Chalkhills Digest Volume 6, Issue 287
Date: Wednesday, 18 October 2000
Chalkhills Digest, Volume 6, Number 287
Wednesday, 18 October 2000
Topics:
Thanks for Mummer, thank you for October friendliness...
It's here! It's here!
More Andy news
Re: We're All Light
STARFLOWER
The Grand Sabbatical
Knuckle down (at least on-list)
question of a religious nature...
Matthew 5:1-3
Oops, oops, oops...
Re: Gwine down the crossroads
World's Best Band........my butt
religious crap
Re: We're All...Nuts
j-u-m-p-i-n-g
...Or have we?
Eyes Glazed Over
Re: The Man Who...Questions
Administrivia:
To UNSUBSCRIBE from the Chalkhills mailing list, send a message to
<chalkhills-request@chalkhills.org> with the following command:
unsubscribe
For all other administrative issues, send a message to:
<chalkhills-request@chalkhills.org>
Please remember to send your Chalkhills postings to:
<chalkhills@chalkhills.org>
World Wide Web: <http://chalkhills.org/>
The views expressed herein are those of the individual authors.
Chalkhills is compiled with Digest 3.7b (John Relph <relph@tmbg.org>).
But you're Sikh, Jew, Muslim and Christian, you say.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 12:08:44 -0400 From: "Todd Bernhardt" <todd.bernhardt@enterworks.com> Subject: Thanks for Mummer, thank you for October friendliness... Message-ID: <39EC798C.7697E98E@enterworks.com> Organization: Enterworks, Inc. Hi: A very merry Mummer's Day to all! And to all a good night... Looking forward to my cakes and ale, Todd
------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 09:22:19 -0700 (PDT) From: Brown <mb2@deltanet.com> Subject: It's here! It's here! Message-ID: <200010171622.JAA28214@mail2.deltanet.com> Greetings, fellow Hillians! ..a Merry Mummer Day to you all..plenty of sweet cakes and ale for all Mummers who come a knocking.. Don't forget to give this exquisite album a spin today.. and maybe share it with a friend.. (I am aware of the fact that you will no doubt read this AFTER the 17th.. but remember, my sugarbeets.. *anytime* is the right time for Mummer!) I've included a bit of Mummer fact for you all.. quite possibly old hat to some, but surely it will help to set the mood for today's festivities- GO FORTH AND REJOICE, MUMMER LOVERS! ENGLISH RITUAL DRAMA (Mummers Plays) Spectators, viewing Mumming for the first time, will possibly see it only as slapstick humour, but the traditional perspective is that investigation suggests an underlying primitive ritual. By the end of the nineteenth century, despite changes within society resulting from the industrial revolution, the villages of England remained socially isolated and much of everyday life was ruled by folklore and local customs. This was often based on superstition and primitive rituals with wisewomen, country cures and medicines and charms for events such as birth, death, marriage and tasks like churning butter, baking or brewing. Alongside this the rural calendar, which reflected the ever changing seasons, welded the population into a tight community with dancing, plays and ritual. Even today many of these customs linger on as part of the collective wisdom of village communities. Of these practices, Mumming Plays proved the most persistent and while few 'traditional' performances survive, they were widely known in towns and villages - each with their own variant - until the 1914-18 war decimated the male population. Traditionally performers were always men, even when a female character was required. To be recognised broke the 'luck' brought by the players so they hid their identity by dressing in disguise consisting of strips of paper or rag attached to ordinary clothes which completely covered the wearer, including the face. This style of costume, which may have been a rationalisation of animal skins and forest greenery of earlier days, survived longest in the rural Southern counties but eventually, partly because the purpose was no longer understood, performers began to dress according to the character. Three distinct forms of the play exist. The most common is called Hero Combat in which each performer enters in turn, introduces his character by name and proceeds in rhyme to issue challenge and counter challenge. A fight follows in which a player is 'killed' only to be revived by a Quack Doctor. This form includes both Soul Cake plays from Cheshire performed at All Souls in the autumn and Pace Egg plays from the North West performed at Easter. The other two forms are possibly much older. One from the East Midlands, is normally performed in early January on Plough Monday and has, in addition to the Hero Combat scene, a courtship sequence and representation of three generations of life with an old couple, a young couple and a baby. The other, found only in the North East, combines the dramatic action with an intricate 'sword' dance in which performers link themselves together with strips of wood or metal and the 'death' results from the action of the entire group. These forms of the ritual are unique to England but similar traditions have been noted from the Pyrenees, through the Swiss-German border area, Rumania, Thrace and Macedonia in the Balkans to Skyros in the Aegean. All with the common theme of death and resurrection which occurs in the mythology of ancient Syria, Greece and Egypt. Historically, in England, the drama was performed in the old style winter months commencing at All Souls (31 October) and ending at Easter. By the end of the nineteenth century however, appearances were most common at Christmas when players collected money to augment low winter earnings. Although there are no records earlier than the 16th Century both the season for the plays and their apparent great age offer suggestions as to their origins. Primitive man struggled for survival, his main concern was to obtain food to keep himself and his family alive. He relied on hunting animals and growing simple crops, so the year divided naturally into two seasons - warmth and plenty against cold and hardship. By the latter part of the winter, with food in short supply and long dark nights, he would clearly have longed for the warm summer and probably called upon magic to speed its return. It is argued by many that the Mummers Play has its roots in early sympathetic magic and the simple death and resurrection plot is associated with the primitive idea of death of winter and rebirth of the summer. Lifted in its entirety from http://www.merrieenglandmummers.fsnet.co.uk/#Eng Ritual Drama DB
------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 14:33:38 EDT From: WESnLES@aol.com Subject: More Andy news Message-ID: <59.1909756.271df582@aol.com> Andy also told me that he's worked up a few new songs. So, all his time isn't being taken up with the Fuzzy Warbles dealio. I'll let you know how they sound. (as if they could be bad) Joy, wesLONG Optimism's Flames: http://members.tripod.com/~The_Last_Balloon/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 13:50:23 -0500
From: chris vreeland <vreecave@realtime.com>
Subject: Re: We're All Light
Message-ID: <39EC9F46.7892B43@realtime.com>
What is the light that is shining all around you...
Is it chemically derived?
- The Flaming Lips, from The Soft
Bulletin
Too many attributions over the last few days to go back and quote
everybody, so apologies in advance.
2500 deities? I suppose that to be a bit of an understatement. I figure
if there's 6 billion of us, there are necessarily 6 billion different
perceptions of God.
Einstein has been mentioned here lately, as a preeminent thinker.
When put to task, he remarked (as quoted from Before the Deluge) "I
believe in Spinosa's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that
exists, not in a god who concerns himself with the fate and actions of
men."
John Lennon offered his opinion in a song I quote from repeatedly
(sorry); "God is a concept by which we measure our pain." He felt it an
important enough statement to say it again. Quote: "I'll say it again."
Also, it seems, god is a concept by which we measure our fear.
Religion, as organized by those who do such things, is usually a two
part system, which to me appears most useful to its propounders for
social control. Part one is a list of rules to live by, and part two are
the rewards and consequences. The fear of the unknown (death), being
leveraged to keep us in line. Christianity isn't too bad, if you go and
get one of those red-letter bibles, you know, the ones with the words of
Jesus in red ink, and you read JUST the red parts. The stuff added by
the other writers confuses the issue.
Reminds me of my favorite quote by my Granny Vreeland, who at 86 has
had a number of years to ponder such things; "I can accept some things
about Christianity. It's when they get to that hooey about the Hereafter
that they lose me." (She comes from a long line of what she refers to as
"perfectly good" atheists.)
What's the real point? Basically, we all fear death. (Except
Jean-Claude Van Damme and Steven Seagall) Why is this? I think it's
endochrinal. We've been programmed (Programmed? By Who? Don't ask me, I
haven't a clue.) to fear danger- it helps with the survival of the
species. If your adrenal gland is working, death will really scare the
living piss out of you. I'm an authority on near-death experiences, as
a result of general clumsiness, or mis-placed bravado, and let me tell
you, when I nearly fell off Angel's Landing, or when I nearly got killed
by that Biker who didn't think I was Joking, I was really scared.
Death is the greatest of the great unknown. Gregory Corso wrote most
eloquently on the subject in
Notes After Blacking Out.
Lady of the legless world I have
refused to go beyond self-disappearance
I'm in the thin man's bed knowing my legs
kept to me by a cold fresh air
Useless and not useless this meaning
All is answerable I need not know the answer
Poetry is seeking the answer
Joy is in knowing there is an answer
Death is knowing the answer
(That faint glow in the belly of enlightenment
is the dead spouting their answers)
Queen of cripples the young no longer
seem necessary
The old are secretive about their Know
They are constant additions to this big
unauthorized lie
Yet Truth's author itself is nothingness
And though I make it vital that nothingness
itself will collapse
There is nothing.
Nothing ever was
Nothing is a house never bought
Nothing comes after this wildbright joke
Nothing sits on nothing in a nothing of many nothings
a nothing king
I'll leave you to mull that over, as I have been doing for the past
twenty three years.
CV
P.S. Do we get to take our cars?
------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 13:44:10 -0500 From: "Toby Thomas" <Moonsilver@prodigy.net> Subject: STARFLOWER Message-ID: <005e01c0386a$43611aa0$a68cfe3f@silvermoon> Organization: Prodigy Internet Well, I was hoping that someone else might do the deed for me but since summer has finally blown away and the time to shed is plainly here I suppose some of you might want to know that R. Stevie Moore's DATES (with dave gregory) is included in the latest Medicine Park CD.... STARFLOWER. The CD purports to celebrate the spirit of Brian Wilson & the Beach Avenue Boys. Also includes tunes from chalkhillers Mitch Friedman, Jim Smart & Eric Hesson. For those of you with an utopian ilk, Moogy Klingman chimes in with a tune... he had plenty of time to work on this project since his production gig with Robert Downey Jr run into a few snags... anyway, details found at the below hyperspace! www.silvermoonmusic.com MUSIC THAT SHINES!
------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 15:29:54 -0400 From: Mike Gervasi <MGervasi@genuity.com> Subject: The Grand Sabbatical Message-ID: <1193AD139221D21182CF00805FE6AEE7021505CD@camexc1.bbn.com> Fellow Chalkhillians, Greetings. I am taking the great trip across the atlantic to visit Merry old England. One stop is planned to be Swindon and I would like your help in what locations I should see there in my XTC history trip. I have Colin's map of Swindon, but any other suggestions? The mural perhaps? Thank you in advance.
------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 15:53:52 EDT From: Jxnsmom@aol.com Subject: Knuckle down (at least on-list) Message-ID: <8f.1e5f256.271e0850@aol.com> Dear all: Since we could duke out this religious issue debate to kingdom come (if you believe in that sort of thing :o) ); and since I feel responsible because this round, at least, seems to have started when I tried to offer some comfort to Worrier Queen by presenting a different take on things than Brian presented; and since this debate is growing expontentially and is obviously (and with good reason) annoying to the people who are here to talk about XTC, my replies to any further posts on this subject directed to me will be addressed to the appropriate individuals off-list. We've all had plenty of chances to prove to the rest of the list how darn clever we are, so let's move on and give them a break. I'm sorry I didn't stand by my original statement that this sort of debate should be kept off-list. Amy
------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 16:39:39 -0400 From: "Daniel Phipps" <phipps@schoollink.net> Subject: question of a religious nature... Message-ID: <001401c0387a$5fa6b3e0$978c04d8@pavilion> what does all this fuckin' religion crap have to do with xtc anyway?????????????? just wondering... /dan
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 16:35:11 EDT
From: Hbsherwood@aol.com
Subject: Matthew 5:1-3
Message-ID: <d0.c719291.271e11ff@aol.com>
5:1 And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and
when he was set, his disciples came unto him:
5:2 And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,
>From: "Brian" <mattone@bhip.infi.net>
>Subject: Dear Dog
>I reserve the right to tell people they're off their nut if I so think
>that's the case.
5:3 Shut the fuck up, Brian.
Harrison "Blessed are the peacemakers" Sherwood
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 16:04:08 -0500
From: chris vreeland <vreecave@realtime.com>
Subject: Oops, oops, oops...
Message-ID: <39ECBE8F.797AFA7C@realtime.com>
Forgot to add the xtc content to my last post...
Concerning the quote from Einstein, "I believe....not in a god who
concerns himself with the fate and actions of men."
Apparently, Einstein didn't believe in the same god that Andy Partridge
doesn't believe in.
I do see in some of Andy's lyrics his awareness of the "harmony of all
that exists" is such songs as Rook, Yacht Dance, All of a Sudden
("life's like a firework- you're only lit once [by whom?] and you must
stand and radiate correctly.") The Wheel and the Maypole ("Planets fall
apart, just to feed the stars and stuff their larder.") Other examples
abound, I am sure. I don't see where Andy has ever given the name "God"
to his idea of universal harmony, as he sees no need to personify it.
There, Harrison. You happy?
Chris "Oh, Lord, I'm so huge" Vreeland
------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 15:59:06 -0400 From: "Brian" <mattone@bhip.infi.net> Subject: Re: Gwine down the crossroads Message-ID: <000201c03881$5308dbc0$9d0affd1@Brian> Tschalkgerz! Thanks, Duncan! Couldn't have said it better myself. XTC content: To whomever of it was of you that made the remark about the 'boy in blue' _debacle_, as they called it, allow me insert one more explanation for my perception of what was being said in "No Thugs In Our House"... we hear about the 'boy in blue' at the end of the first verse (which seems geared toward describing the family members), then we go to the chorus... upon encountering the second verse, there is mention of 'the young policeman'- and the predicament the family has encountered - as if we are entering a new chapter in the story (which we are). Now given this analyses, we can probably see why I made the inference I did. Sure, A.P. is a gifted songwriter (and this is an understatement), but there is something to be said for telling a story with a little more structure to avoid such confusion, if it IS such. -Brian Matthews http://www.stonetrek.com Insistence ain't existence.
------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 09:34:41 EST From: "Iain Murray" <halfmanhalflager@hotmail.com> Subject: World's Best Band........my butt Message-ID: <F123l1q4gtopWd7KKQp00006f8e@hotmail.com> I found this article in a Sydney newspaper this morning (I hope this doesn't start a whole new thing on the validity of lists - I just thought it was kind of interesting): Bands Battle For Top Prize LONDON: Chart-topping rock act Radiohead will battle it out with Blur and Travis for the Best Act In The World title as the short list for the Q Awards was unveiled yesterday. Radiohead will also face Stereophonics and Manic Street Preachers for the prize. I'm not familiar with Stereophonics, but I'm assuming they're British, just like every other group listed as contenders for this highly spurious title. This reminds me of that John Cleese quote about Americans who don't invite teams from other countries to compete in their "World Series" - and no mention of XTC? Could have knocked me down with a feather.... Iain "I stand by all the misstatements that I've made." - Dan Quayle
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 19:24:42 EDT
From: OMBEAN1@aol.com
Subject: religious crap
Message-ID: <59.194c766.271e39ba@aol.com>
For Gods sake, knock this shit off!!!!
Humans dont deserve to have a heaven. Humans suck!! We're are the ONLY
reason things are bad on this planet. If there was a heaven ( and there isnt
), all other creatures would go there, not people. The worst thing that
could of happened to us humans was developing our brains.
Besides ,if there was a God ,XTC would be on the radio, not Dave Matthews.
HA!
XTC content---- Gave AV1 a listen for a week . It really is a great album.
Colins voice on FT is just awesome. BUT........... I found myself skipping
KISK & Last Balloon. Im back to WS & I'm still loving every note.
Thats all, Roger
------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 00:00:48 EDT From: Stroo@aol.com Subject: Re: We're All...Nuts Message-ID: <63.c84b404.271e7a70@aol.com> In a message dated 10/17/00 Brian Matthews writes: >I don't believe in a god because it doesn't exist. >I reserve the right to tell people they're off their nut if I so think >that's the case. So that's the reason John Relph set up this wonderful forum for us. Brian, you're entitled to your own opinion, and I've been doing my best to mind my own business about this issue. We believers generally take one on the chin in these pages, and I can and have lived with that. But when you say something like that I have to stand up for myself. I hope this doesn't prolong this debate (really). Don't call us nuts. I'd rather flame about "Great Fire" instead. But I do wonder how many of you would be so bold if Andy had said that "Peter Pumpkinhead"--the one nailed to a chunk of wood that looked like you and an awful lot like me--was really about Jesus? I agree with Mr. Sherwood, let's move on. We do agree at least on something, so let's take it from there. Please. Bob "careful what you say ground" Strunak
------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 02:01:23 -0700 From: David van Wert <mcknife@earthlink.net> Subject: j-u-m-p-i-n-g Message-ID: <p04330108b612cf2215da@[216.249.81.105]> At 9:25 AM -0700 10/17/00, Brian Matthews wrote: >Ah. So these people are trained to recognize the difference between "true >metaphysical experiences" (an oxymoron if I've ever heard one) and the >chemical cocktail that one or more of their glands dumps into their >bloodstream when experiencing certain emotional states? No, Brian, I said nothing even remotely like that. The point was simply that you obviously don't know the meaning of the word atheist. When the first person (of several) pointed this out to you, you should have turned to the dictionary. But you didn't. You just insisted you were right. How very Fundamentalist of you. But as far as reducing the experience of love to a chemical imbalance goes, many studies have proven that different religious rituals the world over have similar chemical effects on believers. If that's how you define "love" Brian, then yes, religious feelings are just as chemically valid as your love feelings. > >For you to dismiss their feeling is just as presumptuous as for me to >>dismiss as absurd this so-called "love" you claim to have felt in > >your life. But I won't do that. < > >Too late. Your wording of this sentence already did what you said you >weren't going to. Wow, really pegged me there, Brian! Golly, but you're a sharp one! Sarcasm aside (and since you obviously didn't get it last post, I guess I'll quit using it), let me explain as plainly as I can: I was doing to you what you did to people who have feelings you can't understand, i.e. imply they are imbeciles and their feelings have no merit. It's called "irony." Look that up while you're looking up "atheist." >I reserve the right to tell people they're off their nut if I so think >that's the case. Just as I reserve the right to needle people who pompously claim to know the "one true path," whether that path is fundamentalist Christianity or militant atheism. You and I actually have similar views on religion, Brian. But I find evangelizing atheists just as annoying as evangelizing Christians, and in your case much more so. At 9:25 AM -0700 10/17/00, Dunks (who I suppose won't be going to see "The Full Monty" when the touring company passes through his local opera house) wrote: >A simple >process of elimination can easily establish that no-one else in the room can >hear those voice from the telly that are telling you to kill your mom with a >hammer, so chances are it's all in the canyons of your miiiiiind. The glaring flaw in your metaphorical argument, Dunks, is that billions more people on this planet hear (or at least claim to hear) those voices than those that say they hear nothing. So following your little metaphor, Dunks, it's you and I who need to be institutionalized. We who hear nothing are the meager minority so it must be in the canyons of our miiiinds. >It's biological, and it's the unfortunate combination of two >nasty human behavioural tendencies. One is the social instinct which >predisposes us to comformity and and submission to dominant individuals. The >other is a widespread, social practice/process [Jesuits mastered this >centuries ago] which arrests congitive development, leaving large numbers of >humans stranded in a marginally "pre-adult" -- and highly suggestible >developmental state. And from the "pre-adult" state we move into the "angry teen" state where we have developed our own ideas but are so insecure in them that we must lash out and denounce as "infantile" any who may think differently. >However "Love" in the >amorous/romantic sense, is demonstrably directed at real objects -- friends, >family members, pop stars, cars, goats -- whereas the devotional feeling >directed at a putative deity is a socially-conditioned fixation on a purely >abstract idea which has no >provable basis in phsyical reality. True. I just don't think it's really that important a difference. Then again, I also feel strongly about justice, which isn't an actual object, but an abstract construct with different meanings in different ages, and to different people in the same age. In your universe, there seems to be no place for such abstractions. If this really is the case, I pity you. But I hope that's not the case. >both Darwin and Einstein repeatedly acknowledged >>their beliefs in a higher power > >I'm being picky, David, but I think it's been pretty well established that >Darwin (privately) abandoned his religious beliefs once the full >implications of his theory became clear to him. This is also true. I meant to type the name of Newton, who was a lifelong Christian, as opposed to Darwin who died agnostic (though privately agnostic, as you say, to spare the feelings of his devout Anglican wife). My apologies for the error. Proofread, proofread, proofread! Of course, I was simply pointing out that two of your three examples for the triumph of science over religion saw no inherent contradiction between science and religion. And that ratio still stands, regardless of my hasty mistake. You then turned around and denounced as gullible the very Albert Einstein you'd previously held up as a paragon of reason. Yes, yes, you later pointed out, his _work_ was a paragon of reason, though the man himself was a fool. Please refer to the "angry teen" theory of human development mentioned above. > >I do believe in love. > >See, that's what I'm talking about. How exactly do you "believe" in an >emotional state? What the hell does that statement even mean anyway? I (meaning "me") believe in (meaning "accept the existence of") love (meaning "whatever the hell love is"). I've met many people who believe that "love" is the same sort of meaningless, socially-conditioned fixation that you so intensely deplore and don't believe is real. I disagree with those people. Is that clear? I really thought I'd spelled it out last time... Hmm. How strange that Brian, Dunks and I have such similar beliefs, and yet they both somehow compel me to defend someone else's right to believe something that I myself don't believe. I guess I'm playing Devil's advocate, which is no different than playing God's advocate in this particular debate. Not a place I expected to be. Then again, every time I read some passionate condemnation of Britney Spears on this list, I feel the urge to say 'Why do you care what someone else listens to unless you're somehow deeply insecure over the lack of popularity of your own taste in music?" I mean, sure, I used to condemn that sort of stuff too, but that was when I was an angry little 16 year old. As a marginally (a thin margin perhaps, I'll admit) more mature person now, I find the contemptuous derision of other people's feelings, religious or otherwise, to be inexcusably rude and offensive. The fact I am then driven to expose the obvious flaws in the deriders arguments in a rude manner myself only proves that I do not possess the Buddha nature. My own inner angry teen resurfaces in a slightly modified form. I don't attack your beliefs. I only attack the way you choose to express them. Bye bye now. If you guys have anything further to discuss on this subject, write me directly. Or if you do post a response to the list (I won't begrudge you a shot at having the public "last word"), cc me as well as I'll be unsubscribing. When I get (and then feel obliged to give) significantly more irritation than joy from a list devoted to my favorite band, it's clearly time to go. David van Wert http://www.davidvanwert.com/ "Is it hot in here or is it just me?" Richard Nixon, 1996
------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 13:24:17 -0400 From: "Todd Bernhardt" <todd.bernhardt@enterworks.com> Subject: ...Or have we? Message-ID: <39EDDCC1.2D65069C@enterworks.com> Organization: Enterworks, Inc. Hi: From America's Finest News Source (http://www.theonion.com): ________________________ God Wondering Whatever Happened To That Planet Where He Made All Those Monkeys HEAVEN -- Reminiscing Monday, God wondered aloud what happened to "that one planet I made, like, four and a half billion years ago, the one with all the monkeys." "Man, I haven't thought about that planet in forever," God said. "I have no idea why it suddenly popped into My head. I remember it was really crude, one of My weaker early efforts, back when I was experimenting with the oxygen atmospheres and those ridiculous carbon-based lifeforms. And I was on that whole upper-primate kick. Huh." God said He couldn't remember the planet's name but was pretty sure it was "something like Ursh or Orth or maybe Ert." ________________________ Well, you have to admit That we've come a long way Since swinging about in the trees... -Todd
------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 18:16:30 GMT From: "Ralph Simpson DeMarco" <sawpit@hotmail.com> Subject: Eyes Glazed Over Message-ID: <LAW-F200OsQP0gBsBtk00005a76@hotmail.com> Dear Affiliated Members: Yes, here we go again. I have friend who is a strong "believer" and when he listens to Skylarking he skips over Dear God. The first time he heard it, he said it made him angry, but then he (being intelligent) understood why some people are fed up with religion. He seemed to think that Dear God was really about not believing in religion, not about the abstract idea of God. Since Andy sings so poetically about Love and his strong faith in Love, it seems to make one feel that given different notions of, say, God is Love, you could say Andy is a believer and doesn't even know it. Now, believing in the God principle (which, by the way, Albert Einstein admitted he had come to believe because of his study of the universe, not in spite of it) does not mean you believe in sin or going to heaven. God and religion are two separate things. That being said, philosophy does not affirm anything to me other than how much we all don't know. After all the years of reading about religion and philosophy, novels etc, the only valuable insight I have ever learned from is the autobiographical "Memories, Dreams and Reflections" by Carl G. Jung. This is about the only thing we have to draw from- personal experience with the workings of our minds. Nothing else really matters other than to put into form, the abstract notions we feel from our inner world. Ralph (go Nader!) DeMarco
------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 16:53:52 EDT From: Jxnsmom@aol.com Subject: Re: The Man Who...Questions Message-ID: <71.7947b04.271f67e0@aol.com> << on the tribute album A Testimonial Dinner: I swear I hear Rueben Blades sing aloud at 4:28 into the song The Man Who Sailed Around His Soul ---"And I hate that XTC!" Does he or doesn't he? >> Oh THANKS, Jason!! I never noticed that, just listened to it, and now I'll always hear that, too! It sounds like he's singing that lyric line in Spanish possibly, so it probably just sounds like "And I hate that XTC" but means something entirely different. But then again, beginning the line with Spanish lyrics could just be a ruse to throw us off so he can sneak in his real message... <<The thought hit me that the opening of I'm The Man Who Murdered Love is the sound of Love being shot three times and screaming in agony as he dies.>> I think the lyrics say that "a bullet" took care of Love, but that's a cool idea. I'll never hear this song the same way again, either! :o) Amy
------------------------------ End of Chalkhills Digest #6-287 *******************************
Go back to Volume 6.
19 October 2000 / Feedback