[lit-ideas] Re: Fleas
- From: Mike Geary <jejunejesuit.geary2@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 10:48:08 -0500
First to Chris Bruce:
I recognized the lines from Prufrock, but I'd never come across the word
"matutinal". Being a good ole Catholic boy, I was well familiar with
matins, of course, but dismissed any possible connection with matutinal.
Well, obviously I'm the one who should be dismissed. Thank's for the
addition to my vocabulary. Now in hope of humiliating you, do you know the
word "tergiversate"?
Next, Lawrence:
Interesting comments. I haven't self-identified as Catholic for 40 years,
so I have my doubts about those former beliefs freezing me into a a rigidity
of political thought. I'm sure I'm ultra-liberal because my parents were
and I greatly admired and loved them and in many ways have tried to emulate
them. But how explain your tergiversation? I would guess that at some
point along the way you decided that liberalism was not in your best
interest. Well, it's hard to argue that point.
I was surprised and a bit fascinated by the fact that your son is a handyman
-- my prejudice, mea culpa. I install and service light commerical and
residential AC and heat, repair restaurant kitchen equipment (most of my
customers are independant restaurants), I've been doing this work for 35
years. I enjoy this work more than teaching, more than managing restaurants
, more than managing a parts company and more than working for a TV station,
more than sacking groceries or cashiering or soda jerking or throwing papers
-- all of which I've done. I like being my on my own. I totally understand
your son's love for handymanning.
Now to Jack Sprat:
I have trouble finding anything to disagree with you about -- except maybe
that you choose to lurk rather than comment. Hope to see more contributions
in the future.
Mike Geary
in the spirit of Labor Day, I must go labor now. Installing a central AC
unit, must be finished by Thursday. No rest for the weary.
On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 7:11 AM, Jack Spratt <dosflounder@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Greetings from a long-time lurker. While ordinarily having little to
> say, this post from Lawrence caught my eye and I would like to make some
> comments. ******
> ** **
> To begin with, would you not agree, Lawrence, that monotheism absolutely
> requires strict adherence to one central set of beliefs? Monotheism does
> not, cannot, allow of free thinking. For Christians those beliefs are
> captured in the bible. That being the case, can you explain
> how encouraging bible study in order to "grow in grace" is other than
> encouraging acceptance of authority? ****
> ** **
> I believe, Lawrence, what you're talking about is politics, not religion.
> Protestants have their own, if not priests, then high priests who dictate
> what is to be believed and how it is to be expressed. For example,
> Calvinists believe what Calvin dictates, Lutherans believe what Luther
> dictates, and so on, just as Catholics believe what the Vatican dictates, or
> Jews believe what their leadership dictates, or Muslims their leadership.
> All religious wellsprings, including the bible, are self-referential: they
> are right because they say they are right. They are the authority because
> they say they are. When one is right because one says one is right,
> there can be no *how *to think. There can only be *what *to think.
> Religious freedom is the freedom to pick a religion, not to decide what to
> think within that religion. Dawkins has noted that the vast majority of
> people have the same religion as their parents, again underscoring that
> religion will admit only of what to think. ****
> ****
> By avocation more historian than philosopher, I would wager that the
> Catholic Church would not be completely averse to allowing the reading of
> the Stoics as they would not conflict with Christian dogma. I would also
> wager that not all denominations of Protestants would embrace turning
> outside of their religion for advice and comfort. The Puritans/Calvinists
> for example would not have appreciated their members reading the Stoics. In
> any case, Catholicism and philosophy are not mortal enemies. However, *
> within* any religion there must be lock step acceptance of group think.
> Consider, Lawrence, what would happen if freedom of thought were encouraged
> by a religious group. We may as well ask what would happen if all members
> were singing from different hymnals on Sunday. It would be similar to what
> would happen if the military encouraged freedom of thought for its members,
> if it let them decide for themselves whether a war is worth fighting, or how
> a campaign should be waged. How long before the military disintegrates?
> How long before the congregation or sect dissolves? Religious thinking,
> including Protestant thinking, *requires* a follow the leader approach to
> thought. ****
> ** **
> Using your line of reasoning that Protestants are free thinkers and
> Catholics are not, Galileo should have been a Protestant. You may
> appreciate being reminded that Galileo was a Catholic, as was Luther
> himself.****
> ****
> And a brief mention, if not a hat tip for his prescience, to Marx. What do
> you think Marx would think of the state of the country's economics? He did
> after all believe that capitalism contained within it the seeds of its own
> destruction. The U.S. today is the most indebted country in the world, far
> more indebted than the much talked about Greece or Ireland or Spain. What
> keeps the U.S. going is simply that it owes so much money to creditors like
> communist-capitalist China, that communist-capitalist China and
> others have to keep it propped up, at least until they can transition out of
> dollars. Everyone knows that communism was a colossal failure. However,
> capitalism in the United States today is also a colossal failure
> Lawrence, unless you call it a success story to be the most indebted country
> in the world whose main export is financial disaster. History has yet to be
> written as to communism-capitalism, but it can be hoped, in the spirit of
> the golden mean, that a blended ideology may accomplish what neither
> ideology was able to do alone.****
> ****
> J.S.****
> ** **
> ****
> ** **
> *From:* Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> *To:* lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Cc:* Mike Geary <jejunejesuit.geary2@xxxxxxxxx>
> *Sent:* Saturday, September 3, 2011 12:42 PM
> *Subject:* [lit-ideas] Re: Fleas****
> Mike,****
> ****
> You touched on some provocative matters . . . ****
> ****
> If I recall correctly, we came from similar blue-collar backgrounds . . .
> so why are we so different. ****
> ****
> [snip] ****
> ****
> One reason for a difference is our religious backgrounds. You were raised
> a Catholic which encourages the acceptance of Church authority. I was
> raised a Protestant which encourages Bible Study as a way to “grow in
> grace.” That emphasis upon study originated with Luther and Calvin who used
> the Erasmus NT text to check what the RC authorities had been saying. But
> the Reformers went far beyond a mere corrective, they set in motion a
> process that could not be kept within the boundaries they set for
> themselves. If every man is “his own priest,” then whatever he understands
> from Scripture may be as valid as what that fellow up their preaching from
> the pulpit is saying. There is still only one Roman Catholic Church, but
> the Protestants have been dividing like amoebas ever since. ****
> ****
> You, reacting against authority, “refuse to be an apparatchik of the
> American *version* of Western European Capitalism.” I on the other hand
> felt the need to study. A turning point for me was when I read Marx’s
> actual complaints against “Western European Capitalism” and how WEC over
> the years capitulated on virtually all of them. We have tolerable work
> weeks, reasonable opportunities to gain and hold jobs, living wages,
> protection against the more egregious Capitalistic crimes and excesses – not
> a perfect match for all Marx’s idealistic dreams to be sure, but if Marx
> were alive today would he have bothered with a Communist Manifesto? I doubt
> it. ****
> ****
> [snip]****
> ****
> Lawrence ****
>
Other related posts:
