April 2004 posts
CJL-- The Clone is muttering something about 'copyright violation' and impending riches... -- OnM, 10:54:47 03/24/04 Wed
.... but I locked him in the basement for awhile to settle down. (Explanations about beneficent homages to posting styles in 'public discusssion forums' didn't help much).
;-)
Anyway, some thoughts in response to yours, and getting this out of Rob's annotations thread:
*******
OnM: He's right, he's absolutely right! You see? Season 7 does make sense! All's right with the world!
Joss OnM Rules!
Ya see, I do like and respect the Joss-man, but actually, it's all about me, this humble viewer. Joss
may write it, but it's up to me to interpret it. What Joss thinks doesn't really matter unless it directly contradicts what
I think. If so, then since I generally subscribe (at a special yearly discounted rate!) to the scientific method, I will
re-adjust my thinking accordingly and then go on my merry way. Or un-merry, if by chance he pissed me off and all.
CJL: Yes, but don't YOU see? Just as "Amends" violates the existentialist principles of BtVS that Joss worked
so hard to establish, the very concept of Buffy as Prime Mover takes the human drama out of the Hero(ines)'s
Journey of Buffy Summers. If Buffy is indeed the talisman of S7, if the rules of the universe bend to Buffy's will in
selected circumstances, then her victory is all but pre-ordained. And where's the drama in that?
CJL Part Deux: I can't deny that OnM's Prime Mover theory is conceivable within the context of the Buffyverse
(heck, ANYTHING is conceivable with the context of the Buffyverse)--and does have back-up within canon--but
it's a dramatic dead end. It's an extension of my complaint about Joss' over-reliance on the deus ex machina bailout
for Difficult Plot Points.
OnM: Well, yeah, duh. Of course Buffy's gonna (ultimately) win. It is her show! I'd be disappointed if she
didn't. Once again, Joss not the relevent element. (Unless he pisses me off etc. etc. as above.) I think what we have
here is that I'm actually on a somewhat different tangent than the one you are on as regards 'Buffy the Talisman'.
Please do correct me if I am mistaken here, but the crux of the issue for you appears to be that you see the the
action of (an external) divine intervention present, whereas I do not, or at least not in the typical way.
Firstly, I feel that your interpretation is on the mark only if you assume that extolling the validity of existentialist
principles is Joss' exclusive goal in writing the series. I disagree with this. Joss understands the diversity of
his audience, and that different people will inevitably see very different things in it. While one could argue that to
produce a show that will accomodate a variety of viewpoints is a form of 'selling out', in this particular case I think
that is much too harsh an interpretation. Buffy is, after all, a TV series, intended above all else to be engaging and
entertaining to an audience. If it doesn't get viewers, no one will get any message from it. The fact
that the overall themes of BtVS appear to resonate positively with philosophers and theologians across a wide
spectrum of varying belief is to me an indication of writerly success, not one of selling out philosophically.
Secondly, my theory's viewpoint is that Buffy is her own god. The 'divine intervention' is not external, but
internal. The theory is not that God/the PTB/whatever works through Buffy in the critical moments,
but that the power is within her. So, in Amends, it was actually Buffy who made it snow, not the
PTB. (The fact that she isn't directly aware of this ability not only is a delight to me personally, since it helps her
retain her more plainly human aspects, but also because it leaves the interpretation open to other ideas. Besides, if
Joss made Buffy aware of this power, then indeed nearly all of the drama would leave the series. Buffy has to earn
the use of this great gift, and use it only when the need is dire. It isn't just handed to her or allowed to be used
willy-nilly.)
I do not have the exact quote at hand, but at the time we were approaching the last few eps of season 7, Joss
commented in an interview about how "Buffy has all this power, and no one around her really, truly seems to get this.
She is always being profoundly underestimated." You and the 'True Believer' stated it thusly:
TB: If the whole series is just a metaphor for Buffy's journey from childhood to adulthood, why is the idea that
Buffy's will is the primum mobile of the Buffyverse so far-fetched? The whole "triumph of the will" thing against the
ubervamp in Showtime and the victory in Chosen is all a case of mind over matter. S7 is centered around Buffy's
self-doubts and her conflicted emotions about her power as a Slayer. Since BtVS is the landscape of her mind, once
she conquers her doubts, nothing can stand in her way.
CJL: I can see your point. But nothing I've ever heard from Joss or any of the other writers gives me the
impression that they were doing anything close to what OnM is suggesting. When Buffy beats the ubervamp in
Showtime, I get the impression that Fury was just being lazy, not that Buffy was overcoming a huge psychological
barrier.
&
CJL the II: Not blaming DF here, though. At least, not much. He was one of many who went in for narrative
shortcuts and "adjustments" on-the-fly in S7. Joss was a big sinner in that regard. The ubervamps went from
near-indestructible in BotN to "pretty tough" in Showtime to merely "menacing" in End of Days to a joke in Chosen.
I just don't feel that Joss and ME were organized enough as a writing staff for me to take the Prime Mover theory
seriously. It needed a lot more set-up--and even if ME did set it up right, I think I would have resisted it almost
instinctively. I would prefer that Buffy earn her victories, not have them handed to her as a divine right.
OnM: That last sentence is indeed the critical one: I would prefer that Buffy earn her victories, not have them
handed to her as a divine right. But that's the point-- she is her own god, so it is very much her right. And she
does have to work for it, work very hard. Buffy comes into her 'gift' when she believes in herself, and her
purpose in life. In the real world, literal reality may not 'bend' as it could in this fantasy one, but there is no
question that determined individuals have a better chance at success and/or happiness in life than ones who are not.
The determined individual may credit a divine being with inspiring this urge, or they may sire their own ambition. I
would posit that Joss leans strongly towards the latter in his own life, but accepts that others may not, and writes to
both. As I mentioned above, I see no contradiction in this.
Closing out, you mentioned earlier on in your post that there is 'backup within canon' to support my theory, and
indeed there is, and what is fascinating is just how much of it there is. It crops up everywhere, in every
season, in ways large and small, and keeps cropping up, even in the post-BtVS Angelverse. Just very recently, in
Shells, Angel even states to Spike that "Reality bends to desire". What I enjoyed about the way this played
out was that Angel, Spike, and the whole AI gang are all intensely desire to rescue the fair maiden, invoking the
efforts of the senior partners, the PTB, whatever and whomever can be engaged/enjoined in aiding them, but to date
it looks like the only thing that might really 'bend reality' and save Fred-- is Fred.
I want you... to get out... of my face!
............ Buffy, to the First Evil, from Chosen
Fred: My boys. I walk with heroes, think about that.
Wes: You are one.
Fred: A Superhero. And this is my power. To not let them take me... not me.
Wes: That's right.
Fred: That's right. (takes Wesley's hand and places it over her heart) He's with me.
............ from Shells
And just who is 'he'? We don't really know, do we? Your interpretation may vary.
( OK, going to let the Clone out of the basement now that he's calmed down and gotten over the fact he isn't getting
rich anytime soon. )
;-)
Replies:
[>
Re: CJL-- The Clone is muttering something about 'copyright violation' and impending riches... -- Evan, 11:22:59 03/24/04 Wed
I don't know if this was covered in the Amends thread, which I didn't read in its entirety, but couldn't it have been Jasmine who made it snow? And brought him back from hell, for that matter. Maybe The First wanted Angel dead because he was trying to foil Jasmine's plan for world peace.
Anyway, what about Doyle's visions? The PTB involvement can't exactly be interpreted out of that aspect of Angel's story.
[>
"To Evil Clone, Thanks for Everything," signed True Believer -- cjl, 13:29:02 03/24/04 Wed
OnM: Tell EC that you and I are the not the first, and we will hardly be the last, to imagine an internal debate with a snarky, slightly disreputable alter ego. Maybe True Believer, Evil Clone and Honorificus can have lunch some time and torture puppies.
Damn, you're good. That quote from "Shells" fits beautifully with your theory. So why am I so resistant?
Despite your evidence, I still feel that "Amends" and "Chosen" don't work. (Since we've covered "Amends" exhaustively below, let's look at "Chosen." Buffy's decision to reverse the Shadowmen's ancient edict of "one every generation" is such an enormous accomplishment, such a triumph of Buffy's indomitable will over eons of oppression, that the logically shaky events of the episode (i.e., the defeat of the ubervamps) in service of the "Buffy as talisman" concept are completely unnecessary. By sharing her power with the Potentials, Buffy has realigned the forces of her universe, and she's done it without the need the shatter the integrity of Joss' creation. (Yes, the scythe is a deus ex machina, but that's a plot problem, not a philosophical problem.)
I guess I'm saying that I don't see the NEED to elevate Buffy's considerable accomplishments from Triumph of the Hero to First Cause of the Universe. There is a reason why "Becoming, Part 2" is the greatest Buffy episode of all time and "Chosen" is merely the series finale. Buffy's triumph over Angelus is nothing short of inspirational. She's been cut off from her friends, her mother, and the man she loves has turned into a monster who's about to destroy the world. She's been stripped of everything she holds dear, and yet, when Angelus is about to deliver the death blow, her own force of will stops Angelus and stops the apocalypse.
"What do you have left?"
"Me."
Buffy's pyrrhic victory in "Becoming" works on all levels: metaphorical, philosophical and within the logic of the plot. You don't need First Cause to show how Buffy is the ruler of her own universe, because her will reshapes the Buffyverse all the damn time without the intrusion of the Divine. I'm sorry, but the philosophical dead end of First Cause just sucks the drama right out of the series. Buffy triumphs against all odds because, ultimately, she's in control of her own destiny? Peachy. But Buffy triumphs because she IS Buffy? No. Fine line, I'll grant you, but the line is there.
********
OnM: I feel that your interpretation is on the mark only if you assume that extolling the validity of existentialist principles is Joss' exclusive goal in writing the series. I disagree with this. Joss understands the diversity of his audience, and that different people will inevitably see very different things in it. While one could argue that to produce a show that will accomodate a variety of viewpoints is a form of 'selling out', in this particular case I think that is much too harsh an interpretation. Buffy is, after all, a TV series, intended above all else to be engaging and entertaining to an audience. If it doesn't get viewers, no one will get any message from it. The fact that the overall themes of BtVS appear to resonate positively with philosophers and theologians across a wide spectrum of varying belief is to me an indication of writerly success, not one of selling out philosophically.
***********
I think BtVS works best as a series when the events on screen work within Joss' own canonical framework. The multi-denominational philosophers and theologians you mention seem to have no problem drawing interpretations even when everything on screen can be explained by pure Buffyverse logic. So why cripple the dramatic credibility of your series by externalizing an interpretation that's already implied in the text?
Of course, I could be wrong.
Doubt it, though.
[> [>
A somewhat radical view on Becoming (which supports OnM, sort of) -- s'kat, 16:06:53 03/24/04 Wed
Sorry to butt in...but there's something in your argument that bugs me, cjl. And what I'm about to do in a somewhat rambling rough way is well imply a radical re-interpretation of Becoming. I honestly think the tragedy of Becoming is not Angel going to hell, but the statement you keep cheering. And I think that's the irony of the episode and why what happens in S3 is so interesting in contrast.
Here's cjl and many other posters interpretation:
"There is a reason why "Becoming, Part 2" is the greatest Buffy episode of all time and "Chosen" is merely the series finale. Buffy's triumph over Angelus is nothing short of inspirational. She's been cut off from her friends, her mother, and the man she loves has turned into a monster who's about to destroy the world. She's been stripped of everything she holds dear, and yet, when Angelus is about to deliver the death blow, her own force of will stops Angelus and stops the apocalypse.
"What do you have left?"
"Me."
Becoming Part II - Buffy discovers when it comes down to it, she has herself. No one else. Stripped of everything, she can defeat her lover who became the monster. Great. Wonderful. This is the best thing ever.
Wrong!
Re-examine the episode, please and do it with the realization that Whedon pointedly put you almost completely in an adolescent girl's point of view. Did Buffy *really* conquer Angelus by herself? Did she go into the mansion all alone without allies? Remember what Angelus tells her - you can't take us all out - alone. And Buffy responds - Oh I didn't come alone. At that precise moment - Spike knocks Angelus unconscious and Xander stakes a vampire. In fact, as Buffy is fighting Angel - we have Willow, who was unconscious, fighting to give Angel back his soul before he opens Acathla even though it could kill her. Cordy and OZ are helping Willow. Willow sends Xander to Buffy to tell her this. Xander wanting Angel did, for all sorts of reasons, declines to tell her, but does insist on helping. While Buffy is fighting - Xander rescues Giles and gets him out of harm's way. Spike may have taken out Angelus, if Buffy didn't get distracted in her fight with Drusilla. Dru attacks Spike and Spike and Buffy switch partners. Buffy fights Angelus, Spike fights Dru. Spike knocks Dru out of commission and takes off with her. The only one left for Buffy is Angelus. All his minions are dust. Dru is gone.
It's a level playing field. It's Buffy having to kill her one true love.
Angelus tells her she has no one left, no friends, no family - and she makes the mistake of believing him. Like many teens she believes Mom won't let her back in after the knock-out fight (how many have they had? Several) And being in Buffy's pov we believe she has no one too. But Whedon does shows us how wrong she is - if you watched the ending closely. IT's what she does wrong at the end. It's her big mistake and it's why she goes to hell in Anne. Instead of facing her friends and family - she runs away. That was the tragedy of Becoming Part II, not Angelus going to hell with a soul. Buffy leaving town because in her head she believed no one loved her, she felt disaffected. It's the perfect metaphor for the disaffected teen who believes the world is against them and no one understands. Remember BTVS is about growing up - which means seeing things beyond just "you", seeing other's perspectives.
So the next season starts with Buffy feeling alone, disconnected from society with lots of other equally self-absorbed teens. (Anne S3, which really is a great companion to Becoming) Who does she meet in Ann? But Lily Chantrelle who changes her name to fit whatever identity her boyfriend gives her. Lily is all about the boy. Just as Buffy had been all about Angel. To Buffy in Becoming, there was no one but Angel, she didn't see anyone else, but her sacrifice. Lily has run away from home, she feels forgotten, she has no name, only a boyfriend - who like Angel was to Buffy - is so much older, he takes care of Lily, but is he? Then the boyfriend disappears, Buffy finds him through a blood donation clinic of all places, and he is washed up, an old, dried out man who has spent a 100 years in hell. (Huge analogy to Angel - who disappears into hell for a 100 years). Lily not believing Buffy that her boyfriend has died, literally follows him into hell and Buffy attempting to stop her goes too. They are confronted with a bunch of teens like themselves who have no one but themselves who feel isolated, disconnected. Meanwhile in Sunnydale - we are shown how much Giles and Joyce miss Buffy. How her friends have banded together to slay vamps in her absence. How they miss her. How important she is to them. This is contrasted nicely with Buffy and Ann's hell, which Buffy and Ann get out of by working together - they do not do it alone. It's their ability to work together that gets them out of it. When we see Lily again on Angel, she has taken the name Ann and is working with others, she is connected and has made a home - you always see her with friends she's made connections with.
After this episode - what happens? Dead Man's Party - where it's made clear to Buffy that what she does affects others, that her doomed romance with Angel was not the only thing of importance in the universe. (Teens often think it is).
Next we get Faith - who is, actually the embodiment of what you state - she does everything alone. Faith needs no one.
Faith has no one. No Mom. No Watcher. No boyfriend. Boys are for kicks. No connections. And Faith went up against a vampire just like Buffy did, but she had no one to help her.
Just in case you don't get the jist with Faith, we have the Wish - where we see a Buffy who has no connections - it's just her - doing it alone.
So you see? The comment, what do I have left? I have me? And being able to do it all by myself with no help?
Is an incredibly ironic statement - and a fitting one - remember you are in Buffy's pov. It's what she thinks. It's the mislead. But it is not the message of the series. The message of the series, of all Whedon's works is - life is hell but we get through it through our connections to others. That was the point of Chosen (which was just a little more didactic about it) and oddly enough the point of Becoming (which was incredibly subtle).
Hope that made sense.
Again, sorry for butting in.
sk
SK
[> [> [>
Beautiful post, sk. -- Sophist, 16:24:41 03/24/04 Wed
[> [> [>
i don't think it's an either/or question -- anom, 19:21:11 03/24/04 Wed
Yes, Buffy needs her friends & family. Yes, she may have made a mistake by taking off after she skewered Angel. But she also needs to be able to rely on herself when it does come down to her vs. Angelus, & in similar situations.
"The only one left for Buffy is Angelus."
And he disarms her & backs her against the wall. At this point she is alone against him, & if she can't say "Me" when he asks what's left, she's dead. Not to mention, the world gets sucked into hell. Xander, Giles, & Spike have left, & Willow's spell hasn't worked yet. The only one left for Buffy is...Buffy. (I'd say Anne has a moment parallel to this, on a much smaller scale, when she pushes what's-his-name [after that same-actor-in-2-parts post, I can't remember what name he had in which ep!] off the platform. You can see it in her face when she decides "Yes, I can do this." And she has to have that "Me" moment before she can connect w/others, because if she doesn't find her own identity, who's doing the connecting?)
I'm not sure Buffy leaves because she thinks the others don't love her; her friends did their part for her. I think part of the reason she leaves is that she thinks they won't understand--which is not the same as not loving her, & may not be necessary if they really do love her...but she feels it is. The other part is that she can't face them after what she's done, which really means she can't face what she's done. She cuts herself off from the feelings it causes, & that requires cutting herself off from all feelings, & from everyone. (I wonder if she would still have run away if Angel hadn't been restored at the last minute & it had been Angelus she sent to hell.) Anne & Dead Man's Party are what Buffy needs to go through before she can reconnect back home. But without that "Me," she'd never have had the chance. It's not either/or, it's both/and.
So I guess I'm saying...you're both right.
[> [> [> [>
Very nice reading, anom. 'kat makes some excellent points too... -- OnM, 19:46:06 03/24/04 Wed
.... but the way that you're interpreting this is almost exactly the same way that I am, at least as to the 'emotional truth' of the situation.
BTW, I don't think Buffy would have left if it had been Angelus that she sent to hell. But, that wouldn't have been as good a story, now would it? Sadly, poor Buffy has to suffer to make for more involving television. (But at least she got to smile at the end of the run!)
[> [> [> [> [>
i'm not sure our interpretations are as close as you seem to think -- anom, 21:10:43 03/31/04 Wed
"The theory is not that God/the PTB/whatever works through Buffy in the critical moments, but that the power is within her."
I agree that "the power is within her," but I don't look at that power the same way you seem to. W/respect to the "Me" moment I wrote about above, I see it in terms of the Slayer power as we've seen it before (but not beyond that) and Buffy's personal inner resources as a human being. I said that in that moment, these 2 aspects of Buffy's self are one. I'll add now that they may be working synergistically, although that may not be necessary to explain what she did at that moment; after all, it's no more than what we already know a Slayer can do. Power at a God/PTB level isn't required for that, & I don't see this as supporting the idea that Buffy could have cause the snow in Amends.
As for Fred's possible ability to save herself...Joss only knows. Is there enough of Fred left to do any saving? Certainly the lines you quote were deeply felt, & they were almost the last thing she said. But then, our only example of Fred's memories that Illyria can access were at least as deeply felt, & was the last thing she said. We may end up seeing some kind of weird Fred/Illyria hybrid. That would make for an interesting process....
[> [> [> [>
Agree with both anom and s'kat. Well argued. -- cjl, 19:58:06 03/24/04 Wed
[> [> [> [>
I need to clarify a few things here -- s'kat, 22:42:02 03/24/04 Wed
At this point she is alone against him, & if she can't say "Me" when he asks what's left, she's dead. Not to mention, the world gets sucked into hell. Xander, Giles, & Spike have left, & Willow's spell hasn't worked yet. The only one left for Buffy is...Buffy. (I'd say Anne has a moment parallel to this, on a much smaller scale, when she pushes what's-his-name [after that same-actor-in-2-parts post, I can't remember what name he had in which ep!] off the platform. You can see it in her face when she decides "Yes, I can do this." And she has to have that "Me" moment before she can connect w/others, because if she doesn't find her own identity, who's doing the connecting?)
Okay want to be sure about this - are you arguing that what she is saying is I have "ME", you don't define me, I define me and I don't need you, the school, my friends, etc to tell me who I am? When all those definitions are stripped away, I'm me and while I love you terribly, you don't define who I am, your evil doesn't make me evil, and I can still be me with you gone. I slay you. He is metaphorically speaking her ultimate internal demon in the episode - since in Surprise she's telling him how she isn't sure how she can live separated from him, that he completes her. By the time Becoming II arrives, she looks into her lover's eyes, note it's not the evil one's eyes, but the guy she last saw in Surprise, whose last memory is her telling him she can't live without him - that she slays. By doing so, what she in effect does is kill the person she allowed to define her. For two years she let the vampire define who she was. The boyfriend, which adolescents often do. Anne supports this argument, because in Anne we are re-introduced to Lily, the girl who doesn't appear to have a name. In Lie to Me she wants the Lonely Ones - Spike and his Gang to define her, in Anne, she lets' her boyfriend name her, telling Buffy that the boy she is with liked Lily. It's not until the end of the episode that she names herself - and the name she takes is the name Buffy gave herself after Becoming. Buffy drops the name her mother gave her at the end of Becoming and uses a middle name - she renames herself and gives up her calling. Determined after slaying the person who had defined her the previous season, to be herself. Only problem is she's driftless. She tries to do the either/or gambit. Tries to be her own person. It's oddly enough Lily who makes her realize that identity - is a complicated thing. Lily askes Buffy at the end of the episode for the name Ann. So Buffy names Lily and helps her find definition and Lily in return helps Buffy re-find her definition, which is her friends, her family, the people and things she has found in her life that make her feel worthwhile.
Now here's where it gets confusing and Whedon does a lovely job of exploring this confusion in later seasons - in Restless, we have Buffy's dream which is a dream about who she is - it's about what defines her. Is it her friends who she can't find but are her main goal? Her calling - the slayer which is pursuing her throughout the dream? Riley - her boyfriend who insists in typical human fashion to label everything (something that is not just a male failing since I have the same horrible tendency)? Her school? Her mother, whom she has put behind a wall, safely away? When she finds the primitive - she does the same thing if you think about it that she did in Becoming and Chosen - she rejects the Primitive and The Guide's definition of who she is. This by the way is one of the main differences between Buffy and Riley and to some extent Buffy and Angel. Riley needs that definition - he needs to be defined by either his love for Buffy, the Initiative, the army...same with Angel who needs to be the one in the prophecies. Buffy rejects that definition time and again in the series. We see her do it first in Prophecy Girl where she attempts to leave it, comes back and then turns the tables, saying I'm not like those other girls - you don't know me. She does it again in Becoming - telling Angel, no one defines me - not you, not my mom, not my friends, not my school, not the police - I do. (A nice contrast by the way to Spike who in S2 is clearly defined by his relationship to Drusilla - he cannot exist outside of it and will do whatever it takes to keep it going. Buffy makes it clear to Angel - that she can exist without him, their relationship does not define her. She does this again in S3, S4, S5, and in Chosen.)
If you scroll through the episodes - you'll see Buffy continuously wrestling with who she is and continuously saying - "I'm me", "I define me", "You don't". And so many people and things try - we have the shadowmen in Get it Done, Principal Wood, Giles, the Watcher Council, Glory, Cordelia, Spike, Angel, Riley, The Initiative...all tell her who she is, what her role is. But time and again she smashs their definitions. And that gets back to the title of the show doesn't it? Buffy The Vampire Slayer. It sounds silly. Buffy the name - sounds like some fluff ball, but she's not and she refuses to be defined by it. Vampire Slayer sounds bizarre and yes she is a slayer, but that's not it, it's not her only role and if she stopped being the slayer tomorrow, she would still be Buffy.
On this board we've had so many discussions about identity, how we define ourselves and others, by race, sex, religious belief, etc. I think the shows we love really hit at the root of that. In Lesson's - Giles says an interesting thing to a very insecure Willow who is afraid her dark magic has changed who she is, he says "we are who we are no matter how much we have changed". Throughout S7, the First Evil tries desperately to confuse the players, it takes on the forms of the dead - defines them by mannerisms or roles. Spike realizes it's not Dru and not Buffy because the First only knows the roles the women play not, as Spike does, who they are. Spike is controlled by a trigger - the first is using his mother's death and his role as a vampire to define who he is, but that is not just who he is, he is sooo much more - that's just one role he plays.
I think Joss Whedon has two themes at play here and if you look closely you can see them in most if not all his episodes and all his work:
1. We define who and what we are - not our sex, not our race, not our religion, not our job - when all that is stripped away, we are still us. "I have ME and even though I may show you one side of myself - that is not all that I am.You don't define me."
2. Our connections are what makes life possible and rewarding, without our connections to others we are lost.
They help us sometimes to find ourselves.
Interesting themes.
Oops one final point that I forgot - yes, I think Buffy would have left even if she'd killed Angelus not Angel, because she felt cut off. Not unloved. Misunderstood and dirty. Unwanted. Remember Snyder had expelled her. She was accused of murder. On the run from the cops. And her mother told her not to come back. Plus Giles had been tortured by her ex-lover. Buffy wanted to redefine herself. I think she would have felt that way regardless. That said, it was very important for it to be Angel not Angelus she killed - because Buffy needed to slay the man she couldn't live without in Surprise - just as Lily has to move beyond the man she can't live without in Ann. It has to do with the whole defining theme, I think.
Hope that clarifies. Sorry been bugging me for awhile.
sk
[> [> [> [> [>
um...wow. wish i had more time to answer this... -- anom, 19:34:19 03/25/04 Thu
....the way it deserves. But...
"Okay want to be sure about this - are you arguing that what she is saying is I have 'ME', you don't define me, I define me and I don't need you, the school, my friends, etc to tell me who I am? When all those definitions are stripped away, I'm me and while I love you terribly, you don't define who I am, your evil doesn't make me evil, and I can still be me with you gone."
....no, I wasn't arguing that...at least I'm pretty sure I wasn't. My focus was much more narrow: on what Buffy does have, not on what she doesn't or on anyone else tells her she does/n't. I wasn't thinking in terms of definitions. Maybe more in terms of identity? What does Buffy have? "Me." And who is her "me"? The Slayer. (Yes, I know, she's always had the Buffy vs. Slayer identity struggle, but I'd say that in that stripped-down moment, they're the same. If Buffy weren't also the Slayer, she couldn't have stopped Angelus' sword blow.)
"...in Surprise she's telling him how she isn't sure how she can live separated from him, that he completes her. By the time Becoming II arrives, she looks into her lover's eyes, note it's not the evil one's eyes, but the guy she last saw in Surprise, whose last memory is her telling him she can't live without him...."
I didn't remember it this way, & when I checked the transcript of Surprise, I didn't find these words. She says it hurts to be apart from Angel, it's harder to leave every time, & that she's afraid if he goes away, they might not live to see each other again...but that last is in terms of the constant real (in the context of the show) threats to both their lives, not of her dying because of their separation, even if he gets killed. Of course, on this show, one could be a metaphor for the other, but it didn't come off that way to me. I didn't see anywhere that she says he "completes" her.
"Oops one final point that I forgot - yes, I think Buffy would have left even if she'd killed Angelus not Angel, because she felt cut off. Not unloved. Misunderstood and dirty."
I don't take a position on this one way or the other. (I'm agnostic on it!) But "dirty"? Where do you get that from? Guilty, maybe, because she had to send Angel to hell knowing that he'd been reensouled. I don't see that as equaling dirty. To me, Buffy's decision to leave town seems to come mostly out of her pain.
To get back to identity & definition, I'd like to end by pointing out that "definition" means limits. It has the same root as "finite." No wonder Buffy doesn't want anyone to define her!
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: um...wow. wish i had more time to answer this... -- s'kat, 16:38:49 03/26/04 Fri
Ah, then once again you hit on the tragedy of Becoming. Buffy thinks it's all about her. That she wins because she's better than everyone else. But! if you watch the episode and the ones that follow closely - you'll realize how *wrong* she is. In fact, Faith is used as a foil to help demonstrate it.
That's why we have Chosen - she finally gets it. And it's why the First Evil takes her form, because the First Evil in Chosen is echoing what you state above: "I win because I'm ME, the chosen one, the slayer, the only one who can do this." Nope, sorry honey, that was never the case - and she finally gets it. She finally realizes it and shares her power, because in life - it's *not* all about you and you can't do it all by yourself, no matter how convinced you think you can. But sometimes people get so caught up in themselves they forget that.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Hmmm.... -- Random, 15:56:28 03/27/04 Sat
I would like to note that my interpretation of the final segment of Becoming differs somewhat. What Buffy learned was that these other things don't define her, anymore than being the Slayer defines her (a recurrent issue throughout the series). She feels cut off, rejected. I don't really see the "thinks she's better than everyone else." I see a dynamic of self-realization. "I am. You cannot take that away no matter how much of my life you attack and destroy, no matter what trials are thrown at me." Her normal life had been disrupted by a murder charge, by being kicked out of school, by being conditionally kicked out of her home...and there she was, lying on the ground with the smirking Angelus over her. Then he asks the crucial question: "Take all that away...what's left?" When she answers "me," she is finally affirming that she isn't merely the sum total of the various aspects of her life. And remember...she does win. The message I see (ymmv, of course) isn't that she mistakenly thinks she doesn't need anyone. It's that she realizes that no-one can take away who she is. We all need others. We depend on others. We share our lives and responsibilities. But that's not a negation of self, of individuality distinct from all these things. Certain modernist philosophers try to interpret the "I" as simply being the confluence of events and forces, the sum total of influences congregating in a unique way to create a state of being called "Buffy" or "Random" or "Herbert Hoover." The message the show is sending, though, appears to be that there is something more to the individual. (The debate over souls touches this idea, the precept that each person is something unique and the soul is a manifestation of that. Hence the loss of the soul in the transition to vampirism is a divide so crucial as to create a new individual, regardless of how many of the original individual's traits survive in it.) The technical term is dualism, the idea that there is an essence that is distinct from the mechanics of human existence.
The problem is, I don't see any direct comparison between Becoming and Chosen. Both are profound moments of realization, profound answers...but to two different questions entirely. Chosen asks if the Slayer is doomed to remain in a single body, with the full weight of responsibility and power burdening her down. The answer is an emphatic No -- such power and responsibility are the domain of the entire race (or at least a larger segment of it), and the metaphor teaches us that we need not rely on others to stand up for us when we can stand up for ourselves. Becoming touches on the same theme -- standing up as an individual -- but the primary thrust of the question is whether others can define and/or destroy who we are. Angelus clearly believes Buffy has been broken. As he learns to his dismay, she has learned that she can survive even the most painful attacks on her world and her identity. She lapsed again and fled...and that, I think, is the most compelling evidence for my argument. She had lost Angel too, and regressed to the pre-epiphany state for a while. She felt she had lost her entire world, and it is because she valued it so greatly that she took the loss so hard as to flee to L.A. In the cavernous hell where her identity was being taken away in a far more literal form, she finds her strength again, her self. "I'm Buffy. The Vampire Slayer. And you are...?" Note that she has found her name again. As the interlude where Lily tries to call out to her on the sidewalk shows, the name Anne never sat comfortably on her, even if it was her middle name. But she's Buffy again, and she adds "the Vampire Slayer" almost as an afterthought. It wasn't the Slayer who fled, but Buffy herself. It wasn't the Slayer who got lost, but the girl who cared enough to defend and help those in need.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I'll agree with that interpretation. Thank you for it. -- s'kat, 09:27:42 03/28/04 Sun
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
that's not what i'm saying -- anom, 00:04:07 03/28/04 Sun
"Ah, then once again you hit on the tragedy of Becoming. Buffy thinks it's all about her. That she wins because she's better than everyone else."
I'm not trying to say this is Buffy's attitude in general. I meant that at that time & place, she has to be able to say she has "Me." We all face situations at some time where it does come down to what we have inside us, where the outcome does depend on our own inner resources. That doesn't mean we think it's all about us or that we're better than others--just that we have the wherewithal to deal w/the situation.
And we need both: the ability to rely on ourselves & the ability to rely on others. My point was that it's not either/or--that either Buffy is saying all those outside things don't define her or that she thinks it's all about her; that it's either all "Me" or all her relationships, but that both matter. Not always to the same degree at any given time, but overall, there needs to be a balance.
I'm treating Buffy's battle w/Angelus as separate from her larger situation (sort of micro vs. macro)--the murder charge, her mother's telling her not to come back. Those things may make Angelus' taunts resonate more w/her, but even if her life situation had been different, her life-&-death situation is the same: she has to rely on herself to stop that sword. You can't do it all by yourself, but sometimes there are things you do have to do by yourself. Notice that everyone else has left, voluntarily or not, out of self-interest or to help someone else. Isn't that metaphorical too?
As for comparisons btwn. Becoming & Chosen, I agree w/Random: the question is different in each one.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: that's not what i'm saying -- Jane, 17:28:32 03/28/04 Sun
I agree with you anom, that Buffy is speaking from her very core when she says "Me". That innermost part of her that is left when all else has been stripped away. At that moment, she knows with perfect clarity that she has nothing else to rely on. I think we all have moments like that at some point in our lives, something inside that says this is who you are, apart from all the externals. Whether we listen and act on these moments is another story. Buffy listened and acted.
I think she left town after sending Angel to hell because she was trying to escape from that knowledge. Knowing that she could sacrifice her great love, but feeling that no-one could understand the pain that she was in, and not wanting to ever be in that place again. She was trying to run from the pain that her destiny brought. In Anne, she realized that she couldn't run and hide; her destiny was there waiting for her to acknowledge it.
[> [> [> [>
I Agree With You, Anom -- Claudia, 08:51:25 03/25/04 Thu
"Yes, Buffy needs her friends & family. Yes, she may have made a mistake by taking off after she skewered Angel. But she also needs to be able to rely on herself when it does come down to her vs. Angelus, & in similar situations.
"The only one left for Buffy is Angelus."
And he disarms her & backs her against the wall. At this point she is alone against him, & if she can't say "Me" when he asks what's left, she's dead. Not to mention, the world gets sucked into hell. Xander, Giles, & Spike have left, & Willow's spell hasn't worked yet. The only one left for Buffy is...Buffy."
I agree with you, Anom. Yes, there are times when Buffy needs the connection to her loved ones. But there are also times when Buffy (or anyone else) has no one but themselves to depend upon. It's all a matter of the situation we all find ourselves in. And it's a matter of balance. And didn't Anya once said in "Storyteller" that many people forget how important it is to maintain balance?
[> [> [> [>
Another reading of Anne/Becoming scenes you mentioned -- s'kat, 12:27:25 03/25/04 Thu
My other post probably covers this better, but I suddenly realized something about the Anne and Becoming.
Xander, Giles, & Spike have left, & Willow's spell hasn't worked yet. The only one left for Buffy is...Buffy. (I'd say Anne has a moment parallel to this, on a much smaller scale, when she pushes what's-his-name [after that same-actor-in-2-parts post, I can't remember what name he had in which ep!] off the platform.
I'm beginning to think Anne may be a highly underrated episode in retrospect.
The scene you mention in Anne is fascinating - in it Ken (the demon who has posed as a religious youth organizer - interesting choice by the way, Ken is one of those guys who hands out leaflets to runaways telling them come here, we'll help you and goes to clinics posting signs - a nice and rather sneaky poke at some religious sects in LA I won't name), at any rate Ken pulls the kids into his dimension. Once there - he proceeds to strip them of his identities. He gives them a number. He gives them clothes that look a like. He gives meaningless labor. So they are in effect drones, with no name. And he makes a point of stating how they've been selected because "no one will miss them", "no one loves them", "no one cares". Compare this to Angelus' m.o. and Becoming - Angelus wants to strip Buffy of all her friends one by one, all her connections, strip her of everything - thinking once he does so - she'll be no one. Thinking that he can do it. That connections can be stripped away.
Ironically as Angelus is telling Buffy she has nothing, it's all stripped away, Willow has connected to the spell and reconnects Angel to the universe. So he feels the pain of being torn from it. Buffy by killing him and saving the universe, feels disconnected but she isn't. She tells Angel she has ME - I still have an identity. I can survive. But can she? We aren't really sure at the end of Becoming. That's what Ann is about.
Enter Ken, who tries to do the same thing to Buffy. Except this time Buffy states - "No I'm not a number - I'm Buffy."
He tries to give her a number. He tries to beat her into submission. She keeps rejecting his efforts. And as she does so, she inspires Lily, who feels she has no identity outside what others give her, to do the same thing. Oh by the way, it's not Buffy who pushes Ken off the platform, he's above looking down at Buffy, ordering his minions to kill her - it's Lily who pushes him off the platform. Very important distinction. Since this is the first time Lily fights for her own identity. Buffy gets up and tells the others to fight for their identity. That they do have lives, their are people who care for them, they are connected. And they do - and that's how she gets out of hell. The metaphor is emphasized by Xander, Cordy, Oz and Willow who have taken on secret identities to fight evil - Nightwing. The idea of trying on new names, but not letting oneself being defined solely by it.
sk
[> [> [> [> [>
sorry, didn't realize the way i wrote that was misleading -- anom, 23:31:27 03/29/04 Mon
"'The only one left for Buffy is...Buffy. (I'd say Anne has a moment parallel to this, on a much smaller scale, when she pushes [Ken] off the platform.)'
Oh by the way, it's not Buffy who pushes Ken off the platform, he's above looking down at Buffy, ordering his minions to kill her - it's Lily who pushes him off the platform. Very important distinction."
I must've been in a rush when I wrote that--"she" was supposed to mean Anne, which I guess I was trying to use as the name of both the episode & the character, who wasn't even using that name at the time. Sorry for the confusion. So I was saying Lily's moment of decision was a parallel to Buffy's "Me."
You seem to remember some of the things in this episode differently from the way I do:
"Ken pulls the kids into his dimension. Once there - he proceeds to strip them of his identities. He gives them a number. He gives them clothes that look a like. He gives meaningless labor. So they are in effect drones, with no name."
Ken (& thanks for setting me straight on the right name!) seemed to be the recruiter above & the director below. He wasn't the immediate overseer. Somebody more frightening-looking (even after Ken loses his face) asks the kids, "Who are you?" & is looking for the answer "I'm no one" (which the aged workers kept repeating even after they were returned to the human dimension), beating down anyone who actually gives their name. Just as you say, he's "thinking once he [strips her of everything] - she'll be no one." I don't remember any numbers, though, which would still have created a distinction between 1 kid & the next. (The science nerd in me is wondering how "drones" got to mean undistinguished, unquestioning workers when in the insect societies the word was 1st applied to, the workers are actually called...workers.)
"And he makes a point of stating how they've been selected because 'no one will miss them', 'no one loves them', 'no one cares'."
I'm less sure on this point, but I thought they were picked because they didn't have enough self-confidence to stand up for themselves--which certainly could come from an uncaring upbringing; an unspoken implication of Ken's scheme of pulling in runaways is that a high proportion of runaway youths are running from abusive situations. It seems to me (& I can't take time right now to look it up) that rather than saying no one would miss them, Ken said something like "By the time they come to look for you, they won't be able to recognize you." He says to Buffy, "You have 'the look'" (of someone running away from something). But Buffy isn't like the others. She wasn't on the point of wearing the robe & kneeling to go into the pool/dimensional interface--she went through by accident, because she was trying to save Lily. So "the look" is deceiving. It's a short-term response to her situation. Buffy isn't the kind of kid Ken & his cohorts are looking for. (And now the science fiction nerd in me is saying, "These aren't the drones you're looking for....")
And to get back to Lily's pushing Ken, yes, I think she's inspired by Buffy's resistance, & by Buffy's showing her that resistance is even possible. It just occurred to me--I once edited a book called The Reluctant Rebels, which looked at various rebellions in world history & concluded that the point when they happened was when the people being oppressed had hope presented to them & then taken away, for example, the government makes moves toward democracy & then doesn't follow through. Buffy has given Lily hope. Ken's order to kill Buffy threatens to take that hope away--& Lily rebels. Once they get out of hell, she goes on to make Buffy her role model. In taking the name Buffy's been using, for the 1st time she chooses a name as something to live up to. "Can I be Anne?" is a question she's also asking herself. We see later on Angel that the answer is yes.
[> [> [>
S'kat that was wonderful. -- Old One, 08:56:12 03/25/04 Thu
If I weren't already an Old One, I'd want to be you when I grow up!
O-O
[> [> [>
Wow! Thanks ShadowCat -- toothy, 11:57:45 03/25/04 Thu
Becoming and Anne have always been my fav end and beginning, but I never understood why until your post. Thank you!
[> [> [>
Re: A somewhat radical view on Becoming (which supports OnM, sort of) -- Rufus, 00:04:12 03/26/04 Fri
For me Becoming was about Buffy accepting that for that battle it was all about her, in Chosen she had grown up enough to understand it's all about everyone.....except for the romance part, still unbaked there...rightly so.
[> [> [>
::copies and pastes s'kat's entry for an added note to The Annotated Becoming II:: -- Rob, 19:42:57 04/01/04 Thu
[> [>
More fuel for the tree-- err, fire. -- OnM, 19:24:53 03/24/04 Wed
Since I've been intermittently working on getting preliminary info to prepare to get started on my Faith character essay, I just happened to have the DVD containing the episode Who Are You in the player this afternoon. I was going to take it out and replace it with a disc from my recently aquired Dilbert: The Complete Series set, but as so often is the case, the many delights of Who Are You drew me into watching it once again.
I've seen this ep at least 12 or 15 times by now, maybe more, since I've never kept count. I thought I knew pretty much every little detail and nuance of the show, but there it was-- a new observation to be made.
We are at the scene near the end where Faith (in Buffy's body) is at the airport getting ready to leave town when she sees a news bulletin about Adam's new vampire lackeys holding the parishioners of a local church hostage.
Cutting back to the interior of the church, the leader of the vamp trio is detailing with great joy how he is no longer afraid of the surroundings the way he once was, because "Adam has shown me the way". He loudly and defiantly questions the parishioners, asking "Where is your God? He was supposed to be here!"
So who is the next person to enter the church? Why, Buffy, of course.
The delightful irony of course, is that it isn't literally Buffy, it's Faith-- except that after spending the last day or so being presented with the genuine love and respect that Buffy receives from her friends, mother and lover, Faith has all but discarded her own persona (and the self-loathing we later learn has been buried deep within it) and adopted Buffy's in its place.
Now, if I were religiously inclined, I would interpret that as being directly analogous to "Believe in me, and ye shall be saved."
But you will note that it also follows the (non-religious) theme of the paradigm I'm supporting, and once again Buffy "has so much strength that [she's] giving it away."
And once again, she doesn't get to be directly aware of it, and in this case in particular is surely thinking something completely different on a conscious level.
So, is the metaphor here intended to be Faith in God, or Faith is God?
[> [> [>
Heh, cool point.. -- Random, 09:47:40 03/27/04 Sat
What if I add even more fuel and observe the changing patterns of belief/knowledge in the Slayer herself over the seasons? Initially, the general ethic was that the Slayer had to work in secret (like any good superhero.) Why? To protect her and her family, I would assume, and to prevent creating an easy target at a fixed location. So long as no-one knew the identity of the Slayer, she would not be subjected to concentrated attacks that put her on the defensive. She could take the initiative and thus gain a certain advantage. (Then, of course, there's the issue of the general population not knowing about the existence of the Slayer, and, by deduction, of vampires.) The dangers of being known and believed in were demonstrated quite effectively in "Lie to Me." But in general, as the protector of the people, belief and faith had no bearing on whether the Slayer was effective in saving them. She provided salvation incognito.
But...fast-forward to S3. Buffy's role was becoming known to a certain extent (though they appeared not to know exactly what she was, the students nevertheless believed she was some form of protector for them.) This was instrumental in defeating the Mayor, and it's important to realize that it was their belief that saved them. Buffy couldn't have done it alone, or with just the 4 or 5 friends she had helping. "Believe in me and you shall be saved" indeed.
Oh, and one phrase that has quite a bit of relevance to the question of "Who are you?"...I Am That I Am. Very nice twist, there, in light of your discussion of Buffy/Faith as God within the context of the body-switch.
[> [>
Do flying pigs use spoons? -- fresne, 09:40:39 03/26/04 Fri
This makes me think of a conversation that I had at the end of a meeting (the meeting room has very comfy chairs, so this sort of thing is not uncommon.)
Blah, blah, about this system that we are designing,
"So, every set of principles has to be based on one concept that doesn't have to be proved. For example, 'I think therefore, I am.' is a basic maxim."
Me, "So, am I a butterfly that thinks that I am a woman, or a woman who thinks that I am a butterfly?"
"No, you can't question the base maxim of a proof."
Me, "And if I am a butterfly and I flap my wings, startling a herd of buffalo, will it rain in Europe?"
"It's pigs."
Me, "Oh, I thought it was buffalo. Well, the basis of my proof is that I'm a butterfly, so the pigs, which may or may not fly, are negotiable. Like in, Prince of Persia you have to make a leap of faith." At this point the philosophical discussion dissolved into a discussion of video games and Indiana Jones.
I don't know, but I believe.
It's interesting just how many religious yes/no discussions are sprouting up all over. It's making me feel distinctly non-linear, which since I should be diagramming a highly detailed process flow, is somewhat unfortunate.
So, I must then contemplate snow (really, what discussion can possibly be exhaustive enough?), which to a native Californian, (I grew up in So. Cal) is just utterly amazing. A few flakes fall, or for that matter hail, and we all stop to run to the window to look.
Is the snow Jasmine scented manipulation? Did a monarch butterfly flap its wings in South Dakota, startling a mixed collection of cows, pigs, buffalo and lamas into a dusty melee? Did high temperatures in the Central Valley result in a high pressure system, which pulled in coastal fog in conjunction with a storm system coming down from Alaska, resulting in a sudden drop in temperature with snow? Is OnM correct, is Buffy a deux-ina? Did Joss Whedon turn a crank on a rusty, but still serviceable, deux machina, which churned out preprocessed low calorie hope?
Since, following last season, my basic principle is that Jasmine manipulated many, many details to get herself born and in the end, the chess board was knocked over anyway, mmm...snow. It's like when someone uses the word cerulean and I think of an X-file episode. It's like menacing hope.
I like it.
Chosen wimpy uber-vamps of doom and smiles. Two roads. A girl on a bus and err...a woman getting ready to get on the bus. In the second case, there will be no return because the egg is crumpled and the bird is shaking its wet wings.
I find the end of Becoming more tear jerking. That basic moment of clapping her hands together and saying "Me." Kissing her love good bye. The Sunnydale sign, come back soon. It's all very poignant.
I don't know, I could wish that Chosen were better served by the season (in my opinion) that preceded it so that I could judge it better. I look at the last three episodes and I love them. That, "Get out of my face." moment strikes the same emotional chord as "Me."
But to my mind, Buffy leaving SunnyD alone cannot match that final fall of the sign into the pit. The image of the open road (but then, I have this whole "American landscapes + road pictures = oh yeah" thing) and Buffy smiling that luminescent smile because the future is wide open and at that moment, just before leaping off the ledge to fly into the future, the possibilities are infinite. Like thinking yourself Kore the eternal maiden or Persephone trapped in the under earth and realizing that you are Hecate, goddess of (among other things) the cross roads and possibilities.
I guess it depends on your initial maxim. Personally, I eat Chosen with a spoon. If there is in fact a spoon, which is open to debate.
[> [> [>
Teleological suspension of irony -- Cleanthes, 19:17:36 03/26/04 Fri
If you don't think there's such a thing as a fundamentalist Atheist, and you claim to be atheist, then you are a fundamentalist atheist.
If you worship Skepticism without the slightest bit of skepticism over skepticism, then Ockham will haunt you.
Ordinarily, you may wax as ironic as you wish with regard to irony.
Joss is an ironic atheist.
Now, in Amends, Buffy pulls an Abraham and teleologically suspends the ethical to allow snow to fall and Angel to survive. She doesn't do this, it happens by reason of the absurd.
This all follows succinctly from Buffy's Existential Christianity.
But!
Does irony have limits? Can irony be teleologically suspended like ethics can?
If so, then flying pigs use spoons ONLY when they visit the birds in Cloud-Cuckoo land whilst hunting for peace.Joss is an ironic atheist.
Now, in Amends, Buffy pulls an Abraham and teleologically suspends the ethical to allow snow to fall and Angel to survive. She doesn't do this, it happens by reason of the absurd.
This all follows succinctly from Buffy's Existential Christianity.
But!
Does irony have limits? Can irony be teleologically suspended like ethics can?
If so, then flying pigs use spoons ONLY when they visit the birds in Cloud-Cuckoo land whilst hunting for peace.
Were any of the potentials flute girls?
[> [> [> [>
Eureka! -- fresne, 12:02:05 03/27/04 Sat
Or in other words, if your city is being sacked, stop doing your logic proofs. You can draw circles tomorrow. Although, I was quite recently surprised to discover that a labyrinth is not the equivalent of a maze, but is rather a single path that winds circuitously to a center. Standing in the center of Chartre style labyrinth while people walk around you is amazingly celestial sphere Aristotlean.
But, I digress, and before I say anything else, round of applause, "teleologically." Brilliant and will play on Broadway for 2000 years. Perhaps sung by Kerry.
Now, then,
As Socrates gently floats via his own warm words, he might say, "Does the absurd have reasons, or, as Ted Theodore Logan would say, is it all just dust in the wind?" Unfortunately, there is a change in the wind direction and Socrates balloon floats from Cu-Cu-Cachoo Clouds into Hitchcock Birds. Film at 11:00.
However, if I assume as my basic premise, that irony is heavier than ethics, then irony cannot float as by a suspension like ethics can. Rather, as with oil and water and some other non-mixy thing, irony sinks to the bottom, below ethics. Although, it is ironic that the Irony Song, doesn't have many examples of irony in it.
Thus, if we also take as proven, as you state, that Joss is an ironic atheist, then when faced with the teleological suspension of the ethical, Joss, who is heavier than ethics, will sink. Which if one considers it, is what is happening when water freezes around particulate matter and "sinks" to the ground as snow.
As to your final question, I lack support either way as to the nature of the potentials as flute girls. However, given their affection for Faith, who, Spartan that she is likes leaps, I could be convinced that Faith has the potentials do gymnastics and practice the bottom-kicking dance.
Although, for some reason, I now have the lyrics "Father Abraham has many sons and many sons have Father Abraham" stuck in my head. It must be time for some "Where do we go from here?" It's just that, like the Spanish Inquisition, no one expects it.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Eureka! -- Cleanthes, 12:23:04 03/27/04 Sat
I agree completely with all you write! Wow, that happens seldom.
As to your final question, I lack support either way as to the nature of the potentials as flute girls. However, given their affection for Faith, who, Spartan that she is likes leaps, I could be convinced that Faith has the potentials do gymnastics and practice the bottom-kicking dance.
Hmm, I had not thought of Faith at all. Perusing "The Birds", I recalled the frequency of flute girls in Aristophanes' writing. This led my mind to Hannigan's portrayal of a flute girl in the 'American Pie' movies and that led my mind to the potentials. Kennedy, I was thinking, might play the flute, at least figuratively.
Faith, I should think, plays the trombone, like Jason Biggs character, only better. Slide, slide, slide.
Aristotle wrote the book on souls.
[> [> [>
Useless worshipping -- Tchaikovsky, 15:39:35 03/27/04 Sat
I don't understand how you manage to boil an argument down to its base components by writing beautifully and sounding deceptively as if you're going on a tangent. Post more.
TCH
[> [> [> [>
Ni?? Useless to worship the fresne? Nay, knave, never! -- OnM, notwithstanding, but just standing, because, 19:23:33 03/27/04 Sat
[> [> [> [>
The usefulness of defining leaves of grass -- fresne, 11:58:33 03/29/04 Mon
A mysterious woman in a black cloak (or was it a clock, I forget) scampers across the glowing white page. Her allure is in her half seen hidden eyes that furtive the bald black letter-insects sent treboucheting into the void.
Quick small hands dart from her dark shrouding to grab letters as they pass. She devours them crunchily as her cloak or clock permits. At the sounding of the chime, she rustles past the right of justification (or was it the left, I forget. Well, in any case, she's not centered.) and all that remains of her passage is the confusion of black letters and white rivers of kerning.
Does the woman exist or is she a figment of my own sounding, my own untranslatable barbaric yawp echoing over rooftops?
This weekend while hiking, I saw a clutch, a pod, a grouping of long haired caterpillars that huddled together on a knot of wood trying to avoid the searing of the sun. Perhaps their fur coats were too warm and they would shed them soon to become. This weekend, while doing housework, the fan in the second bathroom would not budge from its place. Paint and importunate screws held it fixed, which since the death of its motor, transforms utility into useless.
Century Gothic wages unseen wars with Times Roman over truth and beauty before fading into archive. It's all so deliciously crunchy.
At times, spotted hawks swoop by and accuse us of gab and loitering. With intent. Always with the intent to untangle the untangleable with gawping civilization and disputation in letter-insects. Buffy and Angel, the metaphor, and Joss, the ironic atheist, and we, the dreamers. It's a rainbow connection sort of thing. A maze of light and rain.
And I contemplate Aristotle and Plato and Socrates and souls and damn your faint definitions and soul mates and Spartan girls with their leaping dances and flutes and American Pie, a movie which I have never seen.
Although, I did see the new "Dawn of the Dead" this weekend and in a Buffy, rising from the dead, uber vampires, walking dead, it's the end of the world as we know, kind of way, I found it quite evocative. Hell is full and the dead rise with hungry mouths. The dead are hungry and wish to spill from a hell mouth.
In the end, Buffy and Co. destroyed "the mall" and yet the idea of mall remains in all its architectural permutations. The dead of Wolfram and Hart walked and yet the carapace remained. Waiting only for new filling to function once more. Hart. Wolf. Ram. Odd that they are two prey animals and one predator. Two sacrificial creatures, in a number of theological traditions, and the wolf.
Evocative and Escher. If only...but the clock chimes and the letters scurry out of their places.
[> [> [> [> [>
Hey, mon, I'm deg rhien. -- Cleanthes, 11:46:36 03/30/04 Tue
'Memory's an elephant, aplayin' in the band.'
Mie Mondegreen
"In the end, Buffy and Co. destroyed "the mall" and yet the idea of mall remains in all its architectural permutations. The dead of Wolfram and Hart walked and yet the carapace remained. Waiting only for new filling to function once more. Hart. Wolf. Ram. Odd that they are two prey animals and one predator. Two sacrificial creatures, in a number of theological traditions, and the wolf."
Hmm, when I thought of these animals, I focused on the fact that harts and rams are male animals famous for engaging in sexual combat for access to females, whilst wolves have a much more "civilized" method of pair bonding.
Which goes to show why it takes all kinds to make a world and why:
But oh, my dear,
How rich and rare
And root-down-deep
And wild and sweet
It is to laugh.
I believe the foregoing tangentally recommends the American Pie movies. I haven't seen the final, and most AH-intensive (I understand). I'm waiting for the gold letter-box edition of all three movies on DVD.
[>
Late to the party, but don't you like my new dress -- Lunasea, 19:57:30 03/24/04 Wed
I'm not sure the reason Joss gives multiple possibilities to questions is not to piss of his audience. I don't think he has answers. I like what Marti said,
Well, to me, Buffy just doesn't serve herself. I have a calling which is to be a writer, but that's pretty selfish. I mean, it brings me great joy, who knows if it brings better things into the world, but ultimately, it serves me. Buffy's calling is to serve mankind, and it connects her to a greater good, and I know I struggle to feel connected to something, and connected to something larger than our daily existence, and Buffy's plugged into it. And I think the idea of destiny and serving God in a way, and Joss, by the way, is a rabid atheist, but his work is full of yearning for belief. And I think the show speaks to people who also have that yearning. I mean, the whole show in a way, the whole show ping pongs between the darkest night of the soul and this whole yearning for belief.
Even in his angry existential atheism, there is still this yearning for belief. It is part of our humanity. I'm an atheist, sort-of kind-of. More like an "I-don't-really-care-theist." (who wants to translate that into Latin for me) Agnosticism? Why is the existence of God the only question where "I don't know" in an acceptable position? It isn't a postion. It is fear. "We can't prove whether God doesn't exist." No duh. Theism isn't about knowing or proving. It is about believing and feeling. In the words of Buffy, "Either you feel a thing or you don't." If the question isn't important enough to you to not take a stand, then state so. Don't try to appear intellectually whatever by giving me some speech about the nature of reality and the limits of knowledge.
I admire Joss for taking a stand and saying publically that not only don't I believe, but I don't think others should either. I don't agree with him, but that doesn't mean it doesn't take courage to actually take a position. I don't believe that God exists. Either you believe it or you don't. I don't, but I don't think taht others shouldn't either. That was a tangent.
The point is this angry existentialist atheist is still yearning for faith, faith in something. Without a god, that faith rests on humans, ourselves. That is the faith of Buffy. In CWDP Holden asks Buffy about God's existence. She's been to heaven. She's met a god. Her answer about there not being an answer yet, isn't answering the theological dilemma that has enthralled countless philosophers. It is about her faith in herself.
Here is an interesting thing to do. Pull up the Transcript for CwDP and do a search for the word "God." Here is where that single word appears:
She sees the radio-the one she was dancing to earlier-sitting there on the countertop, playing Mexican music. She walks further into the room, hoisting the battleaxe, when the microwave oven suddenly comes on.
DAWN
Oh, God. Oh, God...
************
WARREN
Hey, don't worry. If short round pulls off his end of the bargain, we'll both become gods.
**********
WILLOW
Me too. Oh, me, too. Oh, God, Tara, it hurts so much. Everyday, it's like this giant hole, and it's not getting better.
*********
BUFFY
I'm not. My God, if anything, I- (hangs head)
************
HOLDEN
(stops) Oh, my God!
BUFFY
Oh, your God what?
HOLDEN
Oh, well, you know, not my God, because I defy him and all of his works, but-Does he exist? Is there word on that, by the way?
BUFFY
Nothing solid.
HOLDEN
Oh. I keep getting off topic because my mind is racing here
************
JONATHAN
I hope Buffy'll know how to destroy it. (stops digging) 36-19-27! That's it! That was my locker combination. (digs) God, it's been bugging me all night
***********
DAWN
I cast you out with every prayer from every god that walked the Earth and crawled beneath. (thrown across the room, landing on her butt, she continues. her mouth is bloody) I cast you out with the strength of those who love me. (stands) I cast your out with the strength I have inside me! I cast you out into the void. (throws bowl forward) That's right! Die, you bastard!
*********
CASSIE
You don't want to know what we saw.
WILLOW
Oh, God!
CASSIE
But if you stop-completely. No more magic.
*********
I thought that was interesting. Joss' exploration has been an exploration, not a lesson in anything other than exploring.
[> [>
translation -- anom, 20:35:11 03/24/04 Wed
"More like an 'I-don't-really-care-theist.' (who wants to translate that into Latin for me)"
I'll take a pass on the Latin, but as for Greek...how about "apatheist"? @>)
"Agnosticism? Why is the existence of God the only question where 'I don't know' in an acceptable position?"
Who says it's the only one? Hell, for me most of life falls under "I don't know." Even science is less a claim to know than an ongoing attempt to find out, which amounts to saying we don't know. And frankly, I find I'm getting pissed at you on behalf of agnostics, & I'm not even one! Who are you to tell them their position is really fear? I know plenty of agnostics who don't seem afraid as a result of saying they don't, or can't, know one way or another. They may just have a different standard than you for what constitutes a basis for belief, so if God's non/existence can't be proven one way or the other to their satisfaction, they don't believe either that God exists or that God doesn't exist. And they don't want to, or don't feel the need to, claim a belief that they don't hold. I don't see how that has anything to do w/fear.
[Button: Militant agnostic--I don't know, and you don't either!]
[> [> [>
Thanks anom! -- Pony, 08:28:01 03/25/04 Thu
I think most people are actually afraid to say "I don't know" because if you say that someday you might have to say "I'm wrong" and that's the scariest thing of all.
And of course many people like to say everyone's right but what they really mean is "I'm more right than others." I've always liked agnosticism because I don't want to have my beliefs defined by other people.
[> [> [>
Belief isn't about proof -- Lunasea, 11:22:13 03/25/04 Thu
The two aren't synonyms. To say that you don't believe something because of inadequate proof doesn't say anything. Either you feel something or you don't. Either you believe something or you don't. If you don't know what you believe, neither believe or disbelieve, the answer is there in your heart, one way or the other. Belief isn't about rational thought. That is knowledge. Feeling is a rational/ordering function, similar to thinking in this respect. That doesn't mean they are the same thing. Just because you can't "know" doesn't mean you don't believe.
Ask a Christian to "prove" God's existence and hopefully he isn't going to actually try to do this. It is a belief, a feeling that cannot be proven to another. Either you have it or you don't. That is why Faith is considered a theological virtue. Do the same thing with an atheist and typically you get a list of logical flaws with Christian theology. Neither position really comes from logic. It is a belief.
Everyone believes, this is just an issue that people are either reluctant to take a certain stand on or don't care enough to find out what they believe. I think they do much better without the "rag of a label to cover" themselves with.
Pro-Choice/Pro-Life. What do we call those that don't know?
Pro-Capital Punishment/Anti. What do we call those that don't know?
Pro this/Anti that. Those who don't know, don't get a label. Not taking a position is not a position. Asserting that you can't take a position is even less of a position on the issue.
Huxley can try and make himself feel better by giving himself a label and saying "Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable." He got one thing wrong though. Belief isn't about intellect, so the question of God's existence isn't a matter of the intellect.
So how many categories are we going to need? Do those that believe they can't prove it and still believe get a new label? What about those that disbelieve, but also know they can't prove it? If we are going to tie belief to proof then there are all sorts of permutations here.
While we are at it, what other things do we want to say that belief and proof are tied together. What about Love? Good luck trying to prove that one. Does my husband love me? Do I love him? Do I love my children and vice versa? What about my friends? My country? Myself? Can't be a philosopher without love. I have these feelings toward wisdom, but I can't really prove them, just doesn't have the same ring.
[> [> [> [>
What you're missing... -- Random, 16:19:49 03/25/04 Thu
....is that it is problematic to require a stand from someone who doesn't have a position. I am agnostic. If I take the stance that the existence of God is unknowable, I am articulating a belief just as surely as someone who argues that God exists or doesn't exist. Indeed, my stance would be, strictly speaking, the most logically rigorous stance of the three. I can at least make ontological arguments predicated upon the fact that I really can't prove either of the other two stances.
The multiplication of categories is a straw man. Theist and atheist are quite adequate to describe exactly what they traditionally describe: the belief in and disbelief in God, respectively. Further clarification is inevitable...after all, the Muslim theist is distinct from the Christian one, who is distinct from the animist one.
But just because proof and belief are not synonymous doesn't mean they aren't inextricably connected in many cases. You pick several examples, none of which differ substantially from the issue of God. For a real counterpoint, I can offer others: sardines, the idea that JFK was assassinated by Maori warriors, Angel as a Chumash Spirit, pink ravens. All of these have varying degrees of credibility, and the fact that I take a stance on them falls into the category of analysis of truth. A more ambiguous one: a 30 foot long crocodile living in the modern-day Everglades. Do I believe? I honestly don't know, and until someone captures/kills one, I would take the stance that they could exist, but I don't believe one way or the other. Obviously, if no-one ever sees one or comes near one, their existence or nonexistence is unprovable short of an empirical deductive approach that somehow establishes that 30 feet is absolutely impossible. The same goes for aliens, white ravens and Spike-as-Buffy's-soulmate.
Oh, and Christians have tried very hard to prove God's existence in the past. As have atheists in the contrarywise. Neither have succeeded. It's my position that neither ever will. In final analysis, I have the very fervent belief that God is unprovable and that believing that he does or doesn't exist would be a direct contradiction to my current belief.
Remember also that belief and faith are not synonyms. One can believe that the boat one is will be able to remain afloat whilst crossing the ocean. One may quite validly, however, not have enough faith to set foot on it. And belief doesn't in any way negate logical thinking...if one feels that the existence of God makes no sense whatsoever, belief in one could almost categorically be called psychotic. Or just perverse.
[> [> [> [> [>
Also, rational thought *is* part of Western belief systems. -- Arethusa, 21:34:32 03/25/04 Thu
In Christianity, certain beliefs are presented as facts-the existance of God, his creation of life, and so on. The priests do not say this is what we believe, or this is the idea the word "God" stands for. They say He is, and that that is a fact. It is what Joseph Campbell calls the concretization of the symbol.
"One of our problems-and these are the two great sources, now of the problem here in Western interpretation of these matters-is the Aristotelian accent on rational thinking and the biblical focus on the ethnic reference of the mythic symbol. These two pin us down to the world of facts and rational cognition." Transformations of Myth Through Time
That is also why an atheist will use logic to attempt to disprove what is being presented as facts. That the world was created in seven days has been proven wrong. The concept that God created man and women as we know them now, first man and then woman, has been proven wrong. What cannot be proven wrong is what lies behind the symbol. In my opinion it is perfectly valid to reject beliefs presented as facts, especially when the facts have been proven wrong. A symbolic god can't be proven to exist or not exist, but a concrete God perhaps can be.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Thoughts on the nature of proof... -- Random, 23:17:38 03/26/04 Fri
Although I agree with your general perspective on rationalism, I believe your analysis contains several fatal flaws.
The essential problem with empirical dissection of the coda is that no such thing as true empiricism really exists. I'm not going to bother discussing the precept that nothing is absolutely verifiable or subject to indisputable negation -- those are relevant and valid points, but don't lend themselves to development. I will, however, note that the arguments we're examining have limited scope. Merely disproving (such as it is) the idea that the world was created in 7 days is little more effective as disproving the existence of purple ketchup by noting that tomatoes are red. Tomatoes are indeed red (at least when ripe) and, to the best of our knowledge, the world was created as part of an ongoing process that lasted billions of years. Neither have more than self-referential relevance without valid syllogistic support. There is purple ketchup (unfortunately) and the world was not created in 7 days, but the formulation Not A, therefore Not B only works if there is a pre-existing formula of A=B (though not "if A, then B") If the world wasn't created in 7 days (and it could very well be a metaphor in linguistic terms, which wouldn't necessarily mean that the God was symbolic, just the timetable), then one cannot naturally therefore assume that the existence of God has somehow been discredited to any degree whatsoever, even a miniscule one.
To wit, one cannot attach too much importance to the idea that the concrete can be disproved. At best, one can merely assign very general percentages to the odds of certain items being "factual." The examples you gave are easily countered with alternative hypothoses which may not be "logical" to you, but that doesn't invalidate them for the very simple reason that there is no agreement on base assumptions. A Christian (or Buddhist or Druid or et cetera) doesn't base his/her faith on empirical disputation, though s/he may try to rationalize after-the-fact. Indeed, atheists can no more disprove a concrete god than a theist can prove one. The logic of that statement should be apparent upon reflection -- any case of disputation based on circumstantial or evidential support must be capable of being addressed from both the thesis and antithesis. Ergo, one cannot disprove the existence of the Loch Ness Monster by using evidence unless it is possible to prove the existence. Only in the rarified spheres of logic and mathematics can axiomatic disproofs find a solid ground without needing the potential of proofs.
Example: I could argue that the fossil history of humanoids is merely the history of creatures highly similar to humans but in no way related. Indeed, the study of evolution suffers from one unavoidable problem: since direct observation of the principles is impossible short of a time machine, all conclusions are de facto fallacies of both post hoc ergo propter hoc (the homo habilus shows what could be considered evolutionary advancement over the australopithecus, therefore one derives from the other...a mistake that actually caused problems when anthropologists originally assumed that robustus preceded graciline species, afarensis because of certain physiological features. This hypothesis was later demonstrated to be almost-certainly incorrect.) Some Christians can and do argue that God did indeed create a first man and woman...and the fossil record is in no way false, just misinterpreted.
I tend to consider attempts to disprove the existence of a concrete god to be little better than exercises of rhetoric. An atheist is highly unlikely to be able to apply rationality effectively -- except in a very limited, very personal sense -- to a line of thought that isn't predicated upon the same assumptions. A theist generally assumes that there are certain supernatural elements at work, and unless an atheist is willing to concede that possibility, no amount of empirical analysis will ever be able to contradict the theist's basic assumptions. It's as if one person assumes that time has been somehow altered by a traveler going into the past in a time machine, and another person saying time machines cannot exist, ergo time has not been altered thus. Unless the latter offers a substantiative argument proving that time machines cannot exist, he/she can never effectively debate the former's premise. S/he cannot prove that we have lived in a single, unaltered continuum of events, and by denying the very existence of time machines, s/he cannot even argue on the same premises as the former. At best -- and the analogy is quite sound here, I think -- s/he can only offer futile and circular statements to the effect that s/he didn't notice a change.
Basically, it relates to why I'm agnostic in the first place. Atheist arguments are no more convincing to me than theist ones. They create a universe of observable phenomena, true, but it's all completely irrelevant to the argument that there is no God, concrete or otherwise. The existence of fossils, or interstellar distances, or residual heat throughout the universe, prove only one thing: that these things do exist. They don't even apply to the question the nonexistence of a deity. Relevance, if it can even be achieved, will only come with synthesis of basic formulations so all sides are examining the same thing. Ultimately, atheism, like theism, is a question of personal belief systems. Neither can effectively be applied en masse (though the masses may be converted, of course, on an individual and cumulative basis) because neither can be substantiated or disproved. It's one of the reason that some of the most fervent atheist writers prefer to discuss the psychological resonances of atheism rather than attempt to disprove the existence of a literal God. Even when they do attempt the latter, they fall victim to exactly what I've been discussing.
Huh. I'm in an analytical mood lately. Interesting discussions on the Board, as always.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
But are those the right tools for the job? -- manwitch, 07:06:14 03/27/04 Sat
I recognize that this thread is delving into areas that are very dependent on specific and personal definitions of some difficult concepts. And even though we may seem to be using the same words to refer to the same concepts, people still might speak past each other on subjects of theism, atheism, belief, faith, etc.
I agree with what you write, Random, and I would offer one little detail that I thought was present in the posts of lunasea and Arethusa, (although I might be imposing my own ideas on them) that your responses don't seem to address (although I might just be missing it).
What they both were saying to me is that in questions regarding faith, belief, or God, the tools of empiricism, or any other scientific or logarithmic tool are perhaps not the appropriate ones for the job.
So for example, you counter lunasea's argument that religious belief is not by definition a rational enterprise by pointing out there are no pink ravens, and that given that none have been observed, it is right to believe that there are no pink ravens. And your point seems to be that rationalism can and does play an important part in belief.
Which I don't dispute. But it seems such a response would be appropriate to a statement like, "There was a pink raven in my yard the other day." Or to a question like, "Do you think that bird was a pink raven?" Such statements lend themselves to refutation by empiricism. What you are calling belief in this context, I would call knowledge. We don't believe that there are no pink ravens. We know it.
But consider some bad poetry that I shall offer such as the following:
Thrusting eyes
lunge behind the curtain. Dead
for a ducat,
Penetrated, scrimless
before a subcutaneous glance
Pink ravens parry with a quill,
To fabric an inky cloak
And speak the speech again.
End of bad poetry. While many responses are possible and appropriate for this, one that isn't is to maintain that there are no pink ravens. Its a metaphor, and to argue its historical or scientific veracity seems to me to miss the point of it. The proper tools for understanding it would seem to me to be literary skills rather than laboratory.
I believe this is precisely Arethusa's point, given her reference to Campbell and the "concretization of the symbol." As Campbell says, its a purely literary problem. Its "reading the metaphor in terms of its denotation rather than its conotation."
I suspect this is a problem in western culture for both its theism and its atheism. In both cases, there's a focus on the denotation of the metaphor, whether believed in or not. But to argue about the existence of that to which the metaphor refers, well, its a little more problematic. Obviously different people will have different interpretations of that metaphor even if they recognize it as such, and arguments over belief in it may be appropriate.
But atheism depends on a specific definition of God, just as western theism does. But what does it mean to say that Shiva doesn't exist, or that Vishnu isn't dreaming the universe? Do we enter new ground with such statements, or merely show that we don't get it? What does it mean in hinduism or buddhism or taoism to deny the existence of God? Do the Greek Myths become wrong or false because there is no evidence that Zeus or Hera actually existed?
In fairness, western religion has presented itself as factual, so it deserves to be judged, at least in part, relative to that claim. But that presentation itself is a historical event, stemming largely from the council of Nicea. There were other christian sects that did not interpret the story of christ in such a literal fashion. Those sects lost a political battle, leaving us with the interpretation we have today. But its still possible, for those willing to do it, to read the New Testament as a piece of literature and recognize Jesus as a metaphor. When read in that way, the arguments about whether or not it is factual, which I agree with you are just rhetorical exercises, become rather insignificant relative to belief in the story.
Anyways, as I read lunasea's post, she was distinguishing between domains. Arethusa seemed to suggest the same thing. The question of one's belief in god is appropriate to art class or literature class, rather than science class or law school. Its a form of expression, not part of the knowledge base. So in that sense I think the "belief" I read in lunasea's post is different from the "belief" that you are talking about.
My own opinion, obviously.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: But are those the right tools for the job? -- Random, 09:16:12 03/27/04 Sat
I did discuss the differing value systems in my reply to Arethusa (and my reply to lunasea below). (I thought Arethusa was arguing that empirical inquiry could be applied to the question of a concrete God...did I misunderstand?) One thing I wrote: The examples you gave are easily countered with alternative hypothoses which may not be "logical" to you, but that doesn't invalidate them for the very simple reason that there is no agreement on base assumptions. A Christian (or Buddhist or Druid or et cetera) doesn't base his/her faith on empirical disputation, though s/he may try to rationalize after-the-fact. My essential point was that atheism predicated upon rational analysis misses the point: theism isn't a systematic or logical system of rationality. Hence, it doesn't ask "Are pink ravens possible, and how does one prove that they are?" It says, "Pink ravens exist and though we may never see one, I personally believe that the effects of the existence of pink ravens can be seen in a plethora of indirect phenomena." Or even: "Black ravens are empirically real, but that doesn't mean there are no pink ravens." It's not just a question of different process analyses, it's actually a gulf in the basic understanding of how the world works. One cannot be used to effectively engage the other. Thus "facts" presented by atheists, or "facts" presented by theists, are inapplicable to a discussion of the validity of the opposing viewpoint.
What I didn't do was address the issue of a symbolic or metaphorical deity in any particular depth. This springs partly from the issue of whether the average theist even views god(s) in that light. Take a typical churchgoing devout and ask him/her if s/he believes that God is simply a metaphor, not a concrete (if insubstantial) being and I doubt you would get a reply in the affirmative. He or she may concede symbolic aspects are present, but is unlikely (though there are certainly exceptions!) to grant that the entire ontological structure is symbolic. Campbell had the luxury of academic scrutiny -- for him, it was an intellectual analysis of how religion and myth functioned, not how the believers approached their myths. Certainly one can say that the Greek gods were representative of certain areas of interest to the ancient Greeks, and that myth compassed a psychological/sociological function (that actually served as a form of rationalism for them, ironically.) This is where the concretization of the symbol becomes, as you point out, a literary (or, from my perspective, an psychological/sociological) problem. To complicate the issue, such an interpretation has only limited use...for precisely the reasons you list. A theist may acknowledge the literary aspect, but will rarely consider it relevant to the issue of a concrete god. Denotation doesn't cancel out connotations...but try to convince a Christian fundamentalist that God is symbolic rather than literal. I daresay the fundamentalist would reply in the same way a modern mathmetician would to the suggestion (the credo of the ancient Pythagoreans, ironically) that math was simply an issue of religious faith supported by certain spiritual axioms acting as manifest empiricism.
I don't have much faith in Campbell (and will dispute with Dedalus on that issue until I die and go to a nonspecified hereafter -- or just cease to exist.) But his discussion of ancient myths actually presuppose that they aren't real. The simple fact that I agree with that doesn't affect my perspective that, in treating the denotive aspects exclusively, he implies that they are convenient fictions, nothing more. Hence, his analysis can be quite valid, but nevertheless fails in addressing the issue of theism versus atheism because it essentially lends itself to the atheistic analytical mode. My lack of belief in a Earth Mother or Woden or Coyote doesn't imply that I believe they didn't exist...simply that I have no reason to believe they did. To argue that it's a metaphor -- which, incidentally, is a point I agree with -- seems to be the same as arguing that the metaphorical aspects trump the literal ones. It begs the question. A fine argument, but try to convince a Catholic that the Crucifixion was simply a metaphor...which, if one is to be fair, one must do in the same way as one argues that the revolt of the Greek Gods against the Titans was a metaphor.
Inasmuch as I was engaging lunasea on the issue of agnosticism, I was arguing that it is completely inappropriate for theists (or atheists, for that matter) to apply their standards of belief to an agnostic's beliefs. After all, she was also saying that agnosticism was a form of vacillation. I was merely noting that a theist's arguments for belief in a god have no bearing on whether I believe or disbelieve in one, and that the broad divide between alternative perspectives on ontology that exists between theism and atheism lends itself to a third perspective, that neither one has a particular virtue, hence agnosticism provides me with the foundation of "information flux" as it were. If I say, "I cannot believe in your one true faith," I'm stating that their standards do not apply to me. I wasn't stating that their standards are wrong -- indeed, that point was the major thrust of my reply to Arethusa. Different strokes for different folks, as it goes. Hence, saying that "belief" in Shiva requires one to accept this or that principle has no relevance to whether my belief system is valid.
I will, however, dispute your assertion about knowledge versus belief. All knowledge is belief. Why do we "know" something? Because, by one means or another, we have been convinced of it. Our belief structure has reached a critical mass one way or the other. We "know" there are no pink ravens simply because we have spent our entire lives observing black ravens, we have never heard tell of someone seeing a pink raven, et cetera. Each black raven we see accrues an infinitesimal measure of proof for the nonexistence of pink ravens by eliminating a single raven object contention because it is non-pink. Thus, our knowledge and certainty bear an unmistakable resemblance to our fervent beliefs. It is no less possible to doubt the nonexistence of pink ravens than to, say, doubt the existence of god. Either way, knowledge is just the sum total of belief, however one arrives at it, whatever one's belief structure is.
Fascinating discussion. Do continue -- personal issues are intellectual ones too, as this Board has demonstrated time and again.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Who better to discuss the nature of knowledge than a -- Sophist?, 11:15:23 03/27/04 Sat
I made the same point in my Leprechauns post in the original thread, but I'm going to elaborate on it here.
While I understand your epistemology, and agree up to a point, I think you're carrying it to the point of solipsism. Strictly speaking, the skepticism you assert applies not just to God but to every aspect of knowledge. The indeterminacy argument applies to pink ravens, leprechauns, and God equally.
But this is not how we actually behave in daily life. No one here believes in leprechauns, nor even pretends to any intellectual doubt on the subject. Nor do they manifest any doubts about minotaurs or Santa Claus. I suppose we might concede that from a theoretical perspective their non-existence is unprovable, just as all knowledge remains uncertain. But we don't act that way and we don't really believe it.
The reason, I think, we don't act that way is that we implicitly impose a burden of proof on assertions of this nature. If you want to convince me that leprechauns exist, you have the burden of overcoming the residual indeterminacy of all knowledge. If you fail to do so, I don't lapse back into agnosticism on the subject of leprechauns, I affirm that they do not exist. Future evidence may cause me to change my mind, but recognizing this possibility does not make my belief today any less firm.
I think it important always to bear in mind the residual uncertainty that applies to all knowledge. I also think it important to leave open the possibility of new information in the future that might change current understanding. But if someone asks me tomorrow whether I believe in Santa Claus, I'm not going to announce that I'm agnostic. No matter what Anya says.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Granted. But... -- Random, 12:19:09 03/27/04 Sat
I'm really not sure I follow why I would have to affirm disbelief. I don't believe in leprechauns...but I have no reason to believe specifically that they don't exist. To be fair, I really believe they don't exist, but I'm just observing that, logically, there's no problem for me. If you asserted the existence of a leprechaun that was simultaneously round and square, then we'd have problems. That's a logical impossibility, and I'm not prepared to accept that particular paradox (though I've noticed that most people, including me, seem to be willing to accept a few paradoxes in their lives. Then again, most of the things we call paradoxes are actually just examples of counterintuitive circumstances.) So lapsing into agnosticism (such as it is, seeing as the phrase literally only applies to religion and god) is actually the more intelligent choice from my perspective. YMMV, of course. What good does it do me to bother denying the existence of leprechauns? Hence, I acknowledge the validity of what you are saying, but still find that disbelief is more problematic even in practical terms.
However, I really do take the position that God could very well exist. As such, I cannot be considered atheist just because I don't actively believe or haven't been convinced. For me as an agnostic, there can be no onus on either side to convince me to take their position. More to the point, if there was an onus, it would apply to both sides. There is absolutely no reason for me to gravitate naturally to atheism because atheism does not occupy a privileged position. To wit, that particular stance would have to convince me that secular empiricism was a more acceptable stance than symbolic/literal/extranatural theism based on faith rather than Western logic systems. There is no particular reason why theism is required to do all the work. Indeed, since it doesn't rely in logical empiricism, it actually has less of a burden in a couple ways...it, at least, can get away with acknowledging that it can't actually defend its stance in those terms (not that this has stopped generations of theologians from trying their damndest.) As a practical matter, I tend to act in a manner that assumes there is no god...but not because I actually disbelieve in the existence of such. Indeed, one could argue that conventional morality as practiced by, well, me, is highly influenced by the unspoken assumption that a universal moral code exists in some form beyond simple manmade conventions.
The thing is, I do grant that disbelief is superficially a more natural position in many cases. When there's no real evidence to the contrary, one tends to disbelieve phenomena that don't accord with all that we've observed in life. Hence I don't believe in leprechauns, or JFK as Ronald Reagan's secret lover. It's all well and good to gravitate back to the position that leprechauns don't exist, but let's be practical for a second: religious issues, in actual practice, are given considerably more importance than most. We're not talking about an isolated folk-legend here...we're talking about theism, a precept that has been central to much of human history. There has been, as far as we know, no period in history that religion hasn't dominated in one form or another. It can be -- and has been -- argued that true atheism, as such, has only gained large-scale adherency in very recent times. Prior to the 20th century, it was an extreme minority position. And for very good reasons: humans are naturally concerned about mortality, morality, and the nature of the afterlife. Mortality is, quite frankly, as Campbell would agree, perhaps the central obsession of our race. The analogy is valid, but not actually fair. If I am not convinced leprechauns don't exist, I can just choose to believe they don't. If I am not convinced that God does exist, I'm still going to be leery about taking the polar opposite stance for the very good reason that being wrong could very well prove to be the absolute worst mistake I could possibly make. Hence my agnosticism is a conscious choice to inhabit a place inbetween the extremes...until I am capable of either disbelieving or believing with actual assurance. In final analysis, I can throw out this bone and see what you make of it: I would argue that, far from being the position that one needs to be convinced of, theism is actually the one that people do gravitate toward for the very practical reasons I mentioned above. I would suggest that there is an innated desire to believe, and much of human history would probably bear me out in terms of sheer numbers of theists. Yes, it's a logical fallacy -- there's no reason to connect the two, and I certainly can't prove that desire to believe naturally precedes practicing theism...I'm just offering my intuitive stance.
The fascinating thing about the Buddhists is that it doesn't matter, necessarily, whether you are an atheist in this life. Eventually -- though it may take a long, long time -- you will achieve moksha. Samsara dictates that all of this is just part of the changing order of the universe.
Keep it coming...ya'll are making me work hard for this ;-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Granted, but... -- Sophist, 17:03:28 03/27/04 Sat
Let me take your points in reverse order.
I would suggest that there is an innated desire to believe
I'm pretty skeptical of innate desires other than food, sleep and sex. The mere fact that some significant percentage of the population qualifies as "non-believer" pretty strongly suggests it's not innate in the same sense as those.
I do agree that there seems to be an innate capacity to believe.
If I am not convinced that God does exist, I'm still going to be leery about taking the polar opposite stance for the very good reason that being wrong could very well prove to be the absolute worst mistake I could possibly make.
As could believing. That's the problem with Pascal's Wager: it cuts every which way.
More to the point, if there was an onus, it would apply to both sides. There is absolutely no reason for me to gravitate naturally to atheism because atheism does not occupy a privileged position. To wit, that particular stance would have to convince me that secular empiricism was a more acceptable stance than symbolic/literal/extranatural theism based on faith rather than Western logic systems. There is no particular reason why theism is required to do all the work. Indeed, since it doesn't rely in logical empiricism, it actually has less of a burden in a couple ways...it, at least, can get away with acknowledging that it can't actually defend its stance in those terms (not that this has stopped generations of theologians from trying their damndest.)
I don't see atheism as depending on empiricism. That's because I don't see belief as a logical conclusion so much as an emotional one. Regardless of the route to belief, it remains true that the one propounding the belief bears the burden of justifying it (pun intended for the Christians).
If the burden has not been met, belief does not follow. The only question remaining is how to express that lack of belief. Agnosticism seems unnecessary in light of my point about leprechauns and your agreement on that.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Interestingly... -- Random, 17:29:55 03/27/04 Sat
it's hard to really effectively assess the burden to justify religious belief. Religion seems to be quite endemic throughout much of history, and better sociologists than I have failed to explain it. What is undeniable is that the prevalence of religion and religious faith does exist. The question of "why" lies at the heart of the matter here. I agree that there isn't a parallel to basic drives like hunger and reproduction, but that's because it's a psychological permutation rather than a physiological one. We cannot live without sustenance, and we can certainly live without religion. But...the fact that religion is so prevalent actually reinforces the power of the concept...it survives so well despite the lack of overt causes. Capacity is passive. It merely implies potential. When that potential is realized, then it is active, and per my above observations, I'd argue that religion in the human species is more than mere capacity.
The one propounding the belief indeed has the burden. But since it is my position that propounding the belief in the non-existence of God bears an equal burden, I'm no more likely to dismiss theism than atheism. And I've heard no better arguments for one than the other...at least none that convinced me sufficiently to bother to change my stance of unknowability and the very real possibility that a god does exist. That seems to be at the center of our disagreement. You appear to find atheism to be a sort of default position, with the burden of proof on theism. I consider both to bear that burden. Atheism isn't merely the absence of god. It's the active belief that there is no god. At least that's how I interpret it, and most of my experience with atheists bears that out. Ultimately, it'd be nice to see a few passivists rather than activists out there...people who simply say "Eh" and leave it at that. People besides Canadians, that is. :-)
I dunno about Pascal's wager cutting both ways to the extent of either case could be "the worst mistake one could possibly make." Plurality aside (cause that's another massive topic that just complicates things), the balance of a life on Earth led in what could be considered a moral manner against the potential for an eternity of torment or happiness...it doesn't seem to be a difficult equation. It is perfectly possible -- given the admittedly anecdotal evidence of what I've observed in friends who have religious faith -- to lead a happy life while adhering to religious precepts. It's not for me -- mainly because most religions place unnecessary constraints on certain activities that I value more, at the moment than faith and assurance -- but it's certainly possible. And ultimately, I may decide that it's an unacceptable risk to adhere to atheism, even if that means I'll have to give up whorin' and gamblin'. ;-) That's why Pascal suggested it in the first place. If you're an atheist and you're wrong, you face the possibility of an eternity in hell. If you're right, then what does it matter? You'd just cease to exist. (And, once again, I acknowledge plurality of doctrines. I'm just picking a fairly dominant one for the sake of simplicity. The basic point is still valid -- that measuring a single lifetime against an eternity is not an equitable equation.)
Agnosticism is not a matter of necessity. It is descriptive, just as theism and atheism are. It describes a particular stance. It is no more, or less, "necessary" than either of the other two.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Poker was not Pascal's strong suit -- Sophist, 20:38:09 03/27/04 Sat
That's why Pascal suggested it in the first place. If you're an atheist and you're wrong, you face the possibility of an eternity in hell. If you're right, then what does it matter?
If only the Wager were this simple. In this form, the Wager contains a hidden assumption about what characteristics in people God values. The Wager assumes that God sends atheists to hell and believers to heaven. But suppose instead that God sends believers to heaven, invites the atheists as well because he respects the courage of their convictions, and reserves the hottest places in hell for those who preserve their neutrality -- the agnostics.
No form of the Wager can avoid this dilemma without specifying the character of God. And since any character could be imagined in advance, the Wager can be posed for evil gods (they send believers to hell and atheists to heaven), chocolate hating gods (Rufus is in real danger here), etc. Since we can't simultaneously believe in all these gods, the Wager can't lead to belief.
it is my position that propounding the belief in the non-existence of God bears an equal burden
Not the way we usually allocate the burden of proof. We don't make someone prove a negative, and for good reason: otherwise we'd never be able to deny the existence of chocolate hating deities.
Besides, I'm making at least as much a psychological point as a logical one. If an agnostic is willing to deny Santa Claus, why is an agnostic not willing to deny God given that s/he has already acknowledged the same lack of evidence in each case?
I agree that there isn't a parallel to basic drives like hunger and reproduction, but that's because it's a psychological permutation rather than a physiological one.
This is a side note to this discussion, but I don't distinguish the psychological from the physiological. Psychology takes place in the physical substrate of the brain/body. Whatever happens there is physiological. No Cartesian dualism here. No Cartesian coordinates either -- Congress banned them along with French fries.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Poker was not Pascal's strong suit -- Random, 22:16:09 03/27/04 Sat
Not the way we usually allocate the burden of proof. We don't make someone prove a negative, and for good reason: otherwise we'd never be able to deny the existence of chocolate hating deities.
Well, true. In a limited sense. But that's not my point. Atheism isn't simply negation, per se. It isn't a total indifference to the idea of God, or an unwillingness to address the idea. It actually denies the existence of God...which is the same as affirming the non-existence of God. It's a active stance, not a passive one. It's not the same as, say, "innocent until proven guilty," which is an arbitrary -- if wise, socially-speaking -- structure of logic. I do not presuppose that God doesn't exist, nor do I believe that agnosticism necessarily must. I don't believe in Santa Claus because the evidence against him ventures into the realm of observable fact and eyewitnesses. As a child, I did believe in him. Once I discovered certain coincidences (objects hidden in my parents closet turned up under the tree and were presented as being from Santa, et cetera), logical deduction did the rest. The truth will out. But no-one has come close to giving me a good reason to disbelieve in God yet. It's not simply a lack of evidence. It is the presence of evidence against. Another example: do I believe in Nessie? I really have little to go on except that creatures like Nessie did exist, the existence of Nessie is theoretically possible, and all evidence shown (e.g. size of lake and availability of food, and lack of corroboration -- which is which is evidence, not a lack of evidence, because it is a reason to disbelieve. Once presented into consideration, it becomes an argument in the affirmative for the non-existence of Nessie.)
Like or not, the burden of proof cannot be assigned to simply one side. If both are affirmations of basic ontological and universal structures (the theory that no God exists is just as dogmatic as any theistic theory), neither can be said to be privileged in that respect. You may argue that the natural state of things is to assume the absence of a deity, but I disagree, and feel that a study of the history of our species will bear me out in terms of sheer percentages alone. If one wishes to deny the existence of any deity with a particular attribute (chocolate-hating is, for these purposes, no different than "omniscient" or "loving"), one must be prepared to give reasons. I can point to the fact that chocolate is both prevalent and delicious as a counterargument, but I wouldn't bother until someone made the effort to actively deny the existence of one. Until then, it's a non-issue, and irrelevant to the question of burden of proof.
The Wager is, of course, the product of a certain society, a certain religion, and certain values. But the "what if" you give is disingenuous. Certainly, the fact that we cannot even prove God's existence is sufficient to demonstrate that it's highly unlikely we could state with certainty what such a god would value. But I call it disingenuous because it sets up a gedankenexperiment that really has no practical mirror. Few if any theistic doctrines -- even Deism -- would argue that atheism could somehow translate into a soteriological virtue. It's the argument from desire. Personally, I feel that treating one's fellow humans in a kind and fair manner is virtue enough for anyone to get into heaven. That's just how I'd like to view any religion that I might find palatable. But while you're free to believe that the active denial of God could be a virtue worthy of heaven, it's not a line of thought that is particularly convincing. Unless you have more reasons that you haven't presented.
But that was a minor point. Your major one -- pluralistic religion -- is one that I already decided not to bother with because that would lead to endless discussions that would range far abroad, and I didn't feel that was relevant to my original point, which was that agnosticism is a valid position of choice standing co-equal with theism and atheism.
Not being a dualist is a valid stance, but I would argue that dualism isn't necessary to make a distinction between higher order drives and lower ones. Psychologically, they are differentiated, and the arguments against such differentiation lie in spheres other than dualistic or monist philosophy. Furthermore, dualism has no bearing on whether the lack of food will kill you but the lack of religion won't.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Poker was not Pascal's strong suit -- manwitch, 06:25:36 03/28/04 Sun
It seems fair to suggest that "soteriological" should be granted sexy status as a word.
Atheism, while perhaps not being itself a soteriological virtue, is not necessarily itself an obstacle to entering heaven. I'm sure, I mean I absolutely know that God is looking down at Mr. Newdow and saying, "I could use go-getters like that on my team."
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Ha! -- KdS, 14:27:49 03/28/04 Sun
I remember reading a legend from one of the theistic Asian religions about a ferocious atheist who spent his entire life denying God. After his demise, he was somewhat surprised to find himself immediately welcomed into paradise, since God had been so often in his thoughts ;-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Poker was not Pascal's strong suit -- Sophist, 22:03:06 03/28/04 Sun
A few final comments and I'm done.
Atheism isn't simply negation, per se. It isn't a total indifference to the idea of God, or an unwillingness to address the idea. It actually denies the existence of God...which is the same as affirming the non-existence of God.
No, as I said above, it's a recognition that the side with the burden has failed to carry it. Simply re-characterizing the burden won't do. We could do that with any subject: denying the existence of leprechauns is the same as affirming their non-existence, ergo the denier has the burden of proof. I think we all recognize this as simply flawed logic.
I don't believe in Santa Claus because the evidence against him ventures into the realm of observable fact and eyewitnesses. As a child, I did believe in him. Once I discovered certain coincidences (objects hidden in my parents closet turned up under the tree and were presented as being from Santa, et cetera), logical deduction did the rest.
This is very far from affirmative proof of Santa's non-existence. It is merely noting the weakness in the evidence in His favor. As an agnostic, you have already admitted the weakness of the evidence in God's favor, yet you are applying a different standard when it comes to acknowledging the consequences of that.
But the "what if" you give is disingenuous. Certainly, the fact that we cannot even prove God's existence is sufficient to demonstrate that it's highly unlikely we could state with certainty what such a god would value. But I call it disingenuous because it sets up a gedankenexperiment that really has no practical mirror. Few if any theistic doctrines -- even Deism -- would argue that atheism could somehow translate into a soteriological virtue.
I'd love to claim the credit for the argument I made above, but this weakness in Pascal has been recognized for centuries. It's hardly disingenous; I doubt you could find a serious theologian who fails to recognize the logical flaw in the Wager which I pointed out. Your reference to real world consequences is irrelevant because the flaw ia a logical one, not a practical one.
Your major one -- pluralistic religion
You lost me on this one. I never intended to make any such point. Having re-read my posts, I don't see where I made it. I guess I'm now happy you don't want to get into it, whatever it is.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Poker was not Pascal's strong suit -- KdS, 01:44:23 03/29/04 Mon
Your major one -- pluralistic religion
You lost me on this one.
I think Random is alluding to the "wrong God" problem - that Pascal's Wager in its usual form only applies in a religiously isolated society where the choice is between no God and the one worshipped by the dominant religion. The choice is far more complicated where there are many hundreds of mutually exclusive religions/denominations, many of which threaten eternal torture to anyone who believes in any of the others.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
*Light bulb goes on* -- Sophist, 08:32:56 03/29/04 Mon
I see that connection now. Since I was focused on the logic issue, I wasn't considering any practical consequences. You are correct that they overlap.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Poker was not Pascal's strong suit -- Random, 09:15:33 03/29/04 Mon
No, as I said above, it's a recognition that the side with the burden has failed to carry it. Simply re-characterizing the burden won't do. We could do that with any subject: denying the existence of leprechauns is the same as affirming their non-existence, ergo the denier has the burden of proof. I think we all recognize this as simply flawed logic
Actually, this is precisely my point. The logic is in no way flawed simply because it's quite correct: to say that something doesn't exist is the same as affirming its non-existence. One of the major problems I have with most brands of skepticism, despite the fact that I am a skeptic, is the unspoken (or even spoken) assumption that in making an assertion that something doesn't exist, the skeptic is somehow exempt from defending his or her position. A skeptic saying "X doesn't exist" isn't the same as saying "I have no proof of X's existence(and I have proof that X doesn't exist) that convinces me, therefore I don't believe in it" The former is a universal statement of fact, the latter is simply an irrefutable personal observation. As such, I quite agree that it can applied to any subject and, indeed, would hold the same stance. The point I made, after all, was that I don't believe in Santa Claus because of the reasons mentioned. If I were to argue that Santa Claus doesn't exist, all I would have to at least offer that anecdotal evidence in suppport of my position...because I cannot expect to make a sweeping statement like that and expect my Santa-believin' audience to just accept that I'm right until proven wrong and do all the work of convincing me. In such cases, one side assuming that their belief is default and that the other, opposing side is the only one required to justify their position, often creates an unacceptable mode of discourse. As I said, this isn't an issue of simply "innocent until proven guilty" (and even if it was, the fact that there are defense attorneys out there scrabbling for all manner of evidence proving their client's innocence even as the prosecution attempts to prove guilt is something to keep in mind. Where do these two interact? Is the whole of the defense lawyer's work simply countering the prosecution? Not generally -- even offering up a simple alibi can easily be seen as trying to counter the assumption of guilt that the very trial creates...for if there is no assumption of possible guilt in any degree, the trial wouldn't be happening in the first place.) This is a case of one position being required to defend a blanket stance. Atheism, after all, isn't generally saying that "you can't prove God exists." In that form, skepticism is the domain of the agnostic. The atheist is saying, "God doesn't exist." I fail to see why that implies that a theist is now suddenly burdened with all the work of defending a position while the atheist simply stands in judgement of the evidence. If the two sides agree to disagree, then there is no debate, and both are free to consider the other side sadly misguided, but de gustibus. However, that's not exactly the case in general discourse over the relationship between theism and atheism. In either case, neither side bears any unequitable onus. Since my original premise was that neither side holds a privileged position, ergo agnosticism is a valid philosophical choice, there is no double standard.
I'm quite aware of the ongoing and historical debate over the weaknesses in Pascal's wager. And yeah, I know you're more than two hundred years too late to have originated the argumentation you propound. My only point -- probably made at greater length than it warranted -- was that your specific example was disingenuous. I only addressed it so directly because it strikes to the heart of the matter of agnosticism and the issues an agnostic might be concerned with, specifically the question of whether the valuations of theism could be co-opted by atheism.
KdS is quite correct, incidentally. That's the pluralism issue I was referring to.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
oh, clarification -- Random, 09:26:47 03/29/04 Mon
I wasn't clear. I don't consider atheism skepticism in the purest sense. It doesn't simply doubt another position; it establishes its own, i,e, God doesn't exist. Hence, the fact that we now how two opposite positions that cannot be easily reconciled (though sophistry will always find a way, however tenuous) as opposed to one position and an interrogative discourse.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Poker was not Pascal's strong suit -- Sophist, 09:52:14 03/29/04 Mon
I said above I was done, and I wouldn't have responded here but I wanted to comment on your analogy to the legal system. Since I'm going to post anyway for that reason, I'll add one truly final comment on the illogic of agnosticim.
If I were to argue that Santa Claus doesn't exist, all I would have to at least offer that anecdotal evidence in suppport of my position...because I cannot expect to make a sweeping statement like that and expect my Santa-believin' audience to just accept that I'm right until proven wrong and do all the work of convincing me.
I'd have no problem with the consistency of agnosticism (chewy?) if those claiming be agnostic really did adopt this solipsistic position with respect to Santa Claus. But when one says "I don't believe in Santa Claus", no listener takes that to mean "I haven't yet seen evidence which convinces me that Santa exists, and I actually don't know whether Santa exists or not". The listener rightly understands the phrase "I don't believe in Santa" to mean "there is no Santa". Insisting on such a distinction solely when it comes to the existence of God is simply running your ship onto the logical inconsistency of Scylla while seeking to avoid the solipsism of Charybdis.
even offering up a simple alibi can easily be seen as trying to counter the assumption of guilt that the very trial creates...for if there is no assumption of possible guilt in any degree, the trial wouldn't be happening in the first place.
Theoretically, this is not correct. While it may sometimes be possible to prove a negative, that does not mean the burden of proof has actually shifted. And of course, the legal system does not acknowledge -- again theoretically -- any "assumption of guilt" created by the mere fact of putting someone on trial. As a practical, psychological matter, however, you may be quite right about the jury's reaction.
To quote Cordy, "Ok, I'm done."
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Sticks a fork in self, winces at pain -- Random, 10:14:16 03/29/04 Mon
Done as well. Tis been an interesting debate.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
No. Say it isn't so -- Lunasea, 11:38:17 03/29/04 Mon
Do it again! Do it again!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Santa Claus, Leprechuans and God -- Sara, wading in waaaay over her head, 21:45:54 04/02/04 Fri
I probably shouldn't jump in here because this is reminding me of math, fascinating if only I really understood everything all of you were saying...but somehow I can't stop myself from throwing this into the mix.
Starting with my building blocks of the pieces of the discussion:
Atheiesm - the belief that god does not exist.
Theism - the belief that god does exist.
Agnosticism - lack of definitive belief or disbelief in god.
These 3 viewpoints are answers or an admittance to a lack of answers to all the questions that cannot be answered - what is the origin of the universe? why do we exist? is life more than just the mechanics of mobility, nutrition, reproduction? Religon,science (which I think is often another form of religon), and philosphy usually fall into one of those 3 categories to answer or choose not to answer the big questions.
I think that when I choose my option for the big questions that does not necessarily commit me to the same choice for the little questions. So I can say that I have no clue for whether or not god created the universe, whether there is a design or plan to life and also say that there is no Santa Claus or Leprechauns. Since they are beings with defined behavior and characteristics I can say that the science of the rainbow was described to me and (although I may not remember any of it) I was convinced me that you cannot find your way to the end where a pot of gold would be waiting. I can say I know Santa Claus does not exist because adults would not have to go through elaborate ruses to convince children he visited if he really did come to peoples houses. Of course I might be wrong in both cases, however it would not make my world view inconsistent or unreasonable to have that combination of convictions regarding the specifics and complete lack of convictions regarding the general. I might be strongly atheistic, and yet also believe that there are scientific facts that explain why little green men in Ireland evolved who then developed a monetary system based on pots of gold. It's all about the questions you are answering and the information you choose to build your answers with.
It's very interesting to read the discussions on belief, and disbelief but I don't think that anyone's view on religon is required to be used to answer questions on the world aroung them. The whys of the universe are a different issue from the whats of the world, unless your religous views actually pulls them together. I hope this makes sense in the context of this discussion - it's way past my bedtime and may also be way past when I should be attempting any form of communication!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Santa Claus, Leprechuans and God -- Sophist, 07:16:20 04/03/04 Sat
I said I was done with this topic and I am, but I felt your post deserved a response. I'm leaving on vacation in about an hour, so I'll just throw in 2 comments.
First, sure you can distinguish big questions from little. There are, however, 2 problems with that. One is that it's somewhat arbitrary, both in the sense of deciding which is which and in the sense of logical (as opposed to practical) consistency. The other is that you are begging the question: how do you know that God is a big question and Santa Claus is a small one?
Second, your discussion of why it is you don't believe in leprechauns -- they are beings with defined behavior which can be disproved -- is fine (actually, anyone's belief is fine with me, even if I do challenge the logic of it). However, you could, at least in principle, go through the same approach with God if you define His/Her characteristics with the same definitiveness as leprechauns. If you don't define God in some way, then you run into the problem that the concept becomes so vague as to be meaningless.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
OT, debunking historiography -- Cleanthes, 12:14:21 03/30/04 Tue
"One of the major problems I have with most brands of skepticism, despite the fact that I am a skeptic, is the unspoken (or even spoken) assumption that in making an assertion that something doesn't exist, the skeptic is somehow exempt from defending his or her position."
I'm sure many of you frequent other forums on the internet. I spend much too much time on other ones, given the clear superiority of this one! Despite the wonderfulness of Buffy and Angel, they seldom involve the intricacies of the League of Schmalkalden or Vichy politics. Sooooo, given my own predilictions, I waste time in places where historical things that interest me are discussed. Well, I've noticed that folks will have a great deal of skepticism about this or that historical bit of lore and so embrace a debunking postition.
I've very, very, very seldom seen any skepticism about debunkers. Debunkers have academic (and theremore monetary) reasons to do what they do. It's very easy to cast doubt on primary historical sources and impossible to reliably defend such sources with new historical data. As such, debunkers get a free ride. Nonetheless, any defense of a primary historical source always finds an audience predisposed to viewing the defender as a naive waif. It's maddening, I tell you!
Which brings me to the crux. Who views skepticism skeptically? The failure of the Vienna Circle shows, inter alia that skepticism isn't robust under skeptical attack. Skepticism, then, is a useful tool, but not something worthy of elevation to cardinal virtue.
The historical Cleanthes, among others, made this point. He also appreciated a joke. Furthermore, irony stands under ironic consideration. God, if She/It/He exists, is an ironist. Godless, if He/She/It doesn't exist, is an ironist. Agnostos, the most divine, is also an ironist.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: OT, debunking historiography -- Random, 20:45:32 03/30/04 Tue
::nods sagely:: You're a wise person. I miss the days of Voltaire, the skeptic who didn't suffer fools...even other skeptics. Many, if not most, skeptics have reserved their own place in a mortal heaven, atop a vine-draped tower of ivory and gold, and have finally lost sight of the very purpose of skepticism: to seek the truth, not debunk the myth. One is not the same as the other, for debunking is merely tearing down willy-nilly. To paraphrase the famous Tacitus line (attributed to Calgacus the Scot): they make a desolation and call it truth.
I could certainly go for a round of discussion of skepticism. We could even, you know, talk about it in terms of the show. The mixed messages are quite fascinating, and the suspension of disbelief clashes with the suspension of belief in a manner that resembles nothing so much as the proverbial ass of Buridan...but instead of hay, it is faced with a dizzying variety of sweet and sour, pleasure and pain. Giles the pragmatist and mystic, Buffy between worlds, Joyce and the general population walking the dizzying tightrope...and what is the final message?
Course, this thread threatens to devour the board, so perhaps a new thread would be more appropriate.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Please do, please do -- Lunasea, 07:27:01 03/31/04 Wed
I'd start it myself, but you know me. I have trouble staying on topic.
What came to my mind was how this is reflected in the triad of Xander/Heart-Willow/Spirit-Giles/Mind. Xander is so skeptical of the power of love that he doesn't marry Anya, yet Willow is saved by Xander's love. In the end, that is all that matters to Xander, how he loves Willow. He isn't trying to save the world. Willow is so skeptical about her own spirit/her ability to keep magick from turning her dark, that we get season 7, yet it is this spirit/courage that releases the potential in others. It is this spirit that is Joss' final message.
Then there is Giles. His lack of a place season 4 echoes how those like him really are shoved out of the modern world. The rational man views the supernatural the same way the Initiative did. We saw where that led.
And of course, the show revolves around Buffy. She can question, but her duty only allows her to go so far with that. She can't take the trip into darkness that Willow did. She can't feel as useless as Giles. She can't doubt love itself, but only whether she is losing it. Instead the seeds of skepticism in Buffy each season are explored in more depth through the other characters.
We can throw Spike in here, the man that doubted why he did and didn't at the same time and through this was reborn. He is now capable of finding actual answers. Not to say that he already has.
If we are going to look at Joss' final message I would say it is this: heart strengthens spirit which leads to wisdom. Phrased another way "the Slayer forges strength from pain. Love ... give ... forgive. Risk the pain. It is your nature. Love will bring you to your gift."
I don't think we should be skeptical about this, just how we go about doing it. Pain not only can lead to strength, but everything that is considered evil in the world. If all we do is criticize how others do things, what have we forged ourselves? It reminds me of a line from the movie Pretty Woman. "What do we make?"
Now someone start that thread, pleeeeease.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Poker was not Pascal's strong suit -- lurky, 01:24:47 03/29/04 Mon
delurking briefly. Interesting discussion.
the Wager contains a hidden assumption about what characteristics in people God values. The Wager assumes that God sends atheists to hell and believers to heaven. But suppose instead that God sends believers to heaven, invites the atheists as well because he respects the courage of their convictions, and reserves the hottest places in hell for those who preserve their neutrality -- the agnostics.
Random said:
Few if any theistic doctrines -- even Deism -- would argue that atheism could somehow translate into a soteriological virtue. It's the argument from desire. Personally, I feel that treating one's fellow humans in a kind and fair manner is virtue enough for anyone to get into heaven. That's just how I'd like to view any religion that I might find palatable. But while you're free to believe that the active denial of God could be a virtue worthy of heaven, it's not a line of thought that is particularly convincing. Unless you have more reasons that you haven't presented.
How about this one. Living a moral life despite the active disbelief in later reward demonstrates greater virtue and purity of spirit than such behavior in one who simply does not know but does not actively disbelieve or than in one that actively believes in later reward. Pascal's wager is weighted toward the religious primacy of the relationship between Wo/Man and God rather than the relationship of Wo/Man to Wo/Man as the core of his soteriology. This, by the way, is my problem with almost all organized religions.
Further, how does Pascal handle the "false" God? Can theism in the wrong God result in a worse redemptive result than belief in no God? In that sense atheism and agnosticism offer the safer path.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Poker was not Pascal's strong suit -- Sophist, 08:45:37 03/29/04 Mon
You raise good points.
Atheists do commonly question the ethics of believers for precisely the reason that doing good under duress is less moral than doing good without promise of reward or threat of punishment. I'm not sure that agnostics are subject to this criticism. It depends on their true mental state -- as long as they aren't secretly holding out for an afterlife, I'd say this criticism does not apply to them.
how does Pascal handle the "false" God? Can theism in the wrong God result in a worse redemptive result than belief in no God? In that sense atheism and agnosticism offer the safer path.
I'm not sure Pascal himself ever really considered this problem. He was so blinded by his assumption that "God" inevitably meant "the Christian God" that I don't think he considered, say, Jews or Muslims. KdS's post above raises essentially this point. To me, it gets back to the question of what characteristics one implicitly attributes to God. If the different sects use the Wager to support belief in Gods with inconsistent attributes, then the problem is obvious. OTOH, if the attributes of God become so vague that all agree, the whole concept of God begins to lack any meaning.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Actually, I know someone who does believe in all those different deities -- Finn Mac Cool, 08:00:13 03/28/04 Sun
He doesn't worship or follow all of them, but he does believe they exist. His beliefs state that a person's belief in a deity actually makes that deity real, and that the more believers a deity has, the more real and more powerful they become. As such, from his point of view, as long as you follow a deity and follow its standards for getting a happy afterlife, you'll get one. He's never been clear, though, on what's supposed to happen to atheists and agnostics after death.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Interestingly... -- Lunasea, 06:39:12 03/28/04 Sun
We cannot live without sustenance, and we can certainly live without religion.
Try to live without mythology or dreams, though. There is a psychic need present that is met by religion. The problem and even beauty of human existence is that it can be met in many ways. I fill it with Sophie and love and you fill it with your own very personal things. How do we know that these things are "real?" Because of gnosis. Because we know they are.
A true agnostic isn't against just the belief in God. S/he is against all such beliefs. I contend that humans cannot exist this way. They have to believe in something and that something can be considered their god.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Have you ever considered -- Pony, 06:59:03 03/28/04 Sun
That part of being an agnostic is the resistance to having someone else label and define one's personal beliefs? It is for me. It's about the rejection of the either/or, of any sort sort of absolute.
See, you can contend that you understand what other people need for their existence, yet by your own argument you say that we can only understand reality by what we individually know. There is this fundamental unknowableness because we are bound by our own minds. It's in that terrible and wonderful mystery of everything That Is Not Me that I take comfort.
You can call that what you will, you may even think that proves your point... but you can't know what it is to me. At least I think you can't.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Granted, but... -- Lunasea, 06:32:50 03/28/04 Sun
I'm pretty skeptical of innate desires other than food, sleep and sex.
So you are denying that man is a psychic being? You acknowledge physical needs, but not psychic ones. What about the need for companionship or the need to understand? Are these not real? Self-preservation seems to be a very real desire/drive that gets even more complicated with consciousness.
The only question remaining is how to express that lack of belief.
Agnostics are not expressing a lack of belief. They are agnostic, against the possibility of gnosis. The debate should really not be about God or the possibility of knowing him, but gnosis itself, which I would expand to include such things as a belief in love and other useful fictions.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Granted, but... -- manwitch, 07:32:38 03/28/04 Sun
Its not that I disagree with you, lunasea. I think your argument is correct. But it becomes semantic. The agnostic thinks they are talking about the existence of God, because in Western culture, the only culture to produce the concept of agnosticism, the knowledge of spirituality comes through the historical exercise of the bible rather than through one's own experience. What you are claiming the agnostic denies, they really probably just move to another place. Neither theist, atheist, nor agonostic thinks that the spinning of an orb web isn't way cool, or that sunset is not beautiful, or that feeling love for someone is not wonderful. But they are all part of a religious tradition that excludes these from gnosis. If the only access to knowledge of spiritual mystery is through the acceptance of a historically distinct god, then agnosticism would be legitimately the position that we can't know whether or not that God exists.
Jung is already way past the western limitations. Huxley was not.
I think this speaks very directly to the thread. cjl is bothered by what he sees as a momentary acknowledgement in Amends of this Christain historical God of which there is no proof. I don't see that, even if interpreted that way, as undermining the show's existentialism. There are other kinds of existentialism than atheistic, and Buffy as a series could hardly be argued to be atheistic. I mean the list of named gods alone, let alone the one's that are implied. And the series as a whole speaks relentlessly to gnosticism, to the experience of the divine mystery in every act of living itself. And there's more than just the moving stories to bear me out on that. There's a ton of religious imagery, including a structure of Eastern religious ideas that speak directly to the personal experience of god as one's own life.
The popularity of the show with atheists and agnostics, even its creation by an atheist, seems to bear out that its not gnosis as you define it that is being denied or questioned. I'm approaching a fine line where I am about to place a hunger for God in the hearts of atheists and agnostics. So I'll stop short of doing that. But just as Xander wants something more in his relationship to Buffy, so all our hearts look for the experience of "something more" in our lives, even if its just the ability to recognize that this is all pretty cool.
In the West we refuse to allow that to be God. In other traditions, that's exactly what God is. So the western agnostic can't come to knowledge of divine mystery in this way. It doesn't mean they don't experience the mystery or spirituality, but there's a semantic issue with relating it to God, because of how God has been defined for them. They must seek other terms or leave it unlabeled.
I have to go on vacation, so if anyone wants to flay me alive for what I've said here, I would ask that you read my post above about atheism and agnosticism being part of the western religious tradition. Consider that my weak explanation. Then trash away. Its not my intent to offend or be dismissive off anyone's deeply held views.
If you need further response, I would suggest getting yourself a beer and watching the sunset. Somewhere I will be doing the same thing, and for a brief moment, we will be in total agreement. Wherever we come down after is fine with me.
(exception: if you are drinking budweiser, there will be some disagreement, as I will be enjoying a european beer or more likely an american micro brew. If you have been drinking budweiser, this in itself could explain your agnosticism. I, too, would doubt. But try the micros. The proof is in the brew.)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Personal statement (slightly tangential) -- KdS, 14:37:04 03/28/04 Sun
I've been reading this very elevated discussion and feeling guilty about not posting through my intimidation by the intellectual level.
I'd just like to say that, while I don't know if I believe in gods or not (although there are certain gods which some people believe in who I refuse to see as deserving anything beyond a divine butt-kicking) I believe that it is necessary to believe in certain unjustifiable concepts purely by faith. I have never seen any argument which convinces me that it would be rational for a hypothetical physically and mentally superior being (who had no logistical need to conform to a social contract) to behave in a benevolent or respectful manner to people who weren't capable of retaliating against him/her/it if it would not to his/her/its advantage. I see no rational justification for universal justice, family ties, love, human rights, or the fraternity of humankind. In these cases, I make a leap of faith.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Personal statement (slightly tangential) -- lurky, 01:29:34 03/29/04 Mon
I have never seen any argument which convinces me that it would be rational for a hypothetical physically and mentally superior being (who had no logistical need to conform to a social contract) to behave in a benevolent or respectful manner to people who weren't capable of retaliating against him/her/it if it would not to his/her/its advantage.
empathy
sympathy
compassion
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
None of which can be justified on pure logic, other than in terms of reciprocity/social contract -- KdS, 07:20:51 03/29/04 Mon
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Thus showing the problem with pure logic -- Lunasea, 11:49:03 03/29/04 Mon
and why I am opposed to the word agnosticsm. Gnosis isn't a logical knowing. It is a different sort. It is one thing to say that God's existence cannot be logically proven. I will suport those that take this contention, if all they are concerned about is logical proof that can be demonstrated to the masses. It becomes a scientific experiment that has to have repeatable data.
This excludes much of human existence and to me is a pretty pathetic attempt to answer anything of importance. To me it is completley illogical to deny your own feelings and experience when answering a question. Since these feelings and experience lead to gnosis, I do not believe that such a thing is impossible. Gnosis is only impossible when you start to exclude things.
That doesn't mean the question isn't answered. It means that data is thrown out, making stating that answer impossible.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
that's why i had a button made... -- anom, 21:12:36 03/29/04 Mon
"I see no rational justification for universal justice, family ties, love, human rights, or the fraternity of humankind."
....that says: "Rationality will never make you happy (think about it)"
"I've been reading this very elevated discussion and feeling guilty about not posting through my intimidation by the intellectual level."
Oh, don't let that stop you! I've never let it stop me, or I'd probably never have started posting here in the 1st place! True, the current discussion is waxing (overly, if you ask me) academic--it didn't hit me till hours later that gedankenexperiment meant "thought experiment" (really, Ran, why didn'tcha just say so?), although, in my defense, I was sidetracked by the "danke" part, which made me think it had something to do w/giving thanks--not entirely inappropriate to a discussion of a/theism. And the only reason I knew what "soteriological" meant ("having to do w/salvation") was that I looked it up the last time it was used here! Far as I can tell, nothing's being said that requires such esoteric verbiage. Even if some people find those big words sexy. I say size doesn't matter.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
atheism and agnosticism as western religious tradition -- manwitch, 06:04:40 03/28/04 Sun
Thank you, Random, for your most thorough and excellent responses.
I agree with just about everything you're saying, and yet, my own personal worldview causes me to have these tiny but recurring "and yets" even as I agree. I think that beyond the indeterminacy of all knowledge idea, you are arguing that in order for logic or rational argument to have the power of persuasion, there must already be some fundamental agreement as to the conversation that is taking place. Terms and definitions must be agreed upon, or at least the differences in definition understood at some level. I certainly buy this.
And yet, what's interesting to me about it is not the gulf separating theist from atheist or either from agnostic, but rather the common ground that they share that none of them, IMHO, examine critically or acknowledge. In articulating how no side in this argument occupies a privileged position regarding burden of proof, you say of atheism
"that particular stance would have to convince me that secular empiricism was a more acceptable stance than symbolic/literal/extranatural theism based on faith rather than Western logic systems."
Which I agree with. But what I find interesting is the lack of recognition that Western logic systems are an outgrowth of that faith based system. Not just any faith based system, but the biblical religious systems of the West. What I mean by this will be clearer looking at another passage from your post.
"we're talking about theism, a precept that has been central to much of human history. There has been, as far as we know, no period in history that religion hasn't dominated in one form or another. It can be -- and has been -- argued that true atheism, as such, has only gained large-scale adherency in very recent times. Prior to the 20th century, it was an extreme minority position."
Atheism is reasonably new because it is an outgrowth of Western philosophy and Western scientific discoveries of the 19th and 20th centuries. Its not a natural outgrowth of Buddhism or Taoism, hinduism or confucianism, or of native american religion. So while some form of belief in the divine or spiritual aspect of the world has existed everywhere and at all times, only the recent West, the product of a very specific religious tradition, has produced atheism and agnosticism.
The theism of the West has been, at least since the final years of the roman empire, distinct from the theism elsewhere. In Western theism, there is One God, to whom is attributed personality, and who is claimed as a historical fact, and that God is distinct and separate from the earth and from humanity, which are generally corrupt, and on occasion that God intervenes or interferes with the universe which he created but of which he is not a part. It seems to me that atheism and agnosticism, indeed western secularism and western science, generally consider all theistic questions from this perspective. This western logic system, whether seeking to prove or disprove, searches for material evidence of this God's behavior, of its interference as manifested in the world, all the while assuming by definition that one's own experience of living is not God, because God is by definition a separate entity, manifested in the world only at unique historical moments.
I can only imagine, but it seems to me non-sensical for a buddhist to be agnostic. A buddhist is not going to wonder whether or not buddha consciousness exists but when they will next experience it. Hindus aren't waiting for God to interfere in their lives because God is present in it at all times, even in their own selves. Proof, argument, belief, these are not required because God is experienced on a daily basis. The Buddhist has no need for atheism, because there is no distinct personal god claiming historical fact and interfering or not in his universe. Rather, the buddhist is himself, and knows himself to be a manifestation of god in the world, which is itself a manifestation of god's consciousness. To disprove, or even doubt, the existence of God in that context is to deny the context itself and insist on Western biblical definitions of God.
Or so it seems to me.
It is really only in the West that God is defined as something we do not experience. There is a sense in which atheism and agnosticism totally buy into western theism even as they discuss the lack of proof. They do in fact agree on the unquestioned terms of the theistic argument.
By and large, western culture has defined God and religious experience in very narrow terms.
In your earlier post, Random, you mentioned that Campbell must propose that the myths aren't real. My response would be that that is exactly the kind of western cultural influence I'm talking about. "Real" must mean real in some historical or physical sense. But there are other kinds of reality. The Lovesong of J Alfred Prufrock is real. When I was One and Twenty is real. What does it even mean to say they are not?
This is the sense in which I have claimed that Buffy is the ultimate in reality television. Rather than showing a bunch of doofusses locked in a house behaving like idiots towards one another without a script, Buffy finds a way to depict on screen what is actually going on inside me, what is actually happening to me in my life every day. Its a marvel. I don't believe that the girl Buffy actually exists in southern california. I would have long since moved there. But it seems that would be mistaken criteria on which to judge the shows "reality," its truth value.
So the myths are very real. To recognize in the religious stories metaphors that reflect back on one's self and one's own experience is not to deny the reality of the stories, but to experience the reality of the stories. Faith, I would imagine, is something you experience. As lunasea suggests, you either have it or you don't. To be convinced to have it through logic isn't really it. You may have the experience of faith in God, or you may have the experience of God. But you don't say, "well, that's a pretty good point, I guess I accept conditionally that god exists."
Of course, as you point out, its all tautology. We define the terms and argue our way to those definitions, refuting those definitions that by definition don't hold up.
So, in short, my tautology is this: I think that atheism and agnosticism are part of the western religious tradition, and I think that to seek to verify the historical or physical reality of God is to be unclear on the concept. The first point I think would hold up to historical scrutiny. The second is my own illogical opinion.
I still follow and admire your logic. At least I think I do.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Heh. I mean this in the nicest possible way, but... -- Random, 10:56:04 03/28/04 Sun
....perhaps it's a good thing you're going on vacation, cause now we're into the East/West divide and religious pluralism, two huge topics, and if we keep this up much longer, this thread will utterly devour the Board.
I find myself in the curious position of agreeing completely with most your points about the East/West divide, and yet dealing with the fact that I am a product of the so-called "Western Civilization." As I was arguing earlier in my replies to Sophist, religion has always struck me as a powerful impulse, but not a basic need. Ergo, one can live without it, though at a cost. Then, all perspectives have their own costs, and, in a sense, the choices you make in taking a stance depend in a large part on which costs are most acceptable to the you. But, yes, Eastern thought has (almost)always considered existential and religious issues to be inseparable. I say "(almost)" because Zoroastrianism, and certain forms of animism differ slightly from most Eastern thought, and because of the problematic aspect of defining Eastern thought as strictly "religious" in many cases. Buddhism, for instance, posits a universal spirit that can be considered God, though it's markedly different from many Western monotheistic perceptions of "God." But the central drive of Buddhism revolves around the individual and the path to achieve enlightenment, and, strictly speaking, resembles a mystical philosophy by Western religious standards. The differentiation between theology and philosophy is an arbitrary one, created in the recesses of medieval Christianity, but is nevertheless a very real influence on modern thought.
As anom pointed out, what we call "Western religions" is actually a misnomer, considering that Christianity, Judaism, Islam, et al mostly derived from the near East, and sometimes even further East. The point is somewhat invalidated by the fact that the modern structures are heavily influenced by Western thought. Though it is a chicken and egg problem -- did, for instance, Christianity shape Western thought, or was it shaped by it? Or, more likely, both? But the essential point, I think, is that what we mean when we say "Western religion" is "a particular brand of monotheism." The relationship between this and the rise of atheism and agnosticism is a complicated topic that I'm not sure I feel adequate to tackling.
But you're quite right...it does seem nonsensical for a Buddhist to be atheist. But no more so than it does for a Christian to be atheist. Perhaps it would be more useful to say that it seems nonsensical for people raised in certain modes of Eastern thought to be atheist. Eastern religion, by and large, is philosophical in tone, and faith is inextricably intertwined with existence.
(Keep in mind, of course, that these are all very general blanket statements about East versus West, especially in light of such things as Confucianism, Hinduism (which centers around deities more than other Eastern religions) and modern enforced atheism under certain Communist regimes. However, since I quite understand where you're coming from, we can just agree to operate within those parameters.)
So if I'm understanding you correctly, atheism and agnosticism come from an awareness of possibilities that just doesn't sit easily with Eastern thought. I would tend to place less of an onus on differing religious traditions, however, and more on scientific and industrial progress. The Age of Enlightenment, for instance, witnessed an early flowering of atheism and sincere questioning of traditional religion. Deism sprung from that period. So perhaps we can now replace the "Western religion" with "industrialization" instead of "monotheism."
That said, the issue of whether myths are "real" is one I'm with you on. They hold metaphorical and symbolic importance that is indispensable to our cultural consciousness. (Picking "Love Song..." as an example was a dirty trick, btw. It's one of my favorite poems.;-) ) The problem arises when dealing with religion in comtemporaneous terms. Few adherents to Christianity, for example, would care to have the truths and stories of their faith called "myth." They will probably acknowledge the metaphorical and moral qualities, but will stop short of reducing them to merely cultural elements on the same level as, say, Greek myth. And the ancient Greeks would probably resent that their religion was considered lower in religious terms than the Christian's, or that their stories of gods and heroes and prophets are "real" in a more-limited sense.
I'm not sure I'm doing justice to your post, heh. I've written a lot lately, and need time to pick up steam on the new issues you raise. In any event, in the midst of your microbrews, have a Guinness draft for me...cause that's truly God's gift to man.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Since I haven't left yet... -- manwitch, 13:56:01 03/28/04 Sun
First off,
"However, since I quite understand where you're coming from,"
this is the sort of grace that underlies just about all communication. I thank you for the seemingly effortless adjustment.
To make it still harder for you to show that grace, I will continue.
Rather than arguing that atheism and agnosticism suggest possibilities that don't sit easily with Eastern thought, I think I am saying that atheism and agnosticism have little if any applicability to, I would say, the vast majority of non-judeo-christian traditions (I am sure exceptions can be found). To the extent that atheism or agnosticism is applied to those other traditions, then atheism and agnosticism seem to me to be only variations in articulation of the belief system I am calling, for lack of a better education, "western" theism. Because in order to be applied elsewhere, they must deny the religious experience of that elsewhere and impose a certain familiar construction of theism, whether to demolish or doubt it, onto a system that is unconcerned by its lack of the concept. It colonizes.
To the extent that atheism and agnosticism are not applied to other traditions but only to this western theism, they seem then to be part of a very specific religious system, and suggest to some degree an adherence to its tenets, articulated perhaps by denial or perhaps by doubt.
There is a general viewpoint from which it seems a fundamental if blurry agreement on the nature of God as an object, God's relationship to humanity and the world, how that relationship can be manifested in ways that we might observe it, how measured, verified, etc. underlies belief, denial and doubt. Obviously there are many differences. I'm not claiming they're the same. But even in denial and doubt, there is a basic agreement (relative to other traditions) on what God is permitted to be and how we might know it.
This gives atheism and agnosticism a kinship with "western" theism that they do not have with other religious traditions, generally speaking, and that can't really be passed off as scientific.
You are a pleasure to read in this thread as elsewhere.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Atheism and the 'east' -- Rahael, 14:24:40 03/28/04 Sun
Hmmm. I am acquainted with many people, all close to me who manage both to be atheists and to have been brought up in the 'eastern' religions.
I will question my father more closely when he returns from holiday, because our only discussions about religion have been along the variety where he starts quoting enlightenment thinkers at me, but he is a man profoundly of his culture. That is to say that I think his buddhism lies deep rooted, and his entire world view, and his life demonstrate a different way of seeing things than the Christian upbringing I had.
I think you are underestimating how syncretic religious cultures can be. (I had been reading about hte influence of Christianity on Buddhism in a certain part of the world. )
I grew up in a CHristian family, with a scientist for a mother who did research on issues relating to evolution, in a Hindu area, in a Buddhist country, and with a Buddhist father.
All the time I spend in the 'West' reminds me how much my outlook on the world has been shaped by this upbringing. Even my Christian family was heavily influenced by Hindu modes of thought, and were untroubled by it.
Under the 'official' positions of any major world faith, you'll find in popular religious culture a plethora of ideas that aren't necessarily sanctioned. That derive from other traditions, from local cultures, etc. That is not restricted to any world faith. I wouldn't make any assumptions about the worldviews of any member of any world religion!
After all, I was baptised in the Church of England, and I have a whole ton of heretical views.
Anyhow my conclusion is: Religion - fascinating. Find out what people really think (as opposed to what the official church says they do) and you'll find out about society.
Sez the person who sat in trishaw after trishaw a couple of weeks ago bearing simultaneously the pictures of Siva, Buddha and Jesus etc. And also pictures of cute babies bearing the slogan: "love is only chatter, friendship is all that matters".
Make of that what you will.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Atheism and the 'west' -- Sophist, 09:01:27 03/29/04 Mon
The term "atheism" long predates the 19th century in Western thought. Uses in English go back to at least the 1500s (I only had time for a quick look at the OED), so it would be anachronistic to claim that it arose from more modern doctrines or somehow depends on 19th/20th century attitudes.
Although I can't find any references quickly, I'm sure the basic concept dates back at least to pre-Christian Greece of the Classical period. Socrates, for example, was suspected of teaching his students to deny the gods. The incident with Alcibiades and the defacing of the Hermes was also characterized in terms of "having no gods". I don't believe it's a Christian or even Jewish concept.
My intuition tells me that manwitch and Random are entirely wrong about atheism and "Eastern" religions (that term always sounds odd to me when used by people whose own religion arose in an area we now call "East"). Glad to hear that my intuition has some support in your experience.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Atheism and the 'west' -- Rahael, 09:36:35 03/29/04 Mon
Well that's what my historical intuition told me about the West too but I was loathe to disagree when it was all stated with such certainty!
The Eastern religions aren't 'eastern' to me. I grew up thinking of Christianity, Buddhism and Hinduism as kind of 'ours', in the sense it was part of the warp and woof of daily life, threads so tightly tied together, like our kinships & neighbourhoods. Ordinary common life. Nothing exotic, distant or 'different'. Buddhism was a kind of exception because I didn't have access to the language of its worship or thought, and so it had a different cultural imprint and implication.
Hence the difference in outlook of myself and my father. But ...he's the atheist, and I'm the 'believer'. Kind of.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Atheism and the 'west' -- Random, 09:39:05 03/29/04 Mon
You're quite right about the antiquity of atheism. And Socrates was indeed convicted of teaching godlessness to the youth. Insofar as the East/West divide, I think manwitch and I were agreeing to examine a relatively rarified philosophical division more than a real-world one. Atheism, after all, doesn't have to mean the same thing universally between cultures. The Shintoist or Buddhist in the East who is free to follow another religion (say, Christianity) can be distinct from the Christian in the West who is not free to believe primary Buddhist concepts (reincarnation, for example) under the strictures of most forms of Western Christianity. Eastern religion can be seen -- with some evidence -- as being somewhat more syncretic and less-exclusive than so-called Western religions (see my above reply to manwitch on my take on the idea of "Western religion.")
I haven't really formulated a proper reply to manwitch yet, but I will offer that what a "Western mindset" (such as it is, since manwitch and I were agreeing to operate within certain parameters of generalization) means by "atheist" resembles pragmatic empiricism far more that an "Eastern mindset" (again, such as it is.) I have no problem seeing a Buddhist as an atheist within the context of not believing in an individuated god and thus believing that worship directed thereupon is misguided...but never as a "Western-style" pragmatic empiricist atheist. A Buddhist can say "God doesn't exist, only self and the universe" and make negation of self his or her primary religious tenet. Is this atheism? Does it matter if the Buddhist is every bit as "mystical" as any obscure cult of revealed Christianity?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Given those limits, fine. -- Sophist, 09:58:31 03/29/04 Mon
I don't know enough about religions other than Christianity or Judaism to comment on how syncretic they are today (that's a hard issue to evaluate without hindsight anyway). My sense is that most religions "of the Book" tend to be less syncretic today, but that could just mean I lack the historical perspective to see the trends.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Actually, I agree -- Random, 10:12:26 03/29/04 Mon
The religions "of the Book" do appear to be less syncretic, not that they've ever been extraordinarily syncretic. But they've had their moments in times past. Modern Buddhism, Taoism, Shintoism, Hunduism and the like have always struck me as much more syncretic than, say, modern Christianity or Judaism. Which is one of the reasons I admire the former set more than the latter on occasion.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Syncretic religion -- Rahael, 11:05:32 03/29/04 Mon
Christianity is no less syncretic than any other religion.
Any religion which has been so successfully taken across the globe and transplanted into many different cultures, taking on local hues and imprints is by my definition, a religion that is open to being enmeshed with local religious, social and cultural traditions.
In fact, pre-reformation early modern Christianity has been thought by some historians to be 'irreligious' and 'paganism'. I don't agree with them - I think what they describe as 'irreligion' is the way that ordinary people were able to weave their own ideas around the tenets of the orthodox church. They didn't think they were irreligious! Menocchio didn't think he was a heretic.
As Miri Rubin has described so eloquently, even after the Reformation, everyone kneeling around the altar, where the communion wafer was held in front of them, could see completely different things in that circle. Even with the attempt of the reformation to provide better religious education, to make faith 'uniform', people still continued to bring to the official church teachings, their own interpretations.
When I was born, my horoscope was cast, just as it would have been were I a Hindu. We celebrated the Hindu festivals, and the Christian ones. I was baptised in the Church of England, and yet I feel the beauty of holiness in a Kovil as well as a temple, as well as the Church.
We didn't eat beef. Christians drove past cattle sitting in the middle of the road, just as Hindus did.
And Buddhism and Hinduism aren't monolithic religions one can make generalised statements about (let alone Christianity!). There are huge variations from region to region.
Christianity is no longer exclusively the religion of the 'West'. It may have been spread sometimes in a way that has been associated with larger political movements (my ancestors converted for what I think must have been careerist reasons) - but despite the power differentials, and the tensions within this process, it is also now owned by all kinds of people all over the globe.
it no longer makes sense to make monolitihic statements about late 20th and early 21st C Christianity in those terms.
Also, for someone sittign in teh 'East', the East isn't the East (as Sophist has already pointed out in this thread).
We had a north, a south, a west and an east too. It feels a bit weird talking about 'Eastern' religion. The parameters of this debate are uniquely structured for a certain viewpoint. I argue it may be a distorted one. Not that I'm saying subjectivity isn't valuable. But other subjectivities need to be taken into account. Let's turn the map upside down!
(in addition I am sometimes puzzled by the perception here that the Eastern religions are somehow 'holier' or 'wiser' or have access to some truths that the rest of the world doesn't have. I grew up seeing buddhist monks carrying machine guns on marches demanding the death of people like myself. We have issues about Hindu fundamentalism, of caste. Howeever I am not arguing for the kind of clash of the civilisation type stuff that seems to be so fashionable nowadays - just, that religion in practice gets intertwined with the daily lives of people. This in turn leads to its politicisation. It partakes of wider philosophical movements. It doesn't exist in a vacuum, and religious culture, in the realm of ideas and hopes and dreams is exactly the kind of belief system that will be affected by new ideas)
So if the argument is that there is something about 'eastern' thougth/belief structures that makes it closed off to certain ideas - I'd say no. Quite strongly. I'd also contest that there is something about 'Western' religions that leads to it being closed off from the 'popular'. And i find that to be quite strange because popular religious culture is my thing. And everything I've read or wrote about within that field has been about Christianity.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I concur -- Sophist, 13:21:31 03/29/04 Mon
I agree with all your points. Christianity certainly was syncretic in the past. I don't see that know, but that may reflect more my lack of perspective or knowledge of current trends than the actual state of affairs.
I would say that religions which rely on canonical texts may be less syncretic. The divinely inspired word places more constraints on the customs/ideas which can be introduced.
As for religions, I think it important to keep in mind, as you say, that belonging formally to one religion does not make you better (or worse) than belonging to another. People are just people; it's what they do with their beliefs that counts.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Actually when it comes to Buddhism -- Lunasea, 12:02:16 03/29/04 Mon
the cosmos is one of the Four Imponderables: from the Acintita (unconjecturable) Sutta (Anguttara Nikaya IV.77)
"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?
"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas [i.e., the range of powers a Buddha develops as a result of becoming a Buddha] is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"The jhana-range of a person in jhana [i.e., the range of powers that one may obtain while absorbed in jhana]...
"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma...
"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them."
*******
All the stuff that theism/atheism obsess about tend to be lumped into here. That why I really don't care about it any more. Sid was right. It only leads to madness and vexation.
A Buddhist isn't supposed to be an atheist, theist, agnostic or anything else. Just labels that need to be discarded. Why bother with things that have no bearing on attaining enlightenment? Even the gods are subject to Samsara. A Buddhist is supposed to say "Exists" no subject. Everything is empty. No self. No universe. Just vidya.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
My contention -- Lunasea, 06:20:56 03/28/04 Sun
My essential point was that atheism predicated upon rational analysis misses the point: theism isn't a systematic or logical system of rationality
My contention is that atheism is not based on a foundation of rational analysis. A superstructure of logic may dazzle people, but the foundation is always that gut feeling that leads us in certain directions of inquiry. That feeling is gnosis.
I can see how the structures that theist and atheist build differ, but at their foundation, they are built with gnosis.
I was arguing that it is completely inappropriate for theists (or atheists, for that matter) to apply their standards of belief to an agnostic's beliefs.
So you are saying that an agnostic doesn't need, for that is the standard that builds the foundation of all belief, atheist or theist, or does the agnostic find a way to ignore need? It is the common thread that runs through all human thought. I am not talking about the structures that are built on that foundation which vary widely from theist to atheist. I am talking about the foundation they are built on, belief itself, which come from need and leads to gnosis.
As agnostic, the burden on you is to show that this cannot exist. Can you be agnostic about agnosticm? If agnosticsm is indeed a position, defend that position rather than just attack mine. We aren't talking about data that can be supported by sensation. Belief is a psychic construct. Show me how it is possible not to respond to the psychic need that belief fills. To me that is psychotic.
It is possible to have a belief and still be open to that belief changing. This is probably the healthiest option for it allows for change without the entire structure being demolished. As we find new things to fill the hole with or that things we were using aren't working, the very foundation can change. That isn't to say that we don't believe, just that belief and gnosis are adjustable.
I thought a good title for Surprised by Joy would be There and Back Again since it traces Lewis' spiritual beliefs which changed. Just because something is believed today doesn't mean it has to be believed tomorrow. Much psychic harm is caused by theists and atheists that hold to beliefs they no longer believe in their core. The agnostic overcomes this by "not believing." That doesn't mean they don't believe, though.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Good Grief! -- Old One, 08:49:00 03/28/04 Sun
I find myself in the unaccustomed position of agreeing with everything you've just said.
Are there two moons in the sky? Are pigs flying? Has Hell frozen over? I must go out and check...
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Good Grief! -- LittleBit, 12:32:12 03/28/04 Sun
Yes, there are two moons, pigs are flying and Hell has indeed frozen over.
Who'd've thunk it?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Good Grief! -- Jane, 17:53:39 03/28/04 Sun
Thanks, Littlebit! In the midst of all this amazing, thoughtful and very intimidating discussion, this made me laugh. I am following this thread with great interest, and feeling rather in awe of the intellect displayed by the posters. I'm trying to figure out where I stand in all this. Not being so articulate as Random,manwitch,etal, I'm going back to lurking for awhile. My own position is somewhere in the murkiness of "I'm sure there is more to this life than we know, I'm just not sure what it is." Wonderful discussion everyone. Thanks.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Quote of the week! -- Masq, 12:25:54 04/02/04 Fri
Well, last week:
My own position is somewhere in the murkiness of "I'm sure there is more to this life than we know, I'm just not sure what it is."
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: My contention -- Random, 09:57:14 03/28/04 Sun
If agnosticsm is indeed a position, defend that position rather than just attack mine. We aren't talking about data that can be supported by sensation. Belief is a psychic construct. Show me how it is possible not to respond to the psychic need that belief fills.
I wasn't attacking your position as such. You offer up the thesis that agnosticism is something akin to fear and unwillingness to commit. I contradicted that. The problem is, I don't even agree with your basic position that there is even a need. Even if I did, it would be irrelevant, given that a primary thrust of my argument is that the choices you give do not invalidate philosophical agnosticism. Indeed, they almost require it unless one considers the philosophical possibilities to be utterly polarized. If so, then we have a crucial divide that is unlikely to ever be resolved.
So you are saying that an agnostic doesn't need, for that is the standard that builds the foundation of all belief, atheist or theist, or does the agnostic find a way to ignore need? It is the common thread that runs through all human thought. I am not talking about the structures that are built on that foundation
I said neither. That is your interpretation, based on your own arguments, not mine. Part of my point, indeed, is that your presuppositions about how belief and religion work are not necessarily givens, and that you haven't convinced me of any need to take a theist or atheist position. I asserted that I am capable of taking an agnostic position that adheres to neither without being vacillating or fearful. You are throwing out unconditional statements without establishing their veracity, and still creating false dilemmas. If need is the basis of theism or atheism, it absolutely doesn't follow that need is not the basis for anything else, or that a person who isn't either of those has no need. It's sloppy logic, and while logic may or may not be relevant to the issue of "belief", it is certainly relevant to the issue of the parameters of debate.
In any event, it's moot from my perspective. You are defining it as a need, but I consider it a "drive", much in the same way that sex is a drive. One can live without it, though at a psychological cost. But there are psychological costs to any stance on this continuum. It isn't incumbent upon me to defend the possibility of true agnosticism, because it's clearly possible: I am truly agnostic. I made that clear, so if you want to establish that it isn't possible, you have to establish that I am either mistaken or lying. There is no point in me demonstrating that it is possible not to respond to the so-called "psychic need" simply because I see no such need in my life...only drive. As such, the burden is really on you to give me a reason to bother, especially given that I have no quibble with you being a theist, or not, because you felt compelled.
As agnostic, the burden on you is to show that this cannot exist
Not in the least. I am not trying to establish that such things cannot exist. I'm merely arguing that I am capable of taking a very specific position. Ultimately, I regard theism as a perfectly legitimate stance, so I have no need to disprove a single thing. Indeed, I cannot do so and maintain consistency with my belief. My failure to attempt to do so, therefore, is not a legitimate argument against my position on agnosticism.
The concept of gnosis is a complicated one. It literally translates as "knowledge" and I believe knowledge comes by many paths. Leaving aside my discussion of belief and knowledge with manwitch, I would submit that empirical disputation is at the root of much of atheism. Yes, one can note that an atheist is perfectly capable of deciding there is no god without rationalizing the decision. In practice, however, the two are rarely separable. As I already pointed out to Sophist, trusting "feeling" actually appears to be weighted toward theism -- therefore the primary tools of the atheist attempting to disprove the existence of a god would naturally be logic and empiricism. The structure is not so easily dismissed. Structure, after all, is form.
But, again, it's a moot point for me, because I have seen no reason to believe that choosing neither stance is in any way a less valid position. After all, as you point out, we aren't talking about data that can be supported with sensation. So I submit that not picking a team in a game set up and arbitrated by other people doesn't mean I am somehow indecisive, only that I don't pick the choices others try to impose on me. I have belief...it just doesn't happen to be theistic or atheistic. I've already articulated that more than once, so talking about "not believing" misses the point. I believe that A) it is impossible for me to achieve true gnosis within the operational parameters of how we interact with the world; B) that I have no need, or even desire, to believe the structures of either atheism or theism without some influence (nonexistent in my life as-of-yet) to push me one way or the other; and C)( this drive for belief is not in any way circumscribed by the polarities we are talking about. I can easily say, "I believe in the power of the human will and kindness" and consider that a belief far more important than belief in a deity, or lack thereof.
Certainly, this can all change tomorrow. But just because it can doesn't mean it will, nor does the lack of change indicate a flaw in the belief, anymore than you failing to convert to agnosticism represents a flaw in your position.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: My contention -- Lunasea, 19:14:29 03/28/04 Sun
I wasn't attacking your position as such
Seeing as my belief in Sophie could be classified as both atheist and theist, but most properly is gnostic, I would say that agnosticsm directly contradicts what I believe. For once I felt like standing up for that belief and maybe even publically declaring it. Perhaps my initial post was a bit off the cuff and not worded properly, but you have to admit it stimulated an interesting discussion.
You start with the premise that your position is somehow philosophically or logically superior to every other. I'll even give you that. I have given you that. That doesn't change that somehow we just know things. A true agnostic, which you claim to be, cannot do this. Their claim is that such knowledge is impossible. The position isn't "I don't know" but rather "I believe I can't know." It seems to be a very limiting position to me. "I can't." It even gets expanded to "it can't be known." Makes people feel better for not knowing.
I do know. I know others that do know. Agnosticsm says we are all wrong. We might be right about what we say about God, but we can't know. I don't believe this. I believe we can be very wrong about what we say about God and still know.
My contention has been and will continue to be, that you can state you are agnostic, but somewhere you do believe even in our ability to know. You get those feelings that say "this is right" or "this is wrong." Some things you might not even support with logic and just accept based on that feeling. That feeling is gnosis.
If you can do it for those, why is God off limits from that? It doesn't seem logical.
Not in the least. I am not trying to establish that such things cannot exist. I'm merely arguing that I am capable of taking a very specific position
but that is the position of the agnostic, that such things as gnosis cannot exist. If you do believe they can, we need to find a new label for you. Agnosticsm doesn't just say that theism and atheism are both tenable position. It says that neither are. It says that both are deluding themselves if they think they can actually know this.
I believe that A) it is impossible for me to achieve true gnosis within the operational parameters of how we interact with the world;
You yourself know that such a statement is impossible to prove. How can you assert with certainity what is impossible for you to achieve? That certainity comes from gnosis and therefor supports its existence and the ability of us to know things.
I don't really give a damn about the question as it relates to "God" whatever that concept means. I care that something I hold dearly, namely gnosis herself is getting a bad rap. As Manwitch says better than I can, this is because of the Western preoccupation with God. I'm not preoccupied with God. I'm preoccupied with gnosis, hence my problem with agnosticsm.
It's not necessarily vascilation or fear as most define it. More like a limitation and I don't like seeing humanity limited.
I've talked too much. Shutting up now.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Wasn't really talking about domains -- Lunasea, 05:56:15 03/28/04 Sun
If anything the division of the human experience into disciplines is causing a psychic split in us that is hurting humanity. My contention is that the belief in God needs to be discussed from the totality of the human psyche.
Since art and literature come from the transcendent function, thus transcend the imbalances in the four psychological functions, these areas approach the question from a more complete perspective.
But I don't like how everything but logic has been sucked out of science, leaving it so heartless that ethics has to be artificially inserted on top of it. I won't even go into how wounded the spirit of Justice has become by the law.
The divine spirit that is in all of us has been wounded and I was trying in my own small way to heal this a bit.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Thoughts on the nature of proof... -- Arethusa, 07:08:27 03/27/04 Sat
No, it's not the concept of God that I would be interested in disproving, but the interpretation that I"ve been taught. In other words, the Bible is what I would try to disprove logically. Most of my concerns are very practical-should I not use birth control because the Catholic Church says not to? Should I accept its and others condemnaiton of homosexuals because it's biblically based? I would want to argue against this interpreation. I realize the ultimate question of is there or is there not a supernatural power might be unanswerable, and that I choose to not believe in one. But beneath the purely theoretical exercise of debating God's existance is the real-life relationship between religion and people's daily lives. Like Sophist pointed out, in the Buffyverse leprecauns don't exist-until someone shows that they do. There's has never been any evidence they exist so for practical purposes they don't, but if one shows up we'll know differently. Until then, I can choose to believe they don't for lack of any evidence to the contrary. There's no proof here unless one's omniscent. (And I finally got in a sexy word.)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
That's a different matter, then... -- Random, 09:27:14 03/27/04 Sat
Disputing what appear to be arbitatry structurings of theism is simpler, though not precisely exempt from the point that atheism cannot truly engage theism for the basic reason that if a religious formulation is predicated upon divine will/mandate, one is back to the same problem: how to prove God doesn't exist and doesn't desire this sort of behaviour. It's all well and good to say that birth-control is rational and useful, but if one believes that God is opposed to it, all the rational arguments in the world will prove ineffectual...unless one somehow establishes either the non-existence of the mandate or the non-existence of the giver of the mandate.
But I'm quite in agreement about the issue of practical purposes. I tend to call myself a philosophical agnostic but a practical atheist simply because I don't (generally) allow the possibility of the existence of a god to have a direct effect on my daily life. But it's not quite that simple to me. The lack of evidence, as I pointed out, can be construed as the incapacity to see said evidence due to the fact that "evidence" requires an empirical examination on the part of the average atheist (I say "the average atheist" because one can come to the position by many roads...the disillusion tragic figure who rejects God and All His Works out of anger over a personal tragedy is not an empirical atheist...though s/he may subsequently use empiricism to rationalize hir pre-existing stance.) If theism isn't amenable to empiricism, the lack of empirical evidence is utterly irrelevant. It comes down to simply a choice in our values -- do we value certain forms of discourse or examination over others? We all do, of course, and that is what makes for the variety of belief.
Oh, and very sexy word. If you got it, flaunt it!
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: What you're missing... -- Lunasea, 09:02:22 03/26/04 Fri
I'm probably failing miserably to articulate what I mean. In any debate that in confined to logic, you'll probably win. I don't debate solely from logic and that isn't where what I said came from. Since we aren't even using the same parameters, is debate even possible? Let's see if I can frame this is a way that is acceptable to us both.
Dr. Jung came up with four psychological functions. Most people know these because Myers-Briggs uses them. They are thinking, feeling, sensation and intuition. The arguments you have used about "the existence of God is unknowable" are only one-fourth of the equation, namely just looking at the issue using thinking. That does not mean it is impossible to take or have a position on the issue. It just means that it is impossible to take or have a position on the issue using that particular function. I will grant you that, though it can be debated.
There is much more to Dr. Jung's theories than just the four psychological functions. Myers-Briggs pairs up the psychological functions and gives us a nice neat series of letters to describe us. What many fail to realize that we still have all four functions. Even if thinking is your dominant function by far, you haven't obliterated feeling. It has just been relegated to the shadow.
To compensate for this, Dr. Jung added another function to his model, the Transcendent function. This is where symbols and myth come from. Joseph Campbell explains it drawing a cross with opposite functions at opposite ends and the transcendent function as a circle in the center.
Now using all 5 of these functions, I contend that everyone does have a position on this issue. To state that I cannot know from one function does not answer the question what do you believe. It states what you know and even what you believe you can know. It does not answer the question of belief which comes from the totality of your being.
Add to this that what you believe from the totality of your being can very often go against logic. "If one feels that the existence of God makes no sense whatsoever, belief in one could almost categorically be called psychotic. Or just perverse." I can very easily explain away love using logic. If anything it is just a useful fiction. I still believe in it and I am neither psychotic nor perverse. My contention is that it is ok to believe when it goes against logic. I really believe we have limited ourselves by saying that logic is the supreme function and that all others are inferior.
I don't/can't know is an acceptable stance since it only refers to one function. It doesn't answer the question about what you believe. I don't believe one way or the other, just shows that you don't know what you believe. It would be more accurate to say that I don't know what I believe and maybe even add, I don't care to know. I know after the years I spent studying religion and psychology have led me to this conclusion.
The debate, as I see it, is about whether belief should extend beyond logical proof. I will contend that even if this is your conscious position, in your shadow is something else. I am arguing for the validity of the entire psyche and that includes the shadow and what has been relegated there.
Was that any clearer?
[> [> [> [> [> [>
See my reply to Arethusa... -- Random, 23:40:21 03/26/04 Fri
Conditionally, I agree completely...one cannot argue based on differing premises. But my point was more geared toward the fact that my personal perspective relies on the assumption that since neither side can be verified, I can choose not to believe either. Though I will admit to holding fast to the notion that if one sincerely believes that something is logically impossible, one cannot truly believe in that something. Logic and belief work independently, even when one supports the other. I have a hard time envisioning a scenario where a devout Christian says "Logically, God cannot exist. But I still believe in him." At least not without more than a trace of irony. There's a difference between saying, "I can find no logical proof of God's existence" and saying "I find that God's existence is illogical." Negation and absence are not the same thing.
"I don't know" is in no way my stance. It's merely ancillary to what I do believe. As I said, my perspective is that the existence/nonexistence is unprovable. Therefore, I choose not to believe either way. It's a perfectly valid answer to the question, since the question has no answer as far as I'm concerned. I know exactly what I believe. I believe that there is no resolution, nor can there ever be one from any perspective except a completely personal one. The beliefs of a theist or an atheist have no bearing on my beliefs...and my belief in indeterminancy stands co-equal with both of those. It's not an either/or situation. One need not "choose sides" in order to have a belief. Such a division is arbitrary, and falls into the category of "false dilemma," which assumes that the choices given are the only ones, and if one doesn't choose either, one is vacillating or forgoing choice. An agnostic can indeed be doing that...but that's not inherent in agnosticism, nor is it something all agnostics do.
[> [> [> [>
it is for some people...i'm guessing you're not one of them -- anom, 21:55:59 03/25/04 Thu
"The two aren't synonyms. To say that you don't believe something because of inadequate proof doesn't say anything. Either you feel something or you don't. Either you believe something or you don't."
Nobody said they were synonyms. But to some people, belief is based on proof. In some matters, someone can make what I consider a dubious statement & I won't (necessarily) believe them. But if they can show me proof (by my standards of proof), I will believe them. In other areas, my belief may not depend as heavily on proof in these cases. "Feel" & "believe" aren't synonyms either.
"Do the same thing with an atheist and typically you get a list of logical flaws with Christian theology."
A-hrrrm! Christianity-centric much? Most of the atheistic arguments I've read/heard did not specifically address Christian theology but rather denied the general idea of God--or any gods. Atheists might give personal reasons the existence of God didn't make sense to them, state that they didn't need to believe in God to lead a good life or be a good person, or any of several other possibilities. I haven't found that any particular arguments are "typical" of atheists. To me, the existence of God can't be proved to everyone's satisfaction because everyone's idea of what constitutes "proof" is different.
"Pro-Choice/Pro-Life. What do we call those that don't know?"
Conflicted, or complex, or nuanced...or just "people who don't know." There are positions between "absolutely no abortions for any reason" & "abortions anytime a woman wants one for any reason." I see these things as a spectrum. You seem to see only the end points, nothing in between. Some people haven't resolved their opinion one way or another. Some won't until it involves them personally. Some never will.
"Pro this/Anti that. Those who don't know, don't get a label."
You seem to set great store by labels. Why do you need them? What's so great about 'em? Some of us don't like labels. Some of us really don't know, & are OK w/that.
OK, I took too much time replying & didn't say everything I'd like to again....
[> [> [> [>
Re: Belief isn't about proof -- LittleBit, 01:25:35 03/27/04 Sat
I agree that belief isn't about proof. However, I disagree that only the beliefs that there is a god and that there is no god are the only ones to be given any legitmacy. While atheism and theism are technically the opposite beliefs, there is a large middle ground which is not necessarily only the territory of "I don't know."
When people ask me what my religion is, I usually reply "Lapsed Catholic." Lapsed because what I was taught (grades 1 through 6 in parochial school) and what I have observed and learned outside those teachings aren't always compatible. So...if you ask me do I "believe in God" I'll turn it back around and ask you to define what do you mean by "God"? Do I believe there is a God? Is this the Christian God, or are we merely referring to a "higher power"? What is the nature of that higher power? Is there really divine intervention? Does God exist because people believe so? Can belief 'make it so'? Does disbelief affect this?
Ultimately, my own position is agnostic. Not because I don't know if I do or don't believe there is a God, but because I believe we cannot know. Perhaps there is. Perhaps there isn't. Perhaps faith allows the creation of a belief system strong enough for a God to exist. But even then, it still isn't clear what belief system and what that faith implies because there is no single faith. Just as the different faiths (religions) reverence different Gods. Or do they? Each faith would say yes...and certainly within just the Christian sects there is disagreement regarding just exactly what the God that sect believes in represents.
My point is that while many religions have a single god, and some are pantheistic (and add in the Trinity here to be confusing...one god, three manifestations), others give reverence to a natural force, an energy. With so much difference in definition and description, it becomes much more difficult to say that Yes, God exists because, in a way, religion itself gets in the way of the belief, unless one chooses to believe that the teachings of a particular denomination or religious system are the "one (and only) true way." Which is, of course, what faith is all about. It just seems to me that saying that the Christian Holy Trinity negates Allah negates Krishna negates natural spiritual energy and so on, makes it more problematic to state positively that I believe God exists. I could make my own personal definition of "God" and then say I believe he exists, because using my own concept allows me to believe that. But somehow I don't think that's what the intention is when one is asked if one believes in God. On the other hand, one perspective could be that we simply have a world level pantheism in which the gods of all the world religions exist, with each having their own set of worshippers. Something like the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Norse, and Celtic people had, only global. Of course, then the question changes from "is there a God?" to "is there a Supreme Being?" with all the religions vying to show that their god is the "god-in charge." But then, many of the world's religions have rejected the pantheist concept in favor of the concept of the "One True God." For me to believe in God I need a God I can believe in. And that god would not be one who, by definition, excludes large portions of humanity because they live 'elsewhere' and follow a different religion.
So my answer remains: I believe we cannot know one way or the other. I don't hold this position because I'm afraid to make a choice of atheism or theism. I hold it not because I do not know, but because I cannot know. So many questions, all unanswerable except by choosing to believe one knows the answer.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Belief isn't about proof -- fidhle, 21:02:33 03/27/04 Sat
This is a fascinating discussion. Like Random, I'm a practical atheist, and a philosophical agnostic. My reasons, however, are formed by my history.
I was raised in the Southern Baptist tradition, and even joined the church when I was around 10 year old. Shortly thereafter, my family moved to Germany, where I realized, for the first time, that most people believe in specific religious traditions simply because of where they are born. There are parts of Germany which are Catholic, and parts which are Lutheran. And the major factor which causes a person to be either comes from the place where they were born or live in Germany, or where their parents were from. In the US, where various religious beliefs intermingle in almost every community and where switching denominations, at least among Protestants, is very common, this geographic basis of belief is not often though of.
Likewise, if a person is born in certain areas of the world, he or she will most likely follow Islam. As we have learned in Iraq, certain areas of Iraq are Sunni and other areas are Shia in orientation, and some Sunni fundamentalists view the Shia as bigger enemies than they do either the US or Christianity.
I should mention that, as a kid, I also lived in Japan for a while and in Iran, both of which have very different religious traditions that those in the US.
So the question became, to me, if there is a deity or deities, which one or ones should one believe in. And there came the rub. The western religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are pretty much exclusive religions, denying the validity of the other traditions. Of course, we may say that all of us worship the same god, etc., but the adherents of each religion, for the most part, would deny that the other traditions are valid.
I found that I could not choose between these three traditions, not to mention all the other traditions throughout the world. However, I did decide that, if there were a just God, it would surely not condemn the majority of people on earth to damnation simply because of where they were born. Such a God could not, in my opinion, be just. Yet that was basically what each traditions was asking us to believe.
As I grew older, I realized that a system of morality could be based on philosophy as well as on religion, so that religion ceased to be a necessary source of morality for me.
The result is that I found no basis for believe in any formal religious tradition. However, that does not mean that I can reject the idea of a deity out of hand. I have no proof of the non-existance of any sort of deity, although I suspect that there is not such thing as a supernatural deity. Hence, since I cannot affirm either that deities exist or do not exist, I am an agnostic, however I act as if deities do not exist, and therefore are, in effect, a practicing atheist.
By the way, in regard to pink ravens, in Europe it was believed that being white was an essential part of being a swan. Swanness required whiteness. And then someone went to Australia and found black swans. Oh well, there goes that definition
Like I said, good discussion and I'm enjoying it very much.
[> [> [> [> [>
have to take issue w/1 thing -- anom, 23:36:22 03/27/04 Sat
"The western religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are pretty much exclusive religions, denying the validity of the other traditions."
Judaism doesn't deny the validity of other religions for other people; it is exclusive in the sense that it considers the Law given at Mount Sinai to apply only to Jews (although there are 7 Noachic laws, derived from the account of Noah in the Torah, that are supposed to be applicable to everyone else).
The Talmud says that righteous people of other nations/religions have a place in the world to come.It's hard to say whether Judaism really has the concept of "damnation"; it's had several different ideas of an afterlife, like She'ol, where "shades" wander, & resurrection in a Messianic age (anyone not resurrected isn't damned, they just stay dead). There are stories about Gan Eden (the Garden of Eden) & Gehenna (pretty much hell) as places people go when they die, but as far as I've seen (not that I've studied it), they seem to be more folkloric than official & probably derive from Christian ideas of an afterlife. I know something about the heaven of Islam, but I have no idea if there's a hell or what it's supposed to be like. (If anyone can fill this in, I'd like to know.)
I'm not sure you can really class Judaism, Christianity, & Islam as "Western religions." All 3 have Eastern origins, & Islam in particular is still predominantly Eastern. Judaism has always had a presence in the Middle East, & even Christianity has an Eastern (Orthodox) branch.
[> [> [> [>
I'll stick this here -- Lunasea, 05:41:58 03/28/04 Sun
Thank you everyone for responding to what I said. I didn't mean to hijack OnM's thread. Since many have shared their personal beliefs, it encourages me to do the same. It is nice to see this type of sharing on the board again. It makes me glad that I am still here.
The debate about theism/atheism and the "alternative" of agnosticsm tends to revolve around theos. It can go to many different places, some more interesting to me than others. Does the nature of God make him "unknowable"? For me the question isn't about theos but gnosis. Huxley coined the term specifically in reference to this common belief he saw in theism, namely that gnosis was possible. Huxley claimed it wasn't, hence the word agnostic.
So is it even possible? A pure agnostic cannot make the claim that it is just that they don't have it. I guess we will need yet another term in the ever confusing spectrum of belief. I was a bit disappointed that no one countered my arguments with Dr. Jung himself, who didn't believe in the importance of belief. When asked if he believed God existed, he would always correct the interviewer and say "No. I know he does."
The word "belief" is a difficult thing for me. I don't believe. I must have a reason for a certain hypothesis. Either I know a thing, and then I know it - I don't need to believe it.
The knowledge he is talking about isn't rational empiricism. It is gnosis. Many people will hedge the word knowledge by replacing it with belief. Since knowledge has become synonomous with thinking, I use belief to substitute for this type of gnosis which involves the entirety of the human psyche.
I'm supposed to be typing up the chapter for my next book that I wrote yesterday, so I'm going to just cut to the chase. I am contending that this type of gnosis is possible and that everyone has access to it. I am essentially arguing against agnosticism. I don't really care whether this gnosis is for something real. The validity of an actual or concrete god has little interest to me any more.
God is a very useful fiction. That is not to say that an entity that we refer to as "God" doesn't necessarily exist. Just that our concept of him, all our concepts, is a fiction. Can humanity with our limited understanding of everything possibly actually understand anything that has been labeled "God" in the manner such an entity would? S/he/they aren't very supreme or god-like if this is possible.
Necessity is the mother of all invention, including thought. We develop concepts because we need them. God is a useful fiction. If we have need of this particular one, then we believe. That is the root of belief, need. Belief is not constructed on a foundation of logic. That may form the structure that rests on it, but the platform is need. That need is what leads to the feeling (for lack of a better word) called gnosis.
The hole in us that God fills up exists whether we believe in God or not. Dr. Jung didn't believe in belief, but rather the necessity of religous experience. It was important to him for the transcendent function to have this particular outlet. His concentration on this tainted his theories every bit as much as Dr. Freud's obsession with sex tainted his.
Other things can fill up this hole, other useful fictions like love or for me Sophie. It doesn't matter what does this, just that something does. For those that have other fictions, it makes no sense to believe in God. If you have a bicycle to get to the store, wearing roller skates make pedaling more difficult.
Does God exist? He does in the hearts and minds of some very good friends of mine. For him not to would be insanity. Does he exist in mine? I have no use of this belief any more, so he doesn't. For him to would be insanity. Either way, all of us experience gnosis. It doesn't matter the useful fiction we invent to give this form.
Theist = need of this particular useful fiction. Atheist = lack of need of this particular useful fiction. Either you feel something or you don't. Either you believe something or you don't. Either you need something or you don't. You might not consciously know what you need, but you do on some level, the level that is associated with gnosis.
[> [> [> [> [>
Heh. -- LittleBit, 12:47:45 03/28/04 Sun
The interesting thing about belief is that it really doesn't have to be precisely the same thing to all people. It lends itself rather nicely to the agreement to disagree.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
One of these days -- Lunasea, 18:37:26 03/28/04 Sun
I'm going to use words just like everyone else does...really...stop laughing...it could happen.
[> [>
Let's see If this bumps this thread.... -- Briar (tired of scrolling left), 02:44:26 03/30/04 Tue
Spoiler 4 Underneath: The real Lindsey ? (Sp/PTB and BTVs) -- luvthistle1, 02:19:16 04/24/04 Sat
Did Eve statement that she was created by W&H Senior partners reminds anyone else of Jasmine s's statement to Angel, about why Connor was created?
so W&H Sp can create people , just like Jasmine/The ptb can. so is it possible that W& H senior partners and the powers that be, could be one of the same? I think they are, if you consider that 'the powers that be', hasn't really been involve since season 3 ( well, I
do not count the whole jasmine season 4 thing).
Since the oracle was destroy, we really can't be sure that Angel was actually in contact with the PTB, at all considering that the only thing he had was Cordy's vision, which was sent to her by Jasmine. Jasmine who was
suppose to be good, yet she killed or cause to be kill a lot of people just to come into this world and have people worship her, and only her, while forgetting their family and friends. if jasmine was
a 'power that be', than why was her motive so selfish?
If the "Power that Be" are not working with W& H, why did they send Cordy to stop Angel from leaving W&H, why didn't they wake her up, sooner?, why haven't they sent Angel and new guide?. I believe the
PTB and W&H are one of the same, or Angel was never saved by the PTB, in "Amends", but save by the first, or something else.
Actually, Angel haven't really been in contact with the PTB, since Doyle died. so, that could be when W&H took over from there.
If the Sp created Eve, might they had created more people like Eve?
Lindsey seem to be the only surviving member of W&H old team, who was able to escape with his life, ... but why? Lindsey had always been given an second chance, MR Manner seems to have liked keeping
Lindsey around. yet we never learned what made Lindsey so
darn "special". Could Lindsey had been created by the Sp? or suppose the Lindsey that we see now is not the real Lindsey at all ( the real one could be dead)
while we all know Lindsey background story, how he was one of 6, or 9 kids,yada yada, but we do not know if the information we know about Lindsey is true.(remember, in connor's happy life, he has an sister) we never seen his family members, nor have we ever
seen him have contact with any of his family members. so who to say, if he actually did have family at all? If Lindsey, was created like Eve, than it will explain why W&h never killed him, and why he was so easy caught in "your welcome". The whole thing would be to allowed
Angel to feel comfortable later , trusting Lindsey. ( he gets to play the hero, "IF" Lindsey ( who was shown to be smart in the past) really did not want to get caught,
than why would he use the name "Doyle"? send all the people home, as well as send Spike to kill Cordy, knowing that Cordy would be close to Angel ( if that really happen , which I think it only happen in
Angel's dream, considering the little to no emotions shown by thefang gang).. all those would trigger an alarm in Angel, especially
the name Doyle, so what was his plan exactly? and what was his motive? ( remember, Lindsey left W&H, he had made peace with Angel)
so did Angel really defeat Lindsey?.....
... or could it be all part of the SP plan to keep Angel busy and get him to trust Lindsey ( who could be an fake, he never once asked about Darla). Gunn had information put in his head, which lead him to where he could find Lindsey. Gunn, Eve, and Lindsey all wasn't given any information that they weren't suppose to have, which reminds me of what The first evil" said to the scoobies in "First Date"
"JONATHAN/FIRST (O.S.)
You only hear what I want you to hear. You only see what I want you to see.
which bring me to another point. Lindsey tells Angel that
the Apocalypse is here, right under him. as in Underneath him, could that be as same as 'From beneath you, it devours". just a thought.
Replies:
[>
Re: Spoiler 4 Underneath: The real Lindsey ? (Sp/PTB and BTVs) -- LittleBit, 12:11:15 04/24/04 Sat
Oddly enough, when Eve said:
What am I? I'm a child of the senior partners, created to do their bidding.
my first thought was this comment by Linwood Murrow:
(Chuckles) I like kids. The Senior Partners took mine before I really got to know them.
[> [>
Re: Spoiler 4 Underneath: The real Lindsey ? (Sp/PTB and BTVs) -- luvthistle1, 19:40:57 04/24/04 Sat
hmm? interesting. That statment gives the idea a whole new meaning. He never stated what the SP did with his kid. suppose, Lindsey could be his child. It would make sense in why Lindsey is still alive.
James Marsters as Romeo? -- angel's nibblet, 14:18:05 04/25/04 Sun
Stumbled across this today.....
http://xtramsn.co.nz/entertainment/0,,3908-3282161,00.html
All I can say is... you go you good thing! I can certainly see it...
He'd have to wear a wig though, wouldn't he :-|
Replies:
[>
Re: James Marsters as Romeo? -- Old One, 16:35:56 04/25/04 Sun
Much as I admire and respect the acting talents of JM, Romeo was a teenager!
Marsters has managed to play 20-something into his 40s, but Romeo would be stretching it, IMHO.
It's significant that this was the result of a fan poll, though. James is very popular over the pond, apparently.
;o)
Current board
| More April 2004