parlin, Steven" To: "'Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion'" Subject: RE: [percy-l] The West Wing's comment on Biblical contradictions Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 21:06:47 -0500 ----- Original Message Follows ----- > > Excellent!! I'm keeping that one tucked away in my back > pocket for later referal. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tim Cole [mailto:tcole at adobe.com] > Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 2:07 AM > To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion > Subject: Re: [percy-l] The West Wing's comment on Biblical > contradictions > > > > > Roger Scruton (I think in his Modern Philosophy) puts > it...well, succinctly and memorably when he says something > to the effect that if you turn Po-Mo/Deconstructionism on > itself, it "...disappears up its own backside leaving > nothing but a puff of smoke and a whif of sulfur." > > > > > > I tend to see WP as having gotten beyond all this Po-Mo > > BS, ironically pointing out that they more purveyors of > such ideologies maintain that meaning > > is relative, that there is no truth, etc., the more > rabidly such folks assert > > their ideologies as the only truth and their non-meaning > as the only meaning, > > thereby shooting themselves in the philosophical foot. > > > > -- > > An archive of all list discussion is available at > http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > > Visit the Walker Percy Project at > http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -- > > An archive of all list discussion is available at > http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > > Visit the Walker Percy Project at > http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From piat1 at bellsouth.net Wed Aug 20 01:20:40 2003 From: piat1 at bellsouth.net (James Piat) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 01:20:40 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] Post modernism References: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE0705913B@exchangeserver.culver.org> <010501c366cc$36642480$210110ac@D68RS511> Message-ID: <012501c366da$cc687f90$210110ac@D68RS511> Message Maybe I should have thought more about my last post -- I was just starting to mull the idea over when I was startled by Marcus' post and sent it off only half developed. One can not simultaneously fully specify both the truth and meaning of an assertion. The more certain the meaning of a propoposition the more the we must stipulate as true to explain what is meant. For example, what does the word "Trees" mean? In order to understand the meaning of any symbol we must understand something about the worId. We can not forever define one word in terms of another word. Sooner or later meaning requires that some words be defined in terms of their actual consequences in the non symbolic world. In other words we must know something more than just the relationships among symbols. We must also know what is true of the world to which the symbols refer. And the more explicit or comprehensive we wish to be about the meaning of any symbol the more about this world we must know. Unfortunately we can not determine whether an our knowledge about the world is true unless we understand what the meaning of what is about the world we are asserting to be true. For example, I can not determine if the assertion "trees have leaves" is true unless I know what "trees" means. So we have come full circle and we are not yet out of the woods. Truth and meaning are co-dependent in such a way that we can not know both simultaneously. To know one we must assume the other. The more we would know of one the more we must assume of the other. What is true about a tree depends upon what one means by tree. What one means by tree depends upon what is true about a tree. Truth and meaning are circular -- which is why we are forever arguing in circles about the two. And isn't this just what the Hiesenberg uncertainty principle teaches -- that there is abosolute uncertainty at the core of our knowledge of every event. Isn't that what the modern secular world has learned. And isn't that what the post modern philosophers are trying to come to grips with. I think that some from the religious world have mistakenly construed post modernism as a refutation of religious teachings and have over reacted. But I say scientific truth and philosophical understanding are friends of religon and need not be feared. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rhonda_mcdonnell at msn.com Wed Aug 20 01:37:57 2003 From: rhonda_mcdonnell at msn.com (RHONDA MCDONNELL) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 22:37:57 -0700 Subject: [percy-l] Post modernism References: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE0705913B@exchangeserver.culver.org><010501c366cc$36642480$210110ac@D68RS511> <012501c366da$cc687f90$210110ac@D68RS511> Message-ID: MessageAs usual, Jim, I find myself agreeing with what you're proposing. In this case, however, I can only agree to a point. You lost me here: And isn't this just what the Hiesenberg uncertainty principle teaches -- that there is abosolute uncertainty at the core of our knowledge of every event. Isn't that what the modern secular world has learned. And isn't that what the post modern philosophers are trying to come to grips with. I think that some from the religious world have mistakenly construed post modernism as a refutation of religious teachings and have over reacted. But I say scientific truth and philosophical understanding are friends of religon and need not be feared. If, as you say, there is absolute uncertainty at the core of our knowledge of every event, then that includes Christ's incarnation as man and his entrance into time, as well as the covenant made between God and Abraham. I'm willing to concede that we need to be uncertain of all matters human (including perhaps the manner in which institutional religion is practiced--I'll give the post-modernists that). However, despite lack of positive scientific proof, I am not uncertain in my knowledge of the two events I've listed -- nor was Percy, despite his love for the elegance of the scientific method, and his concordant belief that "scientific truth and philosophical understanding are friends of religion and need not be feared." Of course, maybe my musings are influenced by my crankiness with students who misread Nietzsche, think they are uber-men, and that their MTV personal "truth" is reason not to listen to anyone else. So keep explaining this business of "absolute uncertainty" to me, and maybe I'll get it. Rhonda -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From piat1 at bellsouth.net Wed Aug 20 06:38:56 2003 From: piat1 at bellsouth.net (James Piat) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 06:38:56 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] Post modernism References: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE0705913B@exchangeserver.culver.org><010501c366cc$36642480$210110ac@D68RS511><012501c366da$cc687f90$210110ac@D68RS511> Message-ID: <035f01c36707$44a71b20$210110ac@D68RS511> MessageDear Rhonda, I probably have stretched an analogy beyond the breaking point in trying to equate the Hiesenberg uncertainly principle, which I think may only apply to the measurement of quantum phenomena (whatever that might be), to the concept of knowledge. Moreover I personally am not convinced that the nature of knowledge based upon religious faith is the same as knowledge based upon the scientific process. These types of knowledge may be the same in some respects (in the sense that both reveal to one something about the world) but differ in other respects such as how they are acquired, to what aspects of the world they apply and what counts as proof of them. For example I do not see how scientific knowledge "directly" reveals much to one about the moral aspects of the world. Science, it seems to me, may provide us knowledge about the consequences of our actions, regardless of whether or not they are based upon moral considerations, but not whether the acts are themselves moral or not. (Continuing my musing out loud) Perhaps for those of us living today whether or not Jesus rose from the grave is largely a matter of knowledge based upon religious faith, but for those living at the time who may have witnessed his resurrection a different sort of knowledge was also involved. Rhonda I don't mean to be coming of across as anything more than wondering or speculating in any of my comments -- and especially I don't mean to be trying to establish or refute by logic or evidence anything about another person's religious convictions as I personally don't think religious convictions are subject to that sort of approach. So thanks for your comments and reservations about what I had written -- You've both expanded my understanding and helped me to see some of the error in what I'd said. Jim If, as you say, there is absolute uncertainty at the core of our knowledge of every event, then that includes Christ's incarnation as man and his entrance into time, as well as the covenant made between God and Abraham. I'm willing to concede that we need to be uncertain of all matters human (including perhaps the manner in which institutional religion is practiced--I'll give the post-modernists that). However, despite lack of positive scientific proof, I am not uncertain in my knowledge of the two events I've listed -- nor was Percy, despite his love for the elegance of the scientific method, and his concordant belief that "scientific truth and philosophical understanding are friends of religion and need not be feared." Of course, maybe my musings are influenced by my crankiness with students who misread Nietzsche, think they are uber-men, and that their MTV personal "truth" is reason not to listen to anyone else. So keep explaining this business of "absolute uncertainty" to me, and maybe I'll get it. Rhonda -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mfrentz at bbn.com Sun Aug 24 22:24:34 2003 From: mfrentz at bbn.com (Mike Frentz) Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 22:24:34 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] Contra Gentiles? In-Reply-To: <035f01c36707$44a71b20$210110ac@D68RS511> References: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE0705913B@exchangeserver.culver.org> <010501c366cc$36642480$210110ac@D68RS511> <012501c366da$cc687f90$210110ac@D68RS511> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20030824221906.02b77210@127.0.0.1> Does anybody happen to know how far Percy got on his Contra Gentiles, which, if I remember correctly was a defense of the Church somehow aligned with Peirce's principles, based on the model of Aquinas? Any record of it after his death? Does the manuscript exist in his papers, perhaps? Just curious if anyone in this august group knows anything about it. (actually, the SUDDEN SILENCE has been killing me on this list.. Hoping the big one (sobig etc..) didn't do us in. Figured this was better than a "TEST" message :-) Mike From PARLINS at culver.org Mon Aug 25 08:32:18 2003 From: PARLINS at culver.org (Parlin, Steven) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 07:32:18 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Contra Gentiles? Message-ID: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE07059160@exchangeserver.culver.org> Too busy getting my classes off the ground, Mike. Once we've cleared a safe altitude, I'll be back into the mix. I at least have nothing to offer on "contra gentiles"...not at this time anyway. S -----Original Message----- From: Mike Frentz [mailto:mfrentz at bbn.com] Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 9:25 PM To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Subject: [percy-l] Contra Gentiles? Does anybody happen to know how far Percy got on his Contra Gentiles, which, if I remember correctly was a defense of the Church somehow aligned with Peirce's principles, based on the model of Aquinas? Any record of it after his death? Does the manuscript exist in his papers, perhaps? Just curious if anyone in this august group knows anything about it. (actually, the SUDDEN SILENCE has been killing me on this list.. Hoping the big one (sobig etc..) didn't do us in. Figured this was better than a "TEST" message :-) Mike -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy From Nikkibar at aol.com Mon Aug 25 12:56:19 2003 From: Nikkibar at aol.com (Nikkibar at aol.com) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 12:56:19 EDT Subject: [percy-l] Contra Gentiles? Message-ID: <69.3b7d91d0.2c7b99b3@aol.com> Ken Ketner would be the one to ask and I have forwarded your inquiry to him. Nikki -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Nikkibar at aol.com Mon Aug 25 13:09:07 2003 From: Nikkibar at aol.com (Nikkibar at aol.com) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 13:09:07 EDT Subject: [percy-l] The West Wing's comment on Biblical contradictions Message-ID: <1d9.fc04e1f.2c7b9cb3@aol.com> My only discussion with Walker on deconstructionism deaalt with his disenchantment with Paul Deman, but the discussion was not lengthy on his part. Nikki -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kenneth.ketner at ttu.edu Mon Aug 25 16:06:16 2003 From: kenneth.ketner at ttu.edu (Kenneth Ketner) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 15:06:16 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Contra Gentiles? References: <69.3b7d91d0.2c7b99b3@aol.com> Message-ID: <3F4A6C38.1050804@ttu.edu> Folks, all I know about CONTRA GENTILES can be found in THIEF OF PEIRCE. Maybe Pat Samway has an idea on the matter. On the other hand, and speculating, it might be possible to make a case that Walker's entire literary output was equal to the work named CONTRA GENTILES. Nikkibar at aol.com wrote: > Ken Ketner would be the one to ask and I have forwarded your inquiry to him. > > Nikki > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > -- > > An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > > Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -- Kenneth L. Ketner Paul Whitfield Horn Professor Institute for Studies in Pragmaticism Texas Tech University Charles Sanders Peirce Interdisciplinary Professor School of Nursing Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center Lubbock, TX 79409-0002 806 742 3128 Office email: kenneth.ketner at ttu.edu Home email: ketner at arisbeassociates.com Office website: http://www.pragmaticism.net Personal website: http://www.wyttynys.net From kenneth.ketner at ttu.edu Mon Aug 25 16:06:44 2003 From: kenneth.ketner at ttu.edu (Kenneth Ketner) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 15:06:44 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Contra Gentiles? References: <69.3b7d91d0.2c7b99b3@aol.com> Message-ID: <3F4A6C54.1070607@ttu.edu> Oh, and I forgot -- Walker was tricky. Nikkibar at aol.com wrote: > Ken Ketner would be the one to ask and I have forwarded your inquiry to him. > > Nikki > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > -- > > An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > > Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -- Kenneth L. Ketner Paul Whitfield Horn Professor Institute for Studies in Pragmaticism Texas Tech University Charles Sanders Peirce Interdisciplinary Professor School of Nursing Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center Lubbock, TX 79409-0002 806 742 3128 Office email: kenneth.ketner at ttu.edu Home email: ketner at arisbeassociates.com Office website: http://www.pragmaticism.net Personal website: http://www.wyttynys.net From karey at charter.net Mon Aug 25 17:25:20 2003 From: karey at charter.net (Karey L. Perkins) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 17:25:20 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] Contra Gentiles? References: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE0705913B@exchangeserver.culver.org><010501c366cc$36642480$210110ac@D68RS511><012501c366da$cc687f90$210110ac@D68RS511> <5.2.0.9.2.20030824221906.02b77210@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <002c01c36b4f$6457a600$0301000a@AFAC955012> I think Rhonda would be a great person to ask about that -- she seems to have gone far in her research in that area -- KP ----- Original Message ----- From: Mike Frentz To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 10:24 PM Subject: [percy-l] Contra Gentiles? Does anybody happen to know how far Percy got on his Contra Gentiles, which, if I remember correctly was a defense of the Church somehow aligned with Peirce's principles, based on the model of Aquinas? Any record of it after his death? Does the manuscript exist in his papers, perhaps? Just curious if anyone in this august group knows anything about it. (actually, the SUDDEN SILENCE has been killing me on this list.. Hoping the big one (sobig etc..) didn't do us in. Figured this was better than a "TEST" message :-) Mike -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kenneth.ketner at ttu.edu Mon Aug 18 15:05:57 2003 From: kenneth.ketner at ttu.edu (Kenneth Ketner) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 14:05:57 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Peirce/Percy References: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070590FD@exchangeserver.culver.org> <5.2.0.9.2.20030815153101.029f3b38@po2.bbn.com> <000001c36417$892c40b0$0301000a@AFAC955012> Message-ID: <3F412395.6070504@ttu.edu> I don't agree that the infallibility of the Catholic Church falls under Peirce's first three methods (tenacity, authority, fashion) - but I could be wrong. I say that from being familiar with Peirce's writings. However, to be thorough, it is proper to consider the other half of the remark and ask just what is considered infallible within the Roman Church? Are all Papal encyclicals infallible? all teachings? or just one or two items? A friend once told me that the doctrine of the assumption of Mary is the only infallible teaching so far since the doctrine of infallibility was announced late in the nineteenth century (wasn't it Pius IX?). These aren't picky questions - I am inquiring to find out, since my knowledge is weak in that area. It seems wise to find out the meaning and scope of infallibility in this setting before thinking further about it. Karey L. Perkins wrote: > Mike, > > Thanks for the references, that was just what I was looking for. The > Peirce literature is so comprehensive it's overwhelming, and unlike my > studies of Percy, I have no idea where to start. I almost didn't do > this topic because I am not trained in semiotics (semeiotics?) and most > of this is now self taught. But I have been reading "American > Signatures" which says that most semioticians are self taught (as was > Percy). So I'm not alone, but I still don't have a clear path of > reading mapped out. > > Percy says in several places that Susanne Langer dropped the ball and he > intended to pick it up -- he says it in the essays, the conversations, > etc. But only one place do I recall that he actually says WHAT she > dropped -- what she missed. I believe it was early in my reading, in > "Message," but I don't remember what it was and I'm going to have to go > back and look. I thought someone else might have been familiar with it. > > Peirce, unlike Percy, was eagerly ready to reject that which did not > conform to "the method of science" as a manner of fixing belief. So he > rejected the "method of tradition" "method of authority" and "method of > fashion." The infallibility of the Catholic church would fall under > those. And if anyone has read Peirce's "Fixation of Belief," which was > the first essay I read, Peirce clearly asserts that the idea of > transubstantiation just can't be. I don't know if he continued with > this opinion or not for the rest of his life, as it seems he changed as > he grew older. However, this is clearly contradictory to Percy's > beliefs, and explains why Percy called himself only a "Thief of Peirce" > rather than embracing Peirce's whole philosophy. Still, Percy gives no > reason (that I have found) for rejecting the triad in favor of the > triangle. Your solution of viewing the AREA of the triangle as the > triadic content is one resolution to the problem, but was Percy viewing > it that way? I think he wanted to put it all on the interpretant (one > point of the triangle) to differentiate it from dyadic behavior and to > say something special was happening there, within the interpretant. > That's where the triadic event was taking place. But then why do we > need the idea of the triangle at all? It gets back to Cartesian dualism > (something non-material is within man) and this is why I think Percy was > expressing in his letters to Ken Ketner some doubt as to whether > Peirce's triads (notwithstanding Peirce's other writings) could refute > Descartes. However, I don't quite get how Peirce's triads solve the > problem either. > > Just some things I'm wondering about. I am interested in the work that > has been done on this after Percy. Any way to find out what that is? > > KP > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Mike Frentz > To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion > > Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 4:04 PM > Subject: Re: [percy-l] gays, biblical authority and Percy's language > theory -- > > Karey, > > re your first question -- this paper was "discovered" yesterday and > floated on the peirce-l list (though the paper is four years old, I > wasn't aware of it either and I'm a big fan of Deacon). Interesting > coupling of the "reproductive properties" of memes in terms of semiosis > (interpretant spawning yet another sign). > > Terrence W. Deacon, Memes as Signs > http > ://www.chass.utoronto.ca/epc/srb/srb/10-3edit.html > > > Unfortunately the two other books he comments on as upcoming in "Note > 10" still aren't to be found. Floyd Merrel's 1997 book on Peirce, > Signs, and Meaning is also quite an interesting read in this area. > > re the second question -- I personally think this whole notion is > irrelevant, as long as the triangle is interpreted by the area rather > than the edges, all vertices are connected to the other two, a dyadic > relationships aren't necessarily implied to me by this. I find it > interesting that Peirce doesn't really seem to have used either notation > in his various descriptions of the same concepts (at least not in the > Collected Papers), yet he his existential graphs are nothing less than a > graphical computer. BTW, a *great* reference for anyone attempting to > surf the CP on their own is Charles S. Peirce's Philosophy of Signs: > Essays in Comparative Semiotics (Advances in Semiotics) > > > by Gerard Deledalle, 2001 (Deledalle, a French philosopher who did much > to bring CSP to Europe's attention, just died a few months back). Like > having a Fodor's to the CSP wilderness (I think WP would have loved to > have had this book) > > I find it striking how different research is today because of the web > vs. when Percy was working this a little over a decade ago (per Ketner's > Thief of Peirce dialogues). Also, a lot of work has been done in this > area since his death. > > re the third question: I dunno? I'd be interested if you do find the > reference. I have on occasion started to look up Langer's work but came > away with the impression that she had drifted so far off in less > Pe*rc*an directions that aren't of particular interest to me that I've > never followed through on what it was that Percy was fond of in Langer's > work wrt CSP's legacy. > > > Best, > Mike > > > At 03:24 PM 8/15/2003 -0400, you wrote: > >> No -- I'm certainly no moderator! But I am fascinated by the fact >> that gays and Biblical authority have garnered so much response, but >> Percy's language theory doesn't get much interest? There's so much he >> left unfinished and so much to investigate. If he had lived longer, I >> think something tremendous might have come out of it -- like, the >> answer to, what is the interpretant? He died before he could solve it. >> >> So, here's what I would discuss if I had the choice... >> >> What is the interpretant? >> >> Why did he use triangles instead of triads, even when a good argument >> was given against it? >> >> What did Susanne Langer drop that he picked up? (I believe he says >> what it is in one place, but I lost it somewhere) >> >> KP >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Parlin, Steven >> To: 'Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion' >> >> Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 10:52 PM >> Subject: RE: [percy-l] West Wing >> >> Hmmm... >> >> Because some of my replies that contradict Karey are not showing up in my >> inbox, I assumed (wrongly it seems) that I had angered her (isn't she the >> moderator?), and that she was preventing my postings from going to the >> list. >> >> >> I owe you an all an apology...but especially Karey. >> >> Please forgive my presumption. >> >> I'm an ass. >> >> Steve >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: David Alan Beck [mailto:dabeck at iupui.edu] >> Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 9:45 PM >> To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion >> Subject: Re: [percy-l] West Wing >> >> >> Steve, >> Why are we getting triplicates of your posting?? >> -DB >> >> On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Parlin, Steven wrote: >> >> >> [NON-Text Body part not included] >> >> >> >> David Beck >> >> >> -- >> >> An archive of all list discussion is available at >> http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail >> >> Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy >> -- >> >> An archive of all list discussion is available at >> http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail >> >> Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy >> -- >> >> An archive of all list discussion is available at >> http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail >> >> Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > -- > > An archive of all list discussion is available at > http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > > Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > -- > > An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > > Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -- Kenneth L. Ketner Paul Whitfield Horn Professor Institute for Studies in Pragmaticism Texas Tech University Charles Sanders Peirce Interdisciplinary Professor School of Nursing Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center Lubbock, TX 79409-0002 806 742 3128 Office email: kenneth.ketner at ttu.edu Home email: ketner at arisbeassociates.com Office website: http://www.pragmaticism.net Personal website: http://www.wyttynys.net From rhonda_mcdonnell at msn.com Mon Aug 25 20:46:42 2003 From: rhonda_mcdonnell at msn.com (RHONDA MCDONNELL) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 00:46:42 +0000 Subject: [percy-l] Contra Gentiles? Message-ID: Thanks for the vote of confidence, Karey, but I don't have much to add. While I think Dr. Ketner is right--the sum of the parts = contra gentiles, it also seems that he was working on it actively. If I remember correctly, reference to the project appears both in correspondence to Ketner and in his correspondence with Shelby Foote. But that doesn't mean that he had anything down on paper. I'm hoping to get to the Chapel Hill archives and see what may be revealed, if anything. What little I've picked up from reading the correspondence seems to indicate that he was planning on a Christian apologetic for the post-Christian world. In other words, a LOST IN THE COSMOS type of project (remember his working title for that one was NOVUM ORGANON, if I remember correctly). Not to beat that dead mule, but that's the primary reason I see him as reaching beyond the post-Modern vision toward some future that has yet to be glimpsed. But we'll see if my research bears that out. Sorry Mike, not too much enlightenment from these quarters. Rhonda >From: "Karey L. Perkins" >Reply-To: "Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion" > >To: "Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion" > >Subject: Re: [percy-l] Contra Gentiles? >Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 17:25:20 -0400 > >I think Rhonda would be a great person to ask about that -- she seems to >have gone far in her research in that area -- > >KP > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Mike Frentz >To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion >Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 10:24 PM >Subject: [percy-l] Contra Gentiles? > > >Does anybody happen to know how far Percy got on his Contra Gentiles, >which, if I remember correctly was a defense of the Church somehow aligned >with Peirce's principles, based on the model of Aquinas? Any record of it >after his death? Does the manuscript exist in his papers, perhaps? Just >curious if anyone in this august group knows anything about it. > >(actually, the SUDDEN SILENCE has been killing me on this list.. Hoping >the big one (sobig etc..) didn't do us in. Figured this was better than a >"TEST" message :-) > >Mike > >-- > >An archive of all list discussion is available at >http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > >Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy >-- > >An archive of all list discussion is available at >http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > >Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy _________________________________________________________________ Enter for your chance to IM with Bon Jovi, Seal, Bow Wow, or Mary J Blige using MSN Messenger http://entertainment.msn.com/imastar From jdp at scn.org Mon Aug 25 22:38:44 2003 From: jdp at scn.org (Jonathan Potter) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 19:38:44 -0700 Subject: [percy-l] Contra Gentiles? References: Message-ID: <000701c36b7b$2b544bc0$e0add00c@attbi.com> I had a brief conversation with Walker Percy in November of 1989. When I asked him what he was working on, he said it was a journal he had kept during lent and that he was going to borrow the title from Aquinas' "Summa Contra Gentiles." He added wryly that his publisher was opposed to the title because people wd be confused and think it was about the Nicaraguan contras. I also visited the Chapel Hill archives in 2000 and didn't see it referenced in the inventory. It seems to me the Samway biography mentions it. Since Samway edited Signposts in Strange Land, I wd suspect he also has (or had) access to the Contra Gentiles ms as well. Jonathan Potter Spokane, WA ----- Original Message ----- From: "RHONDA MCDONNELL" To: Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 5:46 PM Subject: Re: [percy-l] Contra Gentiles? > Thanks for the vote of confidence, Karey, but I don't have much to add. > While I think Dr. Ketner is right--the sum of the parts = contra gentiles, > it also seems that he was working on it actively. If I remember correctly, > reference to the project appears both in correspondence to Ketner and in > his correspondence with Shelby Foote. But that doesn't mean that he had > anything down on paper. I'm hoping to get to the Chapel Hill archives and > see what may be revealed, if anything. What little I've picked up from > reading the correspondence seems to indicate that he was planning on a > Christian apologetic for the post-Christian world. In other words, a LOST > IN THE COSMOS type of project (remember his working title for that one was > NOVUM ORGANON, if I remember correctly). Not to beat that dead mule, but > that's the primary reason I see him as reaching beyond the post-Modern > vision toward some future that has yet to be glimpsed. But we'll see if my > research bears that out. > > Sorry Mike, not too much enlightenment from these quarters. > > Rhonda > > > >From: "Karey L. Perkins" > >Reply-To: "Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion" > > > >To: "Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion" > > > >Subject: Re: [percy-l] Contra Gentiles? > >Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 17:25:20 -0400 > > > >I think Rhonda would be a great person to ask about that -- she seems to > >have gone far in her research in that area -- > > > >KP > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: Mike Frentz > >To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion > >Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 10:24 PM > >Subject: [percy-l] Contra Gentiles? > > > > > >Does anybody happen to know how far Percy got on his Contra Gentiles, > >which, if I remember correctly was a defense of the Church somehow aligned > >with Peirce's principles, based on the model of Aquinas? Any record of it > >after his death? Does the manuscript exist in his papers, perhaps? Just > >curious if anyone in this august group knows anything about it. > > > >(actually, the SUDDEN SILENCE has been killing me on this list.. Hoping > >the big one (sobig etc..) didn't do us in. Figured this was better than a > >"TEST" message :-) > > > >Mike > > > >-- > > > >An archive of all list discussion is available at > >http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > > > >Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > >-- > > > >An archive of all list discussion is available at > >http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > > > >Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > > _________________________________________________________________ > Enter for your chance to IM with Bon Jovi, Seal, Bow Wow, or Mary J Blige > using MSN Messenger http://entertainment.msn.com/imastar > > -- > > An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > > Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > From daveduty at austin.rr.com Tue Aug 26 07:58:17 2003 From: daveduty at austin.rr.com (Dave Duty) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 06:58:17 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Contra Gentiles? In-Reply-To: <000701c36b7b$2b544bc0$e0add00c@attbi.com> References: <000701c36b7b$2b544bc0$e0add00c@attbi.com> Message-ID: <3F4B4B59.1020906@austin.rr.com> I'll way in with my 2 cents. I too had the wonderful chance to spend half a day with WP and Bunt in their little, light cottage. During our conversation, he mentioned a book that he was working on which he referred to as "Thirdness" -- and I believe it has been reported in several places that this was an alternative working title for Contra Gentiles. WP had read my research/disseration which employed a number of his non-fiction/language based notions and pretty much liked what he saw. Feeling I "got" his work, he said he wanted to send me a few chapters to review. Unfortunately, this never came to pass as, I assume, his health failed him so thereafter. We did talk about the content a little, but details elude me at this time. But I do recall that it had to do with starting nothing less than a theory of man. Pretty ambitious stuff -- but I thought then and now that WP's science will one day be understood to be as great, if not more important, than his art. I may be repeating myself from posting past, but I must add that Walker Percy was absolutely all that I could have hoped for. All too often meeting one's living hero is a let down. Not so here. WP was warm, funny, elusive, caring, and real. He really loved to laugh and seemed to get a kick out of my quirky sense of humor. One day I'll post my day with Walker -- which Bunt dubbed the "The Day of the Phantom from the River" .....but that's another story for another time. Jonathan Potter wrote: >I had a brief conversation with Walker Percy in November of 1989. When I >asked him what he was working on, he said it was a journal he had kept >during lent and that he was going to borrow the title from Aquinas' "Summa >Contra Gentiles." He added wryly that his publisher was opposed to the >title because people wd be confused and think it was about the Nicaraguan >contras. > >I also visited the Chapel Hill archives in 2000 and didn't see it referenced >in the inventory. It seems to me the Samway biography mentions it. Since >Samway edited Signposts in Strange Land, I wd suspect he also has (or had) >access to the Contra Gentiles ms as well. > >Jonathan Potter >Spokane, WA > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "RHONDA MCDONNELL" >To: >Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 5:46 PM >Subject: Re: [percy-l] Contra Gentiles? > > > > >>Thanks for the vote of confidence, Karey, but I don't have much to add. >>While I think Dr. Ketner is right--the sum of the parts = contra gentiles, >>it also seems that he was working on it actively. If I remember correctly, >>reference to the project appears both in correspondence to Ketner and in >>his correspondence with Shelby Foote. But that doesn't mean that he had >>anything down on paper. I'm hoping to get to the Chapel Hill archives and >>see what may be revealed, if anything. What little I've picked up from >>reading the correspondence seems to indicate that he was planning on a >>Christian apologetic for the post-Christian world. In other words, a >> >> >LOST > > >>IN THE COSMOS type of project (remember his working title for that one was >>NOVUM ORGANON, if I remember correctly). Not to beat that dead mule, but >>that's the primary reason I see him as reaching beyond the post-Modern >>vision toward some future that has yet to be glimpsed. But we'll see if >> >> >my > > >>research bears that out. >> >>Sorry Mike, not too much enlightenment from these quarters. >> >>Rhonda >> >> >> >> >>>From: "Karey L. Perkins" >>>Reply-To: "Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion" >>> >>>To: "Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion" >>> >>>Subject: Re: [percy-l] Contra Gentiles? >>>Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 17:25:20 -0400 >>> >>>I think Rhonda would be a great person to ask about that -- she seems to >>>have gone far in her research in that area -- >>> >>>KP >>> >>> >>>----- Original Message ----- >>>From: Mike Frentz >>>To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion >>>Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 10:24 PM >>>Subject: [percy-l] Contra Gentiles? >>> >>> >>>Does anybody happen to know how far Percy got on his Contra Gentiles, >>>which, if I remember correctly was a defense of the Church somehow >>> >>> >aligned > > >>>with Peirce's principles, based on the model of Aquinas? Any record of >>> >>> >it > > >>>after his death? Does the manuscript exist in his papers, perhaps? Just >>>curious if anyone in this august group knows anything about it. >>> >>>(actually, the SUDDEN SILENCE has been killing me on this list.. Hoping >>>the big one (sobig etc..) didn't do us in. Figured this was better than >>> >>> >a > > >>>"TEST" message :-) >>> >>>Mike >>> >>>-- >>> >>>An archive of all list discussion is available at >>>http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail >>> >>>Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy >>>-- >>> >>>An archive of all list discussion is available at >>>http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail >>> >>>Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy >>> >>> >>_________________________________________________________________ >>Enter for your chance to IM with Bon Jovi, Seal, Bow Wow, or Mary J Blige >>using MSN Messenger http://entertainment.msn.com/imastar >> >>-- >> >>An archive of all list discussion is available at >> >> >http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > > >>Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy >> >> >> > >-- > >An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > >Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dabeck at iupui.edu Tue Aug 26 09:57:11 2003 From: dabeck at iupui.edu (David Alan Beck) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 08:57:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: [percy-l] Contra Gentiles? In-Reply-To: <3F4B4B59.1020906@austin.rr.com> Message-ID: Dave, I, for one, would like to hear more about your day with WP. -David On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Dave Duty wrote: [NON-Text Body part not included] David Beck From PARLINS at culver.org Tue Aug 26 16:22:53 2003 From: PARLINS at culver.org (Parlin, Steven) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 15:22:53 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Contra Gentiles? Message-ID: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE07059172@exchangeserver.culver.org> I'll second that. Steve -----Original Message----- From: David Alan Beck [mailto:dabeck at iupui.edu] Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 8:57 AM To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Subject: Re: [percy-l] Contra Gentiles? Dave, I, for one, would like to hear more about your day with WP. -David On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Dave Duty wrote: [NON-Text Body part not included] David Beck -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy From daveduty at austin.rr.com Tue Aug 26 20:25:03 2003 From: daveduty at austin.rr.com (Dave Duty) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 19:25:03 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Contra Gentiles? In-Reply-To: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE07059172@exchangeserver.culver.org> References: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE07059172@exchangeserver.culver.org> Message-ID: <3F4BFA5F.90808@austin.rr.com> Sorry for the tease -- I have not worked on the story in years - but perhaps I'll dust it off, shape it up a little - then post it. Dave Duty Parlin, Steven wrote: >I'll second that. > >Steve > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: David Alan Beck [mailto:dabeck at iupui.edu] >Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 8:57 AM >To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion >Subject: Re: [percy-l] Contra Gentiles? > > >Dave, >I, for one, would like to hear more about your day with WP. >-David > >On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Dave Duty wrote: > > > [NON-Text Body part not included] > > > >David Beck > > >-- > >An archive of all list discussion is available at >http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > >Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy >-- > >An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > >Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > > > From rhonda_mcdonnell at msn.com Tue Aug 26 20:41:57 2003 From: rhonda_mcdonnell at msn.com (RHONDA MCDONNELL) Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 00:41:57 +0000 Subject: [percy-l] Contra Gentiles? Message-ID: Thanks for the info, Jonathan. >From: "Jonathan Potter" >Reply-To: "Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion" > >To: "Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion" > >Subject: Re: [percy-l] Contra Gentiles? >Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 19:38:44 -0700 > >I had a brief conversation with Walker Percy in November of 1989. When I >asked him what he was working on, he said it was a journal he had kept >during lent and that he was going to borrow the title from Aquinas' "Summa >Contra Gentiles." He added wryly that his publisher was opposed to the >title because people wd be confused and think it was about the Nicaraguan >contras. > >I also visited the Chapel Hill archives in 2000 and didn't see it >referenced >in the inventory. It seems to me the Samway biography mentions it. Since >Samway edited Signposts in Strange Land, I wd suspect he also has (or had) >access to the Contra Gentiles ms as well. > >Jonathan Potter >Spokane, WA > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "RHONDA MCDONNELL" >To: >Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 5:46 PM >Subject: Re: [percy-l] Contra Gentiles? > > > > Thanks for the vote of confidence, Karey, but I don't have much to add. > > While I think Dr. Ketner is right--the sum of the parts = contra >gentiles, > > it also seems that he was working on it actively. If I remember >correctly, > > reference to the project appears both in correspondence to Ketner and >in > > his correspondence with Shelby Foote. But that doesn't mean that he >had > > anything down on paper. I'm hoping to get to the Chapel Hill archives >and > > see what may be revealed, if anything. What little I've picked up from > > reading the correspondence seems to indicate that he was planning on a > > Christian apologetic for the post-Christian world. In other words, a >LOST > > IN THE COSMOS type of project (remember his working title for that one >was > > NOVUM ORGANON, if I remember correctly). Not to beat that dead mule, >but > > that's the primary reason I see him as reaching beyond the post-Modern > > vision toward some future that has yet to be glimpsed. But we'll see if >my > > research bears that out. > > > > Sorry Mike, not too much enlightenment from these quarters. > > > > Rhonda > > > > > > >From: "Karey L. Perkins" > > >Reply-To: "Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion" > > > > > >To: "Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion" > > > > > >Subject: Re: [percy-l] Contra Gentiles? > > >Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 17:25:20 -0400 > > > > > >I think Rhonda would be a great person to ask about that -- she seems >to > > >have gone far in her research in that area -- > > > > > >KP > > > > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > > >From: Mike Frentz > > >To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion > > >Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 10:24 PM > > >Subject: [percy-l] Contra Gentiles? > > > > > > > > >Does anybody happen to know how far Percy got on his Contra Gentiles, > > >which, if I remember correctly was a defense of the Church somehow >aligned > > >with Peirce's principles, based on the model of Aquinas? Any record of >it > > >after his death? Does the manuscript exist in his papers, perhaps? >Just > > >curious if anyone in this august group knows anything about it. > > > > > >(actually, the SUDDEN SILENCE has been killing me on this list.. >Hoping > > >the big one (sobig etc..) didn't do us in. Figured this was better >than >a > > >"TEST" message :-) > > > > > >Mike > > > > > >-- > > > > > >An archive of all list discussion is available at > > >http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > > > > > >Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > > >-- > > > > > >An archive of all list discussion is available at > > >http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > > > > > >Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > Enter for your chance to IM with Bon Jovi, Seal, Bow Wow, or Mary J >Blige > > using MSN Messenger http://entertainment.msn.com/imastar > > > > -- > > > > An archive of all list discussion is available at >http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > > > > Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > > > >-- > >An archive of all list discussion is available at >http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > >Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8: Get 6 months for $9.95/month. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup From karey at charter.net Sun Aug 31 02:08:53 2003 From: karey at charter.net (Karey L. Perkins) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 02:08:53 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] Revelations: Flannery O'Connor, the Visionary and the Vernacular References: <001901c36f84$ad9bf030$0301000a@AFAC955012> Message-ID: <002301c36f86$5afe1e50$0301000a@AFAC955012> Is anyone going to this conference October 8-11? It is an O'Connor conference, but Percy will be discussed, and Gary Ciuba, Ralph Wood, Patrick Samway, and other Percy scholars will present. I will go as it is close to where I am (Atlanta)...just wanted to let others know about it in case you hadn't received the information yet. Links below tell you more about it... http://www.gcsu.edu/acad_affairs/coll_artsci/eng/revelations/ http://www.gcsu.edu/acad_affairs/coll_artsci/eng/revelations/ScheduleRevelat ions.htm KP -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: