Christianity

[Alexis Jacobi]

Nothing so sublime and tragic!

“What about the professor?” asks Vanya.

[Dubious]

Be kind to yourself and try the ego enema first!

The rock, the vulture, and the chain have more to offer ….

The vultures will appreciate your generosity. Nothing like fresh vitamin A to start the day!

[Alexis Jacobi]

I apologize, Dubious, not Vanya but Astroff asked that question.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Be kind to yourself and try the ego enema first!

The rock, the vulture, and the chain have more to offer ….

The vultures will appreciate your generosity. Nothing like fresh vitamin A to start the day!

Ammended slightly for meter’s sake:

“Fresh vitamin A to start the day!
Wie du mir, so ich dir I do say!”

[Dubious]

The rock, the vulture, and the chain have more to offer ….

The vultures will appreciate your generosity. Nothing like fresh vitamin A to start the day!

Ammended slightly for meter’s sake:

“Fresh vitamin A to start the day!
Wie du mir, so ich dir I do say!”

Poetry is not your forte, I do say!

[Dubious]

I apologize, Dubious, not Vanya but Astroff asked that question.

I wouldn't have known; I never read any of Chekhov's plays though I have no doubt they're brilliant. It was Ibsen I mostly concentrated on.

[Alexis Jacobi]

“The geese cackle and then they stop, the geese cackle and then they stop …”

[Alexis Jacobi]

I apologize, Dubious, not Vanya but Astroff asked that question.

I wouldn't have known; I never read any of Chekhov's plays though I have no doubt they're brilliant. It was Ibsen I mostly concentrated on.

Taking a short break from the quippery …

… may I suggest Louis Malle’s Vanya On 42nd Street?

Ok — resume.

[Dubious]

I apologize, Dubious, not Vanya but Astroff asked that question.

I wouldn't have known; I never read any of Chekhov's plays though I have no doubt they're brilliant. It was Ibsen I mostly concentrated on.

Taking a short break from the quippery …

… may I suggest Louis Malle’s Vanya On 42nd Street?

Ok — resume.

Your suggestion is noted. Thank you. However I prefer to first read a play before seeing it performed. The same with novels...especially the ones I've read.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Your suggestion is noted. Thank you. However I prefer to first read a play before seeing it performed. The same with novels...especially the ones I've read.

Yes, understood. I can only suggest that in this case, though what you say is the best rule, this production is in a category of its own.

[Harbal]

However I prefer to first read a play before seeing it performed.

I prefer to do neither, but I suppose we all have our own approach.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Harbal opined: The matter is no more than a difference of opinion, IC, and all we can do is agree to differ.

Well, I don't think so, and for good reason.

After all, opinions are always about something. And that thing they're about can be true or false, regardless of the feelings and opinions of the involved parties. "Opinions" refer to realities. That is, they express interpretations of "how things really are." As such, when one says, "Let's agree to disagree," what it often means is, "Let's be more polite than we are frank or truthful, and both keep our views close to our chests, in such a way that we don't argue."

That they have opinions is their right: but it doesn't mean that mutually contradictory opinions can both be right, nor that politesse requires that the two parties stop expressing their opinions. But if people express their opinions, they do so for the purposes of at least comparing, if not sharing their view with another. It's an action of persuasion, even if a gentle and polite one.

And here, the subject is Christianity. As a Christian, it's a topic to which I can hardly be indifferent, and still be what I am. But it may be different for others, who can, as you say, simply pack off and regard it as a "non-issue." I can't prevent that. As a Christian, I regard as objectively sacred the right of each person to live and die by the terms he or she puts to their own lives. I can only persuade; no use of compulsion or force can produce the result of a free change of mind, which is the only truly Christian objective.

As always my efforts here follow my own sense of purpose. So I am going to examine this exchange and try to pick out of it what seems important -- or relevant is more the word.

Let us recall:

Plato drew a sharp distinction between knowledge, which is certain, and mere true opinion, which is not certain. Opinions derive from the shifting world of sensation; knowledge derives from the world of timeless Forms, or essences.

There is a curious convergence that takes place in this thread. Note that Lacewing always tends to say that I, Alexis Jacobi, am cut from the same cloth as Immanuel Can. Why is this? The answer is simple: I believe in knowledge and 'solidities' which I describe as having a metaphysical existence. I follow Plato in this way.

We must note: all who write on this thread, to a man, exist on a platform of *opinion*. They have made their home on that mutable, shifting platform. Their *ideas* [sic] such as they are are presented only as opinions. Between unending streams of sheer bickering and when every once in a while an *idea* is presented, such ideas always seem inadvertent. They are like paper bullets or a fart without a trace of aroma. Not as knowledge (in the Platonic sense). And they are comfortable with this. More notable is Iambiguous who has the most convoluted 'walls of text' on the subject. Dasein is an abbreviation for the life of a man lived within a mutable plane.

I could go down the line (Gary, Dubious, Promethean, Lacewing and all others) and note that each of these is subsumed into a type of idea-fragmentation. Never, not once, ever, is there reference to an idea-solidity. And this is why I note the classic postmodern condition. It has become the norm. It is normal. So there are two who (naturally) stand out for me: Lacewing and Harbal. Now these two are *birds of a feather*. They could mate and from them the Postmodern Master Race might bear itself. It would be master of the capacity to know nothing certain, to have no guiding ideas, and to become like "leaves blown in the wind".

So, I am handed the task of interpretation. Why must I be mercilessly blamed and so cruelly attacked for doing what I've been called to do? To interpret results in descriptive statements, does it not? If one has a descriptive statement one has decided something. But for those comfortable on a shifting plane decisiveness is anathema (hello Lacewing).

Interpretation is a curious act in and of itself and I prefer the more revealing term hermeneutic. Because it contains the word Hermes. The Greek god Hermes is a figure infinitely more interesting than the god Jesus Christ or even the god of the Hebrews. I have to get this out on the table. I do not mean to say that Hermes is a god who exists in some spiritual form or realm somewhere. Hermes (in my view) is a set of attributes that can be noticed in the world we live in. But in the sense I'd like to work I'd bring up reference is to *boundaries* and also to *messages*. We have to have, and we have to hone, an interpretive modality in order to get on in this life and in this world. And then there is also another curious, but strange and disconcerting factor: Hermes is a trickster. Hermes is trick. And when a *trick* is a lesson then tricksterism is one of the sole means that 'god' has to communicate with us. Hermes is also associated with skill in hunting, camouflage, the game of appearances, as well as cunning and indeed adeptness in any field.

From Wiki: His cult was established in Greece in remote regions, likely making him originally a god of nature, farmers, and shepherds. It is also possible that since the beginning he has been a deity with shamanic attributes linked to divination, reconciliation, magic, sacrifices, and initiation and contact with other planes of existence, a role of mediator between the worlds of the visible and invisible.

Now this divination thing is also quite interesting. What is divination?

Divination is a traditional set of methods of consulting divinity to obtain prophecies (theopropia) about specific circumstances defined beforehand.

I only want to mention the idea of divination because Christian revelation is deeply embedded in theopropia. But there is a conflict between 'official theopropia' and 'unofficial theopropia'. That is to say that some are recognized as having the right to engage in it, and some who are excluded from it. Now let me say the following: Immanuel Can makes the assertion that all his statements are backed up officially by the Lord and Father of Creation Himself. Whereas humble, long-suffering, tireless, really interesting and really funny Alexis Jacobi transcends official boundaries and brings 'messages' that come from suppressed sources; from fringe territories; from frequencies that are not exactly kosher from an *official* point of view.

So now let's return to

"Opinions" refer to realities. That is, they express interpretations of "how things really are."

Immanuel prophesies a range of things. The most notable is that you (each one of you here) must spiritually bow down before the spiritual figure of Jesus Christ in order to be granted something that only he can give: your eternal salvation. If we cannot locate the essence of his core declaration then we cannot really deal with it.

Now I am not unlike Immanuel Can in some areas. But let me define what this difference is. Immanuel Can is deeply involved in a Story that, in my view, is a metaphysical encapsulation. Or to put it another way he deals in a set of metaphysical ideas that, if it were possible, embody absolute incontrovertible descriptions pertinent to the nature of the place where we find ourselves.

But here I must point out (again) that everyone who writes on this thread, and likely everyone participating in this forum, make it very plain that they do not subscribe to any ideas that are remotely absolutist. In fact -- and here I move into an interpretive mode -- they fight (literally) tooth & claw against any assertions about anything that are expressed as 'absolute truths'.

So for these people then there is no (Platonic) platform of real and dependable knowledge. There is only fracturation away from such certainty and any statements about certain knowledge.

In our Liberal Society we have established a unique strategy: under the dome of Liberalism you can believe anything you want to, think anything you want to, say anything you want to, but you will be (you are) expected to respect the *opinion* of those who do not think like you and not to infringe on their *rights*. But does not this lead to curious outcomes? Can there really be a liberal science of attaining knowledge? Can science for example be liberal in this sense (allowing differences of opinion about important basic truth)?

The statement I would make about Liberalism is that it is a political and a social strategy. But it certainly is not a way to determine either what is *right* nor what is *true*. It is, perhaps, a way to keep opposing factions from tearing each other to shreds. And the State is empowered of course to enforce separation and to *keep the peace*.

But now we must move to the heart of the matter: we are living in a time in which the Liberal Order is breaking down. This is the source of our own incapacity to agree on even the most basic and rather routine things! We do not any longer have a recognized method by which True Things can be ascertained and promoted. There has taken place a breakdown in the method of working these things out. This (in my excruciatingly humble more-than-mere-opinion way of seeing things) is what needs to be examined.

And this is why the example (as 'emblems') both Lacewing and Harbal interest me. Why must I be blamed, abused & beat for doing what is necessary to do? To see into, to see through?

At the same time that there are breakdowns in all areas of our discourse (in all our institutions, in our schools, in our businesses, on forums, out on the street, in neighborhoods, in government certainly, and within power-structures) each opining person loses one more inch of ground with the battle of determination. Those who can think might be able to recover thmselves to a degree. But those who cannot will and must become the victims of forces superior to them. And here we can examine the Average Citizen who simply *receives opinions* from what is more and more the Artificial Intelligence Servers who've been programmed to program them.

Immanuel Can says: but it doesn't mean that mutually contradictory opinions can both be right.

Yes, and he is a man speaking from within strict binary categories. The problem is that the categories themselves are not amenable to such a form of simplistic breakdown.

The essential point (the essential declaration really) has to be sussed out first.

But as I propose this can only be done when the entire field is, let's say, cleansed and cleared. In order to 'arrive at any level of agreement', when such agreement is utterly lacking, we have to return to the defining the field itself.

[Alexis Jacobi]

However I prefer to first read a play before seeing it performed.

I prefer to do neither, but I suppose we all have our own approach.

. . . and these seems perfectly appropriate given your position.

[Alexis Jacobi]

SONIA: What can we do? We must live our lives. [A pause] Yes, we shall live, Uncle Vanya. We shall live through the long procession of days before us, and through the long evenings; we shall patiently bear the trials that fate imposes on us; we shall work for others without rest, both now and when we are old; and when our last hour comes we shall meet it humbly, and there, beyond the grave, we shall say that we have suffered and wept, that our life was bitter, and God will have pity on us.

Ah, then dear, dear Uncle, we shall see that bright and beautiful life; we shall rejoice and look back upon our sorrow here; a tender smile — and — we shall rest. I have faith, Uncle, fervent, passionate faith. [Sonia kneels down before her uncle and lays her head on his hands. She speaks in a weary voice].

We shall rest. [Telegin plays softly on the guitar].

We shall rest. We shall hear the angels. We shall see heaven shining like a jewel. We shall see all evil and all our pain sink away in the great compassion that shall enfold the world. Our life will be as peaceful and tender and sweet as a caress. I have faith; I have faith. [She wipes away her tears] My poor, poor Uncle Vanya, you are crying! [Vanya weeps] You have never known what happiness was, but wait, Uncle Vanya, wait! We shall rest. [She embraces him]

We shall rest. [The Watchman's rattle is heard in the garden; Telegin plays softly; Madame Voitskaya writes something on the margin of her pamphlet; Marina knits her stocking].

We shall rest.

[Harbal]

I prefer to do neither, but I suppose we all have our own approach.

. . . and these seems perfectly appropriate given your position.

Yes, I am just a post modern, decadent, uncultured wretch, what need have I for plays and Promethean cures.