----- Original Message ----- From: Mistral mistral@centurytel.net
Fiona Moore wrote:
I think Neil answered that one better than I could. He's right, it *is* awfully offputting when you're gearing up for a rapier thrust to open a
post
which seems to be on the same topic but isn't. The reverse equivalent
might
be me going into a thread on red leather trousers and saying "That's intriguing. Have you considered deconstructing these trousers as a
signifier
of Lacanian potency, with regard to Derrida's belief that deconstruction cannot exist outside of the text?" A lot of people would flame me, and
for
good reason.
<g> Are you _sure_ a lot of people would flame you? 'Cause I can't imagine that. I think it might actually be amusing in itself, besides spawning a serious discussion.
Perhaps not flame, but they might respond with bafflement :). Or reply to the effect of, "what the bloody blue blazes does Derrida have to do with Avon's religion?" It's a bit interesting that it never *does* seem to go silly-to-serious.
Tossing a bit of whimsy into a serious thread strikes me as a perfectly natural thing to do - I am never more serious than when I'm joking. Humour can be both a way to make a point, and to defuse tension; it's long been a technique in both debate and education for those reasons.
That, though, is on-topic humour. E.g. Una's response to Shane's "trousers" post, which, though humourous, makes the point that Una a) thinks this morality is Victorian, b) thinks Shane is making a fuss over nothing (although I may have interpreted her wrong). This *does* make an educational point. But, to take Neil's fictitious example, suddenly talking about Travis' knob in the middle of a discussion on The Definition of Fascism doesn't really add much to the discussion.
However, I do wish that headers would be changed when they've wandered away from the topic - I don't do it very often, because I'm generally not sure what the new topic is, and the few times I've done it, the thread has either died or instantly mutated into something else, so changing the subject didn't do much good.
I'm afraid we're all a bit guilty of this-- guess we should take more care.
The Greeks believed in five kinds of love, and that the noblest was
Agape,
or self-sacrificing love. I tend to see Blake and Avon's love as being Agape, not Eros. And Chris Boucher has said this as well.
Looks more like Phileo with hints of Agape to me - you really cannot have 'Blake' if it's Agape; and while I personally can't see it as Eros, I can see how somebody who wanted to see Eros could read it as Phileo tinged with Eros.
Au contraire, I see "Blake" as a good example of Agape. Avon, after all, sacrifices his ship, his base, his position and his crew's lives for Blake, and, whether he himself dies or not at the end, he certainly shows himself willing to die on Blake's corpse. In earlier parts of the series (e.g. Terminal) Avon shows himself similarly willing to give up everything for the sake of a slim chance of finding Blake. For Blake's part, he is willing, in "Blake" to trust Avon despite the fact that his faith in human nature has taken a visible pounding, and in "Star One" he says that he has always trusted Avon, both of which suggest a sacrifical love (since Avon's behaviour thus far hasn't always suggested it's healthy to trust him); Avon, for his part, turns around and takes on the entire alien fleet on the strength of that.
I can see Phileo elements in their relationship, it's true, but I can only see Eros inasmuch as Freud argued that any close emotional relationship has an erotic component-- which I think is debatable.
Fiona
The Posthumous Memoirs of Secretary Rontane Available for public perusal at http://nyder.r67.net
_________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Fiona said:
Perhaps not flame, but they might respond with bafflement :). Or reply to the effect of, "what the bloody blue blazes does Derrida have to do with Avon's religion?"
They're both Catholics? (Actually I have no idea what Derrida's religion is.)
It's a bit interesting that it never *does* seem to go silly-to-serious.
Whereas I think that, although a culture's most frivolous productions can be very enlightening about the culture itself, B7 isn't just silly, most of the time it's BLOODY silly*, and quite frankly it doesn't merit the kind of reverence that one could reasonably accord to, e.g., RL religion, politics, or art.
But, to take Neil's fictitious example, suddenly talking about Travis' knob in the middle of a discussion on The Definition of Fascism doesn't really add much to the discussion.
I'd have to see it (the discussion) to be sure, but in fact political systems affect the expression of sexuality of their citizens.
Let's see, this is still a bit rough (but fortunately not fatal): Just today, when I should have been at my job, I decided to put in my bob, When I'm thinking of Travis' knob, Travis' knob might land on...them [Squick!] In olden days, a list of mailing Was properly hedged in a paling But now, lord knows, anything goes. Joe Fanfic, too, who once knew better words Now only sends four-letter words to the Lyst...
*Indeed so many episodes are pants that trousers are a natural association of ideas.
-(Y)
-
Dana Shilling -
Fiona Moore