tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1862174023932643058.post4818639321839811689..comments2023-10-26T08:20:45.326-06:00Comments on Insignificant Wranglings: Moral of the StoryInsignificant Wranglerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15950540902913057757noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1862174023932643058.post-54597734692611451032008-07-08T14:03:00.000-06:002008-07-08T14:03:00.000-06:00Interesting. I'd argue that reading can be "exper...Interesting. I'd argue that reading can be "experiential" <I>IF</I> we do not read with an eye for "the moral of the story." Need we assume that every story has a moral in the way that you suggest?<BR/><BR/>Part of the problem, I've argued recently, with reading "for the moral" is that we rely on an already-existing catalog of "possible morals" under which we map the story as we interpret it. The violence would occur when we declare a moral from our moral catalog with regard to a story that does not <I>in fact</I> aim at producing such a moral.<BR/><BR/>So consider (let's say) Abraham almost sacrificing his own child. How do you interpret the moral of that story? Are you <I>sure</I> that you have the experience necessary to intrepret that story? That is -- have you ever received clear and unmistakable instructions from G-d to do something like that?<BR/><BR/>If not, should you assign a moral to that story? What if you just let the story "be?" -- sort of let it wash over you without categorizing it according to its moral import?<BR/><BR/>The best examples, I've found, are stories involving a certain degree of mystical psychology... the reason is that they challenge us, especially those of us who've not had mystical experiences, to simply listen. If I do not know <I>from experience</I> what it was like for Joan of Arc or for Teresa of Avila, then I should probably just let their stories be told without actively interpreting them or criticizing them...<BR/><BR/>Or so I've argued.Caseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03820693522030084335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1862174023932643058.post-57031403338386277112008-07-07T13:07:00.000-06:002008-07-07T13:07:00.000-06:00P.S. How long before I make it into the Virtual Pa...P.S. How long before I make it into the Virtual Parlor list, especially now that you've actually cited me? :PEnthyAliashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07248690283385304115noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1862174023932643058.post-7552962479260205322008-07-07T13:03:00.000-06:002008-07-07T13:03:00.000-06:00I would agree that art-as-theory is definitely not...I would agree that art-as-theory is definitely not universal - even if it's ambition is to achieve the universal. (After all, we can't forget that Aristotle and his descendants were pursuing the big T.) Art-as-theory is very particular - more and more so.<BR/><BR/>But what of art-as-practice or, more accurately, praxis? Even though praxis may be particular to certain groups and occupations, there seems to be a greater circulation of such knowledge than of art-as-theory. Also, those experiential actors noted by Aristotle operate on praxis; they do not act purely on facts but on facts that form part of an overarching view (or story, if you will) in which their actions make sense - if only to them or others sharing their story.<BR/><BR/>If set in opposition to action/practice/praxis, art-as-theory risks becoming the violent purveyor of morality by claiming a answer to the "why" from outside of the praxis that made the "what" possible.<BR/><BR/>Not sure how that ties back to my post on education, other than we're still rooting around among the assumptions that sustain so much of what we do in academia - and how we are (un)related to the rest of society.<BR/><BR/>Can you feel my angst on the cusp of this career move? Oy!EnthyAliashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07248690283385304115noreply@blogger.com