[Fwd: Re: Good Dog Bad Dog classic album]

[John Paul Davis <johnd at antioch-college_edu>]

Let's try this again?

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Good Dog Bad Dog classic album
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 08:47:23 -0500
From: John Paul Davis <johnd at antioch-college_edu>
CC: over-the-rhine at actwin_com
References: <web-140619281 at email_accessus.net> 
<3E2422DD.3050005 at antioch-college_edu> 
<001901c2bc73$c447dca0$c8717c42@computer>

Hmmm. I sent a reply out and it is lost to cyberspace. Ah well.

Gina,

perhaps it's not a good idea to reply at 4 in the morning? It's pretty
clear from your response that you didn't read what I wrote very
carefully. For example:

GiNa wrote:

 >
 >
 > I must say that when I read the Pancella's article, I was confused.  From
 > the tone of the e-mail, I was ready for something incredibly lame, 
yet as I
 > read, I thought the author did a decent job of expressing her take on the
 > album.


But see I *never* said *anything* about the author's "take" on the
album, nor did I say that the article was "lame", but rather, I had
specific complaints about the theology behind counting BAPM and the
theology of running a "Christian" web page that doesn't address
Christian concerns (like morality, responsibility, etc.)


The below is the pot calling the kettle black, isn't it? How is it that
I can critique what is publicly offered and repond only to the content
of what is said and be called judgemental, but you're allowed to impugn
my character?
 >
 > I think this kind of judgmentalism is worse than the consumerism, 
etc. being
 > bashed.  Does love leave room for this kind of arrogance?
 >
 >
 >>I wonder if the writer has thought more deeply about the ongoing
 >>undercurrent of doubt that is in GDBD, esp. in songs like "Happy To Be
 >>So" - the whole entire point of the song is that prayers aren't
 >>answered, and the song's character has to come to terms with that (see
 >>"I Radio Heaven" for another example of that).
 >
 >
 > Maybe, given time, the writer will come to experience the songs in a 
deeper
 > way, and realize more of the many layers they contain.  I still 
believe she
 > is entitled to her own experience of the work, though.
 >


Ah. See. you're confusing thinking and experience. One can have a deep
experience that does not require deep thought. The writer, in the reivew
is expressing the fruit of thought and experience, and it's the fruit of
her thought I was critiquing.

 >
 >>GDBD's main spiritual force is *community* more than any church or deity
 >>- almost all the songs on GDBD deal with human relationships, and the
 >>divine enters in to some of them, but songs like "The Seahorse",
 >>"Everyman's Daughter", "Etcetera Whatever", "Latter Days" and
 >>"Faithfully Dangerous" all deal with the spiritual as realized in the
 >>nexus of human relationships- the community.
 >
 >
 > Are we promoting "community" when we rob someone of the dignity of their
 > experience?

How is taking someone seriously robbing them of their dignity? You seem
to be advocating that we don't discuss our differences/disagreements in
the name of Everybody Getting Their Say - aside from the fact that any
community which doesn't participate in some kind of debate and which
does not discuss itself is dysfunctional, relegating people's ideas to a
realm of "mere opinion" where everyone's ideas are valuable only because
they're ideas and not because of thier content is patronizing. *That*
robs people of their dignity.
The review's author presented a set of ideas to the public, where, last
time I checked, we had a "marketplace of ideas", a public space where
ideas are tested, crtiqued and chosen based on their content. To
trivialize her ideas by *not* taking them seriously or by relegating
them to the realm of the emotional/personal small group rap session,
where Everyone Can Say Anything And Be Safe. We're not on an episode of
Dr. Phil here, we're in a *discussion forum*.

Last time I checked anyway.

 >
 > I don't mean to sound harsh, but I feel strongly about this, and felt
 > compelled to respond.  "We all know in part..." and only in part.  We 
need
 > to cooperate, not criticize, toward a fuller knowledge of Truth, 
don't you
 > think?

So you think that St. Paul was saying that because we only know some
stuff and none of us can know all truths exhaustively that we should
quit trying to use the brains and mouths God gave us to wrestle out what
that truth might be?
Truth is often discovered/uncovered is debate. You're going to have a
hard time using the Bible to justify a concept of truth that exists
apart from human dialogue (Jesus, after all, is presented by St. John as
the incarnation of God *as a spoken argument* in the first chapter of
his gospel) , and you're *definitely* going to have a hard time
promoting a conecption of judgementalism that includes all critical
speech, since Jesus, Isaiah, John the Baptist, St. Paul, St. Peter,
Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Hosea, Amos, Samuel, Nathan, Moses, and a
host of others all participating in such speech. Or are you suggesting
that every character in the Bible was better/wiser than any of us, so
they get to critique and we don't?
 >

John

np - "Pass In Time" - Beth Orton

-- 
John Paul Davis
Center for Community Learning
Antioch College

++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ned Flanders: Let's just agree to disagree
Principal Skinner: I don't agree to that
Mrs. Krabapple: Me neither
++++++++++++++++++++++++++


-- 
John Paul Davis
Center for Community Learning
Antioch College

++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ned Flanders: Let's just agree to disagree
Principal Skinner: I don't agree to that
Mrs. Krabapple: Me neither
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/OtR/