Re: Good Dog Bad Dog classic album

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

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
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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