tealin | OH HAPPY DAY!

MY CDS CAME IN! MY CDS CAME IN!!

I ordered a copy of the Ideas series 'The Scapegoat: René Girard's Anthropology of Violence and Religion' – the show which introduced me to his philosophy and totally blew my mind. It's one of only two radio shows I've ever listened to that are so absolutely enthralling that I, who usually have the radio on in the background to occupy my brain while I do chores and other mindless stuff, had to drop everything, sit down, and breathe really quietly so I didn't miss a word. And this is coming from a long-time NPR listener who ought to be used to such programming.

IT TOTALLY BLOWS THE MIND!!! It's like ... like cerebral fireworks! (The Globe and Mail totally stole that image for their advertising campaign.) Here, if you want a sort of introduction, the best site I've been able to find in English is here (click on 'Introductory Articles' on the left and don't be afraid to use the glossary) ... there may be better sites in French but I don't know enough French to know if they're good or not. And it doesn't go into what can be found in the last chapter of I See Satan Fall Like Lightning, which is all about the effect of recognition of the scapegoat mechanism on Western culture via the spread and dominance of Christianity, which I find particularly fascinating. And it's written for a pastoral audience which may put some people off. But it's a start.

In celebration I have changed my icon. I AM TOTALLY GEEKING OUT!! WOOO!

Unfortunately I have to wait all the way until tomorrow evening to listen to it as there's no way I'm going to get my boards done while it's on. Sigh... Tomorrow is going to be sooo loooong.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I am ordering I See Satan Fall Like Lightning tomorrow.

Thanks.

WOO! Spread the love!

Ow - my brain hurts. But it's a GOOD kind of hurt - I'm just not used to this much mental exercise! Using the glossary kind of helped and kinda hurt my brain more, introducing even bigger, deeper ideas...I need to chew more slowly and digest this properly. I'm afraid the CD might make my brain explode! Seriously, that is very interesting stuff...
But one I think I do finally grasp completely is that icon! And why it is so cool! The poor scapegoat (and a goat!) in Peter Weir's M&C! I get it! (I assumed that Rene Girard had something to do with the movie, but I honestly didn't know who he was) I may be slow, but...um...wait a minute...

This provocative post deserves a more thoughtful reaction than I currently have the time or brain-power for (what a cop-out)- lots of interesting questions and ideas here (and some references I am sadly unfamiliar with) but at least one thought that comes readily to mind is: if I understand Girard correctly, Christ did not, could not accept the true blame for the sins of humanity (He did not believe he deserved to suffer for anyone's sins, being sinless), but nonetheless accepted the responsibility and the consequences for everyone's sins. Maybe I can be more profound when I've had some sleep...

I was just going to say almost exactly that. Thanks!

Also I think te basic survival needs of the biological organism are exempt from being classified as mimetic – hunger, thirst, cold, etc are instincts, not desires.

See, I have a hard time separating desire and instinct (probably because I am stupid). Maybe you can help me out. So is desire the real or perceived need for something intangible - like love, revenge, happiness, spiritual enlightenment, knowledge, aesthetic stimulation, etc. Or are these biologically hard-wired into all or some of us, and could be considered instinctual? Are desires stronger than instincts, since instincts can be ignored or outweighed (by animals too - or maybe it's really all instincts of varying priorities) And what about physical stuff we want but maybe don't really need - like comfort, pleasure, power, control, wealth, hunger beyond sustenance, craving more sleep than is needed (I can relate to that one!), etc.? If we THINK we need it, DO we actually "need" it (as in, in order to be satisfied in some way), even if it doesn't fit into anyone else's definition of surviving? Do we "need" love, or just want it? Are crazy people given "inappropriate" instincts, or do bizarre desires overwhelm their healthy instincts? Man, nobody's ever going to reply to my posts if I keep spinning off on these convoluted, rhetorical tangents, are they? I guess I just like the sound of my own voice...so to speak (the look of my own words? Whatever).

Instinct is to stay warm. Desire is a down comforter

Instinct is to run when in danger. Desire is a pair of track shoes.

Instinct is to procreate. Desire is (name of favorite Hollywood hottie here).

Related, but one is a man-made construct, one is, well, instinct. The trouble comes when people can't tell the difference.

A²

What the...? my post here disappeared! There's no record of me having ever made it anywhere, not even ("deleted post"). Did I unconsciously swear or something and trip off an alarm? Dang. I thought I made some good observations (well, I always THINK that) - I'll have to try to remember what I said later, when I can think (I'm SO far behind! WAH!)

Okay, that's it: my theological project this Lent will be to make a coherent, simplified summary of Girard's core philosophy, based (so broadly! [/sarcasm]) on I See Satan Fall Like Lightning and on the Ideas series. Just about every issue you've raised is answered in one of the two, and I'm tired of fruitless searching for a comprehensive, intelligible, agenda-free summary online.

Umm... I went through unscreening things that had gotten left behind, the other day, but I don't think I deleted anything. Hmm.

Thanks for taking some time to read our site preachingpeace.org. You raise good questions but I feel that if you would have read a bit further on the site you would have seen the many nuances and corrections we bring to mimetic theory.

For example you query: "By the way, is the authors’ assertion that Christ refused to take upon Himself the sins of the people quite accurate? If He did not, how could His death have been redemptive?" I think I said that Jesus does not assume the guilt laid upon him, in fact he does take our sins, we sin against him when we persecute him. But he is not guilty for the crime of which he is accused.

Regarding my understanding of individuality and interdividuality, it might be helpful to consult the use of corporate anthropological metaphors in the Scriptures. We have sought to frame an anthropology that does not begin with the western ego (which is a falsely structured self) but with the notion of 'a people.' This does not mitigate individuality, it rather enhances our personhood without diminishing our selfhood.

If you have time, I urge you to read the many essays we have written. We have worked with Rene Girard for over 16 years in the Colloquium on Violence and Religion and Rene himself has endorsed our site.

Michael Hardin

OH HAPPY DAY!

no subject

no subject

I checked that site...

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Yes

Re: Yes

Ja

no subject

no subject

no subject

Interesting Questions