Girard Group
Here is a conversation from a few minutes ago that was inexplicably deleted.
Comments
Barry Kort To respond to Sean's last comment:
If the parable is taken literally (and not as a parable) then it characterizes the venal world and bears no relation to Jesus.
If you take it as a parable, then 1) you don't take it literally, and 2) you must, therefore, find a meaningful way to map it as an analogy.
You can't have it both ways, taking some portions literally and other portions as analogical.
It's introduced as a parable, and therefore must be interpreted as a parable in a consistent manner.
It's clear that some theologians have expressed puzzlement and confusion over how to make sense of this parable (and hence prefer not to teach it).
If there are nonsensical or inconsistent interpretations, then these must be set aside as nonsense or non-instructive.
That's a fairly common experience in Bible Study.
Tommy Everard I agree with George Dunn, looks fairly representative of the way the world works. Down to the resentful "slave who feared his master" and threw his seed money back into his face.
Barry Kort If you read it that way, then you're reading it literally (and not as a parable).
But then what is the lesson to be learned?
Carla Joy I honestly cannot see what's wrong with taking this parable literally to be able to reap what it teaches about neighbourliness. And I don't understand why a parable must always be about something more than a simple story involving real life types of situations to demonstrate a point. I think this where the criticism was pointed, Barry. You may be making things more complicated than need be. I don't think the criticism is about mapping things against another entire meaning, but that it must *always* be about mapping things to another entire meaning..or set of circumstances...or situations.
Write a reply...
Barry Kort It's not a parable if the story is taken as a literal example of what happens in human culture. Parables are like the Aesop's Fables, in which there is an abstract moral teaching embedded in the story. If you take the story literally, then the lesson is that the venal pursuit of power is well rewarded, and those who do not pursue power are fated to be slain. That hardly makes sense as a teaching attributed to Jesus (whom Luke states as the creator of the story).
Tommy Everard So you do not think that it teaches a moral? Or maybe the moral it teaches may be objectionable? Is it a lesson on the pursuit of power, or a lesson on navigating the hierarchy? The nobleman leaves to pursue the graces of those in power. He leaves tohis stewards seed money to keep the business going. After a successful trip, he returns to find envy and resentment and judges the slave with his own standard. Seems fairly reflected of how the world works to me. Also pretty consistent with Jesus own moral teaching on judgement.
George Dunn Must a parable always be analogical, with some one-to-one correspondence between the elements in the story and aspects of the kingdom of God? The parable of the Good Samaritan makes perfect sense when taken literally. What would an analogical reading look like?
Barry Kort Given that it's advertised as a Parable of Jesus, one is obliged to interpret it as a parable and then figure out how to map it as a parable. That's where it appears people (including Sean) got stuck. After all, he requested help in finding a sensible exegesis.
If you present a model of how the world works (and not how someone like Jesus works), then you might conclude that the world demonstrably works in unbecoming ways, but that begs the question of what would Jesus do in a comparable situation. You have as prologue that Jesus routinely speaks of the Kingdom of God, a rather abstract notion for most laypersons to apprehend. The comparable situation would be for Jesus to rule the Kingdom of God. Therein lies the challenge of mapping this particular parable.
Even the parable of the Good Samaritan has competing interpretations.
"Some Christians, such as Augustine, have interpreted the parable allegorically, with the Samaritan representing Jesus Christ, who saves the sinful soul. Others, however, discount this allegory as unrelated to the parable's original meaning and see the parable as exemplifying the ethics of Jesus."
In any event, it's not too difficult to appreciate that practicing what Jesus teaches is difficult, even if you actually apprehend what the teaching says.
George Dunn The idea that the interpretation of a parable must always involve some act of “mapping” strikes me as simpleminded and dogmatic. What defines a parable as a parable is merely its didactic function. Read “analogically,” this particular parable seems to teach that Jesus is no different from an earthly tyrant, but that hardly jibes with the lesson of other parables, such as the parable of the prodigal son, where the authority figure acts directly counter to the ways of the world. Where is mercy and forgiveness in the analogical “mapping” of Luke 19:11-27? What the parable depicts is retribution in its crudest form. Is that what Jesus proposes as an “analogue” of the kingdom of God?
Barry Kort George, what you are reciting is a literal reading, not an analogical one. In an analogy, you have two domains with a parallel model that applies to both domains. Every element in one domain has to map to a corresponding element in the other domain.
Investing money in the earthly domain maps to investing ideas in the divine domain.
Failing to invest money in the earthly domain maps to failing to invest (i.e. share) ideas in the divine domain.
Reward in the earthly domain maps to gaining insight, knowledge, or wisdom in the divine domain.
Death in the earthly domain maps to becoming braindead (oblivious, ignorant, or comatose) in the divine domain.
Keep in mind that Jesus is a teacher (literally a Rabbi). If a teacher gives a student a unit of knowledge and student does nothing constructive with it, then that student has discarded the growth opportunity for "the life of the mind" because nothing has been gained. They are no better off than when the semester began. To put it bluntly, the student has failed the course and loses entry to further education. No more Torah Study for the non-performing student. Is that cruel? Perhaps. But that's what happens when someone flunks out of school because they didn't do anything with the opportunity. Elsewhere in the NT, Jesus comments on seeds falling on infertile ground and not taking root. It happens.
When the student has expressed negative interest in learning with a given teacher, that's the end of it. Let them go find a more compatible teacher with whom to form a constructive and productive relationship.
George Dunn Such a sanitized analogy can be constructed only at the cost of ignoring the brutally tyrannical nature of the king. His subjects protest his election, only to be slaughtered in retribution, and his servant describes him as a “hard man” to be feared. These are the most salient aspects of the parable, which your anodyne analogy completely papers over. We need to start with the recognition that Jesus is telling the story of a hated tyrant. Any interpretation that loses sight of the fact can’t be right.
Barry Kort Anyone who has attended public school knows that there are a lot of pupils who don't want to be there and don't want to sit in the class with the assigned teacher. And those reluctant students can reliably anticipate that they won't be appreciated, praised, or treated in a princely manner by the classroom teacher.
The late Rita Pierson observes that kids don't learn from teachers they don't like. It's an unpleasant and disheartening observation to reckon, but it's an undeniable reality.
Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 23h
Luc-Laurent Salvador IMHO, what Barry Kort said on the nature of a parable is 100% correct.
The Greek etymology reflects the idea of a similarity and is even somehow Girardian because the "para" prefix which means "next to" also means "against". Obviously, the proximity of doubles necessarily leads to conflict.
In any event, on the basis of the similarity inherent to the notion of parable, it does not seem to me questionable that it may be presented as an analogy, that is to say, a transfer of meaning to be made from one context to another with all the precautions indicated by Barry Kort. Because any analogy has its limits, of course.
Moreover, there is every reason to think that thought and, more precisely, cognitive processes are intrinsically based on some forms of "assimilation" or analogy (see Piaget or Hofstadter). It is not surprising that didactics makes use of it. It has almost no other means.
Now, regarding the parable itself, sorry, I have no time to think over it.
Finally, I must add that I found that there was a lot of aggressiveness in the responses made to Barry Kort while he was only quietly exposing his position. Dogmatism and simplemindedness were not on his side.
Barry Kort I appreciate Luc-Laurent Salvador's perspective. Perhaps this is a good opportunity for me to take a seat in the back of the room and let him regard the perplexities expressed by other participants here.
George Dunn A debate is a discussion in which arguments are put forward on opposing sides of a question. It sounds like you object to hearing arguments against your claims. That’s fine, but it seems unreasonable to complain about it, since you’re also making arguments that challenge the views of those who disagree with you.
Barry Kort As I have indicated elsewhere in this thread, I find the protocols of the argument culture unhelpful in the context of unpacking the scholarship of Professor Girard.
At best, one can form a theatrical company to put on a raucous parody or send-up of the argument culture for the purpose of revealing it as a deprecated practice when the goal is symmathesy.
Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 22h
Barry Kort By way of illustration of the disutility of the argument culture, I commend to your attention this classic send-up of the argument culture from Monty Python.
Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 22h
Write a reply...
Barry Kort It's not a very constructive approach if the objective is joint discovery learning. From time to time, I encounter a dialogue partner who is evidently uninterested in joint discovery learning. It's lamentable, but it not all that uncommon.
George Dunn Sorry, but when you make arguments, you shouldn't be shocked when people who disagree offer counterarguments. And you certainly shouldn't mistake such testing of ideas as acts of aggression against you.
Barry Kort I wasn't aware that responding to a request for information amounted to an argument. To my mind, it's just a contribution to fill in a blank in knowledge, as requested by a stranger.
I have no objection if others care to submit alternate responses.
If you wish to disregard my response, that's your privilege, just as Sean exercised that option.
I have no desire to hammer out a jointly agreeable response if others don't wish to work toward a unique consensual answer. We can amicably agree to disagree if no single response to Sean's request materializes after a fair effort has proved fruitless and futile.
Sean is free to select any or none of the responses, as he sees fit. Perhaps he will instead go off and independently construct his own preferred exegesis of Luke 17:19-27. And if so, he might even present the fruits of his independent analysis and research here, in case anyone cares to affirm, challenge, or debate him.
Barry Kort I have presented my view and explained it. If you elect to discard it, that's your prerogative. At that point there little more to discuss. Feel free to present your interpretation to Sean and we're done.
George Dunn I haven’t “discarded” your view. I’ve given reasons for rejecting it. You need to accept the fact that not everyone is going to agree with you.
Barry Kort Fine. Let's agree to disagree. Perhaps someone more astute than present participants will find a way to construct a shared perspective that everyone can sincerely and enthusiastically subscribe to.
Carla Joy All I have ever been able to make of this parable is that someone who already views the holy nature of God as being harsh and exacting will fall victim to their own projections. I suppose I am wondering that if we are to take it as a statement about earthly virtue or values, the King then representing earthly power, I would like to understand what its didactic point is? 'Don't be like that?' ( I haven't yet read the Giradian take on it in the provided link and will now)
Carla Joy By the way. I am George's friend. You don't know shit about him except for your own projections Salvadore. He's a great teacher. And he doesn't have to sound like whatever it is you're used to as a teacher to be a great teacher. He's got me to explore where I would never have dared go because he challenged me and continues to challenge me. So back off with the passive aggression and lay off. People here can stand up for themselves and don't need you trolling one of the more thoughtful contributors here.
Barry Kort Carla, for the record, I object to the practice of posting haphazard theories of mind of other participants in these conversations.
I would be grateful if you would eschew and discontinue that practice here, as it's frankly disruptive of the comity and polity of constructive scholarly conversations.
Luc-Laurent Salvador Carla Joy, hadn't you told me that you are George Dunn's student, I could have guessed it, I think, thanks to the way you express yourself. I understand that George is your model and it shows.
You tell me he is an excellent teacher. I have no doubt about it. But I do not see any connection with what is at stake here.
You accuse me of "trolling" George but I don't see any reason for you to say so.
Can you show me anything I said that could be understood as trolling?
As far as I know, I didn't indulge in ad hominen argumentation, unlike him.
And please note that your excellent teacher didn't bother answer my pro-analogy argument.
Sorry, Barry, but I had to answer Carla!
Barry Kort I don't recall seeing a convincing example one, although he did offer the Parable of the Good Samaritan as an example of a parable which he deems not to be an analogical parable but a literal story that doesn't require any mapping between disparate domains.
You may find his suggestion (and my response) here:
Barry Kort The inclusion of ad hominen elements (especially the inclusion of arbitrary theories of mind that haphazardly mischaracterize the thoughts, beliefs, sentiments, desires, intentions, values, or degree of knowledge of a dialogue partner) is a commonplace (if oft-deprecated) feature of the argument culture which generally renders the conversation devoid of symmathesy (Nora Bateson's term of art for learning together in a collegial, congenial, and collaborative manner).
Idioticon - Symmathesy
TRIARCHYPRESS.NET
Carla Joy My guess is we will all survive it somehow. But no, I am not George's 'student' though I have learned from him and he is a teacher. I said I am a friend, And I defend him as such even though really he doesn't need me to defend him but I am trying to convey to you and others who care to hear that just because George strikes you as being combative, doesn't mean he actually IS combative and that you might learn to look at things past first appearances if you can put your rancour over having your feelings hurt aside, and you just might find some hidden gems. Night lads.
Luc-Laurent Salvador Carla Joy You mentioned before projections of mine but you gave no reference to them.
I can tell you that when you speak of "resentment" and "hurt feelings", these notions are pure projections. You will not find anything in what I wrote that allows you to infer that.
Luc-Laurent Salvador Barry Kort OK, thanks for pointing this to me. I didn't took it seriously but that's interesting. I'll think over it. I have to go now...
Joseph Bridges Well Barry, as someone new to this group and having read the thread, I have to say I tend to agree with your points more than those who have presented opposing views. Spiritual texts in general are not about the world, they are about the spirit. Parables should not be taken literally. Hell, I will take that to another level, material reality should not be taken literally when discussing spiritual systems. The spiritual system (creativity) is perfect, but its expressions into the material world are always made imperfect by reluctant participants who exercise free will. Mapping between the intended perfection or Ideals, and what is actually created is always required, and as new iterations of the ideal are expressed the mapping continues to change. This parable or story is not about worldly political power games. It and almost everything Jesus said, is about the power struggle within the self, about how one relates to system of creation either cooperatively or in contention. Luke 17, in its entirety, is a warning about letting the obstacles of reality get in the way of one's ability to express one's ideals. it is about the objective vs the subjective selves. The body vs the soul and the mediation in that struggle of the mind. Why would a man who spent the bulk of his short ministry trying to teach people to see through the veil of the real world, and focus on the creative energies that are making that world, suddenly lower his sights and start talking about politics? As to the dynamic of the thread it self. Barry, I have learned in a very short time that you are very good at what you do. I am loathe to argue with you, but I thoroughly enjoy exchanging information with you and sharing views. When you say something that I disagree with, I have found it beneficial to take time to look at it a second and third time, and to ask for clarification of the parts that I find bothersome. Usually this leads to me understanding you better, and my disagreement is converted into a learning experience. I did not pick up on you having had your feelings hurt and emotionally digging in to your position. I think that characterization is erroneous. It seems to me you simply kept presenting your reasoning and waiting for someone to present anything that would show it to be faulty. Since I was in agreement with you from the beginning, I read the counter reasoning with keen interest, and I failed to see any thing that changed my mind. I often find myself in a similar position in discussions about theology. It appeared to me the emotional energy and frustration was coming from those who were failing to move you from your certainty. You were not trying to "win" anything, you already had it, and it seemed you were quite capable of keeping it. Sorry for the length of this comment. it was a long thread.
Barry Kort The Spiritual Economy is just as important as the Material Economy. Moreover, they are deeply connected.
Find more commentary on this observation at the source:
Joseph Bridges Barry Kort As a working artist who spends most of my time transporting information from one economy to another I am in total agreement about their interconnection. I find The border crossings between the five economies annoying and my general attitude is to just Keep On Trucking.
Carla Joy Luc...I see you have deleted the snide comments made in regards to George's way of expressing himself, I just want to remind you that where George was pointing towards an *idea* as being simple-minded (or another way of saying 'The idea lacks room for subtlety or nuance or flexibility') and dogmatic ( For instance "parables can only ever be understood as non-literal teaching instruments'), you took umbrage to George himself as a participator on the Rene Girard page, because you don't like his way of attempting to draw out or consider other ways of approaching a given subject. You did this by welcoming Barry to George, presenting him as an objectionable person (as opposed to someone who objects to ideas in a way you dislike) in doing so.
I am not a particularly argumentative person. In fact, I dislike being argumentative and I dislike confrontation. I do, however, appreciate when someone who is a better thinker than myself can get me to question my own perceptions in a fruitful way, even if at first, I might feel taken aback by having my own ideas shown up as lacking in some way.
Luc-Laurent Salvador Well Carla Joy, firstly, I didn't delete anything at all. With trivial exceptions, I am an absolute NON deleter!
Carla Joy Well then all I can assume is that either someone else deleted your comments introducing George to Barry in a way that presents George as an objectionable person (to which Barry responded that he himself had been taken aback by the words 'simple-minded and dogmatic' in response to Barry's idea) OR that you deleted your comment as one of your 'trivial exceptions'
In regards to 'sticking to the facts' my last post above was in response to
"You mentioned before projections of mine but you gave no reference to them.
I can tell you that when you speak of "resentment" and "hurt feelings", these notions are pure projections. You will not find anything in what I wrote that allows you to infer that."
Of course I am now unable to pinpoint exactly where you projected your perceptions of George as an objectionable person since the 'fact' has mysteriously disappeared.
Barry Kort I, too, was chagrined to observe some rejoinders that included some extraneous bits of theory of mind. I hope such miscues will soon vanish entirely from these conversations so that, going forward, we may take pride in the collegiality and congeniality of our studies here.
As to deletions, I didn't see any from Luc-Laurent, although I did see a few more of Sean's comments appear and vanish last night.
Ah! But I did salvage this subthread from George, which did indeed include comments from me and Luc-Laurent. Perhaps the comment you are looking for, Carla, can be found therein:
https://sites.google.com/site/barrykort/sean-hellems-on-luke-17-19-27/george-dunn
George Dunn - Burnt Umbrage
SITES.GOOGLE.COM
George Dunn It sounds like someone just recently learned the phrase "theory of mind" and now wants to show off this new jewel in his vocabulary. Theory of mind, in fact, simply refers to our ability to ascribe mental states to other persons. It's a capacity that all normal human possess and utilize in every human interaction. Now, it sometimes happens that we make false inferences about what's going on inside the minds of others, as when I mistakenly took Barry incessant complaints about how I had I had allegedly aggressed against him as evidence that his feelings had been hurt. He reassures that his feelings are just fine, however, so I really can't understand why he keeps bringing up "theory of mind" again and again.
Barry Kort When a psychologist first explained theories of mind to me some thirty years ago, he made two important points. The first point was to eschew them because 1) they are almost always wrong, 2) they are often psychological projections from the speaker's own mindset, 3) they are an unethical practice when the speaker is a professionally credentialed psychologist or psychiatrist, and 4) they tend to anger or annoy people.
The second point was that the unethical practice of issuing haphazard theories of mine was known in the trade as "Soviet Psychology" wherein a presumed expert would issue a bogus diagnosis of a political opponent or adversary so as to discredit them. In that regard, it's an insidious process that one is wise to eschew in any culture or community that seeks to promote collaborative learning.
Carla Joy Ok Barry..but can you not appreciate how this exact bogus diagnoses has been applied to discredit another member who simply disagreed with your idea because someone didn't like that member's style of communication and decided to make it about the person, not the idea?
Barry Kort Carla, I'd appreciate it if I could find it. I'm pretty sure I've now looked through all the text (including the salvaged text from deleted portions) but I don't yet find anything matching what you are hinting at.
If you can find it and cite it, I assure you I'll review it and critique it fairly.
George Dunn Barry doesn't understand the term "theory of mind." He seems to think that a "theory of mind" is a specific inference about someone's mental state, when in fact it refers to the general ability to ascribe or discern mental states to others. If we did not have "theory of mind," we would never ascribe states like happiness or sadness, calm or distress, to others and would therefore have no basis for making ethical choices regarding how to treat others. That general capacity is what makes possible specific inferences, but they're not the same thing.
What's really bizarre here, though, is not so much Barry's linguistic confusion, but his obsession with what he insists was my false inference about his hurt feelings, which I must say struck me at the time as a reasonably inference based on his behavior. He's so obsessed with it that he even imagines it as somehow akin to a Soviet psychiatrist discrediting a political opponent by misdiagnosing him. If I were to say that's just nuts, I almost certainly would only be providing confirmation for Barry's fantasy that I'm some abusive Soviet psychiatrist. So I'll just leave it at saying once again that if I misread Barry's mind, I apologize.
Barry Kort George, how would you like it if I (or anyone else) concocted and published to the Internet a haphazard (and largely erroneous and derogative theory of your frame of mind) attributing to you some scorecard of your fears, emotions, personal backstory, unresolved psychological issues, beliefs, habitual practices, desires, intentions, and misadventures?
I'd expect you'd be unhappy (if not outraged) at such a trespass, especially coming from a stranger who has never met you, never broken bread with you, never spoken to you, never looked you in the eye, never shaken your hand, and never negotiated a mutually agreeable social contract with you.
Seriously, George, do you honestly think that's a sociable way to conduct oneself? Do you understand that such practices are a source not only of interpersonal violence on this planet, but bloody wars that cost millions of lives.
George Dunn Barry, I'm going to be blunt: The fact that you're so obsessed with this ridiculously inconsequential matter tells me that you are probably mentally ill. I urge you to get help from a qualified professional. There's nothing I can do for you.
Barry Kort George, that's a curious working hypothesis.
Can you tell me how you falsified the benign null hypothesis?
Unless, of course, you are simply being disingenuously obnoxious and trolling me to see if you can get a rise out of me.
David Gornoski, as you are my host here, what say you?
Write a reply...
Larry Rogers Getting back to the original question .. Rohr and Ebert write: "There is an exciting alternative interpretation that comes from Latin American liberation theology: the 'nobleman' earns his enormous fortune through usury. But in the eyes of the biblical prophets (and of the Christian church all the way into the high Middle Ages) that was considered godlessness and a failure to love one's neighbor. Usury and the taking of interest were viewed as a sin. Thus the 'nobleman' would be the 'bad guy' in the story. While all the other slaves join in this sinful game of profiteering, the last one will have nothing to do with the mechanisms of exploitation. He tells his lord to his face that this way of making money is unjust. And He is prepared to suffer the consequences. In the end, according to this interpretation, Jesus is not speaking about divine justice (because the God whom he proclaimed creates a balance by humbling the mighty and exalting the humble). Rather he is speaking about the 'capitalistic' laws of this world. And so the last sentence would not be understood as agreeing with, but as criticizing. the maxim of making the rich richer and the poor poorer. It's as if Jesus were saying, 'That's how things are in this world. Good for those who pull out of that game and are ready to pay the price for doing so. Because the world will take away everything you have.' " (185-186, "The Enneagram; A Christian Perspective")
Dave Atch How bout...you have to keep everything intact [the things of faith]? You don't stick'em in lousy soil, or in good soil and fail to water. You must take'em out from under the bushel, and allow the opportunity for them to multiply or "grow." If they're in circulation, folks can see openly how much you value them, and also see the fruits or results. The keeper is saying, "Here is what was given; I trust that YOU are worthy to do something with it, the message conveyed being that this treasure is a thing that doesn't exist if it isn't shared. Whereas if you hide them, one person might see it (have seen it), and in effect would steal them (analogy) when he says something like, "With him it's all theory." Thus, what's been passed on to you is no longer intact.
Luc-Laurent Salvador In opposition to Barry Kort's thesis that the parable is an analogy which includes a form of mapping, George Dunn mentioned the Good Samaritan as a counterexample.
According to him, there is no mapping in this parable.
This is wrong.
There is indeed a mapping and there's no need to look far to find it.
The Good Samaritan is a parable because it is an "oblique" answer to the trap question asked by the lawyer: "who is my neighbor?".
This is a trap because Jesus can't oppose head-on the Jewish law that rigorously discriminates the Jews from other "impure" peoples (like Samaritans) with whom most relations and contacts are prohibited.
If he gives a direct answer, he will be accused of not respecting the mosaic law. That's why he answers with a parable.
The mapping is there: Jesus does not answer the question of the lawyer (A) by telling him who is his neighbor (A '), he tells him about a Jew (B) left for dead by bandits and whose neighbor (B') can easily be recognized as being the Good Samaritan.
There is thus a mapping between the lawyer (A) and the dying Jew (B) of the parable. Identifying the Good Samaritan as the dying Jew neighbor (B ') allows the lawyer to understand who is his own neighbor (A') and thus have the answer to his question.
As I see it, Jesus showed here how love goes beyond the law, but we are not discussing it.
My conclusion is that a parable is indeed a form of mapping, an "instructive analogy" (Holyoak & Thagard 1996).
At least, the Good Samaritan parable can't disprove it.
Barry Kort Thank you for unpacking that. Note that Augustine supplies a similar exegesis of that parable.
I appreciate your insight that responding to a question that amounts to a baited trap by means of relating an allegory or parable is indeed an ingenious solution to skandalon.
Write a reply...
Luc-Laurent Salvador Well Barry, could you help me? At some point George Dunn made reference to me as having pretentions to be an expert. I can't find it anymore. Has it been deleted?
George Dunn I said that you pretended to have expertise in philosophy of mind and classical philosophy that was revealed, upon questioning, to be a sham. But why are so obsessed with me? You keep mentioning my name in almost every comment. It's strikes me as somewhat childish.
Barry Kort I'm currently looking for it. As you know, I did manage to save two portions of this thread that were deleted while I was composing a comment. In both of those cases, I was able to salvage the deleted threads and sub-threads. And as I mentioned, I did see two or three comments from Sean appear and vanish as well.
But it's quite possible there were other threads with sub-threads comments that vanished without my knowing. Please bear with me as I have to check the upstairs machine, which is the one I was using last night. It might have some sections that are no longer present here at this time.
Luc-Laurent Salvador Thank you Barry but, sorry, my question was not precise enough. I was looking for George Dunn's commentary that came after I referred to the Greek etymology of parable and where he made fun of me by pretending I had claimed to be an expert in Greek (and also in analytic philosophy, since the first discussion I had with him). I just wanted to tell him that this ad personam answer was in itself the best proof that he could not contradict my etymology-based argument.
Barry Kort OK. I do remember your speaking of the etymology. Let me see if that portion can be found.
Luc-Laurent Salvador Barry Kort Oh no, thanks, I just said what I had to say. No further comment is needed.
Luc-Laurent Salvador Thanks Barry for your effort but this is my comment. I was (but I am not anymore) looking for George Dunn reaction to this comment precisely. It doesn't matter anymore. I said what I had to say. And, btw, it seems that George has left the group.
Barry Kort But I don't see any direct response from George after the above. But that's also close to where I did salvage a nearby thread that George deleted.
Luc-Laurent Salvador Barry Kort I dont think so because when one type Sean Hellems FB automatically proposes to make a link. It's not anymore the case for George.
Barry Kort I still see George listed as a member of the group. I also now see he is (evidently) intentionally posting obnoxious remarks aimed at me.
For example:
Luc-Laurent Salvador Barry Kort Laugh! You just can laugh because this is George in all his splendor!
Barry Kort Luc-Laurent, since I still see George here, and you still see Sean here, it appears Sean has blocked me, and George has blocked you.
Barry Kort So George has departed rather dramatically from the presumptive social contract here, where do you propose we go from here in this abysmally atrocious post-modern lunatic vexagonistic scapegoat emoperatic psychodrama?
Luc-Laurent Salvador Thank you Barry for this information. I understand that being blocked means that you can't see what the person who blocked is publishing.
Regarding what George likes to tell on me, I will not react because it would be of no interest for anyone.
As usual, when George is unable to contest an argument, he finds some satisfaction, as Schopenhauer recommended, to attack the person, i.e., to make ad personam argumentation.
He excels in this genre, great good him.
Barry Kort George opened a PM Voice call and talked for an hour. He regrets that things went badly. He said he is going to delete some of more provocative comments.
Barry Kort Also, since Sean has blocked me, that means he does not see this entire discussion thread, since I started it.
Barry Kort The PM Chat turned out to be voice, not text. Although it was a bit testy at first, we eventually got to a conclusion where I'd like to think that the bulk of the antagonism here has been largely deconflicted.
Write a reply...
George Dunn Luc-Laurent wants to dispute my claim that the parable of the Good Samaritan contains no one-on-one mapping between the elements in the story and the coming kingdom of God, but his ploy is completely disingenuous. The "mapping" he proposes does not involve the kingdom of God, but rather mapping one ordinary relationship onto another. He knows that his ploy deliberately misrepresents my claim.
Barry Kort The "Kingdom of God" includes a wide spectrum of beliefs and practices, not the least of which is kindness to strangers, mercy, healing the sick, and (perhaps the hardest of all) loving your enemy or adversary.
In the parable of the Good Samaritan, you have to do a fairly simple mapping (role-reversal) to appreciate that enmity is no reason to leave a stricken person unattended.
George Dunn The parable conveys a straightforward moral lesson, one that can understood in its entirely without any convoluted mapping.
George Dunn Also, don't I recall you saying earlier that you were ready to stop arguing and leave it the "independent judges"? What is it that makes it impossible for you to move on?
Barry Kort One of my occasional areas of research is to gather data on abysmally atrocious post-modern lunatic vexagonistic scapegoat emoperatic psychodramas.
I wasn't expecting that in a group on Girardian Theory, but here we are.
George Dunn And you are making your own exemplary contribution to the abysmalness of it all. But now that you've got in your snide parting shot and I made my snarky rejoinder, perhaps it's time to move on to more edifying endeavors. I think we can both agree that nothing positive will come of continuing this.
Barry Kort Oh, I don't mind crafting raucous comic operas if it serves a good purpose, if it's done in good fun, if it's entertaining, and everyone who wants to play is welcome to join the game.
Alas, we don't currently have a mutually agreeable social contract to that effect, so we'll have to wait for clearance, as I reckon it's a departure from what the organizers of this group had in mind.
George Dunn Barry, would you please send me a PM? There's something I need to tell you but I don't want to do it in a public forum. Would you do me this kindness?
Write a reply...
George Dunn And let's be clear what I meant when I spoke of Luc-Laurent's "pretensions." On the first occasion, he announced that there was nothing worthwhile in contemporary philosophy of mind, which clearly entails an implicit boast of some expertise is that area. When questioned, he first claimed that he was well versed in the literature, but upon further interrogation he was forced to concede that he really didn't know much about its key figures, their debates, and their major works. To cover his embarrassment, he went on an attack against me and has been doing so ever since at every opportunity.
The second occasion involved Luc-Laurent making claims about Plato and mimesis that simply did not stand up to the scrutiny of someone who had spent a couple decades studying Plato's texts. Once again he stubbornly insisted that he was right, but couldn't meet the challenge of actually defending his views exegetically. Now, it it appears Luc-Laurent also takes himself to be an expert on biblical exegesis, though evidently not on how to engage in honest debate.
Incidentally, I mention all of this only because Luc-Laurent has decided to stir up a controversy over my characterizing a certain idea as "simpleminded." I was advised by someone who knows him that it's best to just ignore him, but his belligerence makes that difficult. Hopefully, he can be persuaded to abandon his obsession with me and find a better hobby.
Barry Kort Since you have now blocked Luc-Laurent, he cannot see what you just wrote about him. So you'll have to stand by while I share it with him, so as to ensure that your practice here is not perceived as devious, deceptive, or unethical.
Barry Kort Actually, there is a lot of deception going on. More deception than I can clear up by acting as a PBX between parties that have asymmetrically blocked various participants here.
George Dunn Barry, would you please send me a PM. There's something I need to tell you but I would prefer not to say it in this forum. Would you do me that kindness?
Barry Kort You should know that my long-standing policy is that PMs are not confidential unless and until I have established a bond of trust.
The PM Chat turned out to be voice, not text. Although it was a bit testy at first, we eventually got to a conclusion where I'd like to think that the bulk of the antagonism here has been largely deconflicted.
Write a comment...