And again Spartacus responds, as well he should, and most certainly
may. I'm still much better than he is at backing and filling… which is why my
backside regularly gets into trouble. Anyway, let's keep this discussion open –
though I think we've gone as far below the surface as we can with tattooing for
now, heh-heh. Spartacus, the podium is yours again:
Thanks for your additional comments. You make some very
good points, which, though they haven't changed my opinion about tattoos, HAVE
helped me refine my own thinking about why I find them so objectionable–and for
that I'm very grateful. It is so helpful to have a friend to act as a sounding
board. Your sharp mind has the effect of helping to chip some of the rust from
mine!
"You're
drawing a line based on what you personally find distasteful, and not merely
contrasurvival. Thus you're obligated to accept that this standard is yours
only, and works for you – but cannot work for all individuals."
Well yes, absolutely!!! I thought I made it very clear
that I was only speaking for myself. I would never suggest or condone a
movement to outlaw tattoos. People should have the freedom to do what they want
with their bodies–including drinking or drugging themselves to death, if that's
what they want–but that doesn't mean I am obligated to approve of, or like what
they are doing either. IMHO, there is not enough personal freedom in this
world, but I'm not necessarily going to partake in, nor be a cheerleader, for
any and all behaviors one could conceivably indulge in–even though I may
believe it is within a person's rights to indulge in those behaviors.
I suppose qualifying some of my comments with references
to "nature" and/or "God" just confused the issue. I did so
because I didn't want to get into a whole discussion on religion, but I can see
now that handling it the way I did probably made such a discussion inevitable.
I also see now how waffling was also preventing me from really clarifying WHY I
hold some of the beliefs which have been discussed here. So without further
ado, please return your seat to its upright position and we'll get down to
it!
I really do object to being called an agnostic–I believe
quite fervently in God, though not in the way you believe. I believe God is
immanent in the universe, and we come to know the nature of God through
scientific inquiry. I worship that god by trying to be appreciative and
respectful of the world and all that inhabit it (the specific word for this
belief system is pantheism).
One component of appreciation is esthetics, so for me, it
is not MERE esthetics–esthetics are an element of the divine. So yes, in those
terms I do find tattoos morally reprehensible–according to my personal belief
system (others who think of themselves as pantheists could very well hold other
views–and they are welcome to them!).
I believe your quote from Corinthians could also be
interpreted as a biblical injunction against tattoos, though personally that
holds no weight with me as I do not acknowledge the Bible as God's word.
"Hee-hee;
I like that word, 'sheeple'! I usually use 'lemming'… but I might have
to adopt your term, too, if you don't mind."
You are welcome to it–I heard it from someone else. It
tickled my fancy too.
I'll take the last word here… since it is my blog,
after all. (BOO, HISS!) Oh, shush. That clears the deck for other topics. (YAY!!)
Thank you.
No, sir – I had no intention of changing your opinion. You and I
have each claimed our own pied-à-terre, and have since been using this forum to
dig in a bit further. But my objective has been – both in this topic,
and others we've volleyed back and forth – to use your viewpoint and assertions
to sharpen both my own, and my debating techniques.
With most folks I'm generally too polite to say more than,
"Pardon me – your slip is showing", and then proceed to tug on it for greater
exposure, or cover them while they hurriedly tuck back in… or, if she's cute
enough, tuck it myself.
However, some other people simply don't respond to anything less
than both barrels; in that case, watch out! And you and I (and others I or we may invite into the clubhouse)
can stand here, grinning, flinging open our jackets and showing the world what
we each have.
Anyway, Sparts, I’m glad you didn't take any of this personally –
as I said previously, I was pointing out holes so you could plug 'em, while at
the same time lobbing (low-yield) grenades through them. Fortunately, you
defused them all; great job… and this is fun exercise!
"I thought I made it very
clear that I was only speaking for myself":
Okay, I erred in my approach; at some non-conscious level, I believe I was
running on the assumption you had regarded your views as absolute, rather than
subjective, values… but I know you better than that. My apologies,
sir!
"I didn't want to get into
a whole discussion on religion". Likewise –
although let me clarify that further by saying that the reason I also steered
largely away from those waters is that such a discussion would need much more
time and space than I was able to give it last time, or will this evening. This
gigantic topic, too, we may find consumed best by taking small bites from different
ends, over time, and seeing how close to the middle we end up.
Second apology, Sparkly Cuss, for the agnostic assertion. I think
I'd somehow (wrongly) drawn that conclusion, but again I ought to've known
better – in this case, mostly from things you've said here since late January,
and in our emails of at least the last few years. Let me deepen that just a bit
more by thanking you (and Mrs. Sparks) for your patient, very polite
willingness to listen to my in-person babblings, last Fall, about some of the
profound religious truths/points that have blown me away over the past several
years. I'd like to believe I'd be as kindly disposed (as opposed to
"disposed of"!), although I sense your shoes would rattle
around very loosely on my tiny feet/feat, should I try to walk in them.
Sir, in how you then proceed, above, to lay out your
clarification, I find that you seem to be singing from my hymnal. I, too, see
the hand of The Divine in nature, demonstrated through the harder sciences
(including mathematics), and in esthetics. Though further, for me, appreciating
the beauty in something – a sunset, a voice in song, a woman's curve, a slice
of fresh-baked bread, a galaxy, and so on, perhaps indeed ad infinitum – is a
prayer of thanks with no words.
My electronic Merriam-Webster [(c)2000 Zane
Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. All rights reserved.] defines "pantheism" as a doctrine that equates God
with the forces and laws of the universe, so I can
see that you've labeled it well (as opposed, say, to the more primitive
"panINtheism"). But I feel I go a dimension beyond this, in that all
this doesn't equal God, so much as prominently show his fingerprints and
– as one delves deeper into any hard science – some of his tool-marks and some
of the lines of his blueprints, too.
I like especially one phrase you use: "esthetics are an element of the divine." Awesomely said! And your personal belief system allows you
to quite nicely both wrap up, and comfortably justify (not in any sarcastic
way!) your feeling on tattoos.
I think the point where (from my view only) you stop short and I
continue, is that you are fully at ease and secure in an adoctrinal (i.e.,
doctrine-free) divine. I said a good while back that I'm still mulling over the
literal leap of faith humans must make to move from standing there beside you
(and I did for many, great years), to one where there is doctrine and
dogma – a leap I took without jettisoning any of the love for the universe and
its description/analysis via science. This I am still mulling, and I'm still
unable to point out, or even adequately describe, that leap.
Nonetheless, here I rotate ninety degrees to another plane and
vanish from your universe (man, I would love to be able to do this
physically!). For me, that next step (I mentioned this a while back) grows from
a yearning to recognize a love coming to me from that God that the universe
manifests and paints. Relying entirely on science and esthetics alone, there is
nowhere to firmly hang God's almighty "I love you, my son"
word-balloon. God thus is impersonal; at best kind and even rather considerate.
But love? Love is subjective; God defined by the borders and contours of the
universe is objective only, breathtakingly beautiful as he becomes, yes, on
examination.
Yet we, humans, we love… so is this a power we have, that the God
of the universe doesn't? Or is it merely something insignificant in the greater
scheme of space/time + mass/energy? To both of these, I have to say No. A
strictly deterministic God is absent of emotion of any sort; while I believe
that we in some tiny ways parallel traits God himself carries: love,
compassion, sorrow, delight, and so on… much like a tiny hydrogen atom mimics/mirrors the
spectacular sweep of a vast, whirling (on a cosmic timescale, okay?) galaxy… only on the inside, where emotions
dwell.
Why not?
I think the next step for me, after this one, would look extremely
tenuous to you, so I'm going to set it aside again, and pick it back up later –
since I can't yet paint with words the secure footing my mind and soul found.
That step is the inner assurance I feel, that out of love for us, God regularly
bridges between the realms of the divine and the mundane: through profound
spiritual experiences, through stirring up our souls, and even through taking
on a human form.
Why not?
Well, a science-only God has no reason to do so. But a God who
loves, even more profoundly than I have loved my children and their mothers,
has every reason to do so.
But enough for tonight.
Now I lay me down to sleep…
No comments:
Post a Comment