Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!
Blog Tools
Edit your Blog
Build a Blog
RSS Feed
View Profile
« November 2005 »
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30
Entries by Topic
All topics  «
Art and Aesthetics
General Theology
Life in Particular
Rants
Reflections
Theology and Johnny Cash
Home
IndieFaith
You are not logged in. Log in
IndieFaith Blog
Wednesday, 30 November 2005
Scarred Reading
Topic: Reflections
Life cannot be read apart from its scars.

It tends to take very little for me to be annoyed with people and riding the bus to school everyday, as I have been recently, only aggravates the condition. In any event, I remember a person years ago who simply annoyed me. It is long enough ago and insignificant enough of an experience for me to not remember many details. However, I certainly remember being annoyed. I probably perceived him to be arrogant and impatient or perhaps rude in some way.
At one point in watching him I remember noticing a scar on the back of his head. Now this may well have come from his attempts show-off in front of people, but it made me pause. This is an important moment in reading, or in interpretation in general. A scar demands that we pause, that we withdraw our imposed judgment (interpretation) and remember that whosever voice we are trying to hear has already been imposed upon. A scar rages against our stereotypes and abstractions. This person, this text, is singular not manufactured. Recognizing our distance and our difference may remove those insulating readings which only fortify our beliefs.

Christ’s resurrection was complete with scars. His scars rage against any attempts to smooth or simplify his message. Sensitivity to scars allows our reading to respect the voice of our texts. It testifies to that elusive “third” discourse which allows boundaries to be crossed and understanding to occur.

Posted by indie/faith at 8:21 AM EST
Post Comment | View Comments (9) | Permalink | Share This Post

Wednesday, 30 November 2005 - 3:11 PM EST

Name: Joel

Nice post.

Your "A Conceptual Analysis of Aesthetics" link in the Formal section isn't working.

Thursday, 1 December 2005 - 3:26 AM EST

Name: Ive seen the light....hallelujah

Did I bug you a little too much....sometimes I come across as too strong--plus the printed page doesn't always show the playfulness in which I write. Anyway, don't let my insulting words fortify your beliefs too much. Otherwise you will find yourself only talking with really nice affirming people. I like a nice atmosphere too, but if you really want to challenge yourself, spend some time with those who don't care be nice all the time. Sometimes it takes a pointed word to really sharpen and challenge what you think.

Thursday, 1 December 2005 - 9:57 AM EST

Name: DaveD

The subtleties of 'playfulness' are, at the best of times, well, subtle. Taking this to an anonymous blog only increases the potential misunderstanding. I agree that insults can lead to insulation which entrenches your own view. This is a good point to bring up. What bugged me the most was that if you are really concerned with people not 'fortifying' their beliefs then you have to do a pretty good job of reading their contributions and actually engaging with their thought (whether or not you agree with it). From my own reading of you at this point, you are coming up a little short at this end.

I agree that nice can be overrated and my nature is almost always one of mediation and synthesis so I need to be very conscious of that. I wouldn’t be putting stuff out here if I was not interested in criticism. However, for anyone to receive criticism they must first feel as though they have first been understood.

Thursday, 1 December 2005 - 10:42 AM EST

Name: hallelujah

Dave, which contributions have I not read, understood, and engaged with properly ? I would like to know where I have come up short in your opinion. In terms of content, I always try to write at length about what I think and I try to respond interactively, with more than just dismissive phrases.

One more thing...

You wrote: "However, for anyone to receive criticism they must first feel as though they have first been understood"

Personally I think most people are only willing to receive criticism when others concede that they are right. In my experience, people think that it is more important to be right than to be properly understood. To me, this attitude comes through when people write, "you do not understand what I am saying." To me, this is a defensive phrase that often means, "If you truely undestand what I am saying you would concede that I am right."

Anyway, if everyone would just relax a bit and not take it so seriously when their words are challenged, this might even be fun. And if I write again, I will be nicer.

Also, is it with you that I have been discussing objective correlative? Are there two Daves here?

Thursday, 1 December 2005 - 10:45 AM EST

Name: hallelujah

oops, I guess there are two Daves on this site. both from Canada no less. Chances are one of you should know my Aunt Jenni from Ottawa

Thursday, 1 December 2005 - 1:18 PM EST

Name: DaveD

Yes, DaveD is the only one 'blogging' while dave beldman is a regular responder. I welcome your continued responses. Please do not presume that I am not having fun. Your responses remind me, to an extent, of StandardRant, a good friend of mine who was posting on the link to the left.

As to my comment of your reading, I will respond from this point on if I notice anything.

Friday, 2 December 2005 - 3:35 AM EST


I'll check standardrant.

Also, re your comment on my reading of other contributions. Do you honestly believe that I have not been trying to understand and engage with what others are saying? If I have not bothered to try and understand what others are saying, please tell me where this has occured. If you are going to say this about my writing, please back it up with some info. Otherwise, I think what really annoyed you was not my lack of understanding/engagement with others, but my blunt responses.

Friday, 2 December 2005 - 8:39 AM EST

Name: DaveD

That's fine. I am just trying to not belabour the point. The intention was to retract my comment and start from scratch. You certainly appear to be putting in the time and effort to engage with people here and that is great. My observations of your reaing are pretty petty (say that a few times to cheer you up). Things like confusing my comment about a 'sad song' as referring to a 'fallen form' and not checking to see if 'incarnational' was an appropriate use of the term (however, at this point I imagine that was your style). And finally, clarifying who you are referring to (i.e. the two daves). Really, no big deal on my part. Keep the bluntness coming. Though I can't promise I won't get annoyed. If I knew a little annoyed emoticon I would use it here. Thanks for frequenting.

Friday, 2 December 2005 - 1:20 PM EST

Name: hallelujah

Yeah, I was just being an ass on some of those posts (sad song and 'incarnational.'

I bet you were glad to find the incarnational entry in the dictionary.

View Latest Entries