--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> 
> > wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > I think Satan would start out as a cool guy to party with,
> > > but then he'd just start being a jerk, like drinking all
> > > your beer, borrowing cash and not returning it, starting
> > > little fires in your house, stealing stuff from you, shit
> > > like that...so I'll save myself the trouble and not party
> > > with him.
> > 
> > Or perhaps he remains the perfect host, keeping the
> > party so entertaining that it never occurs to you
> > to wonder whether there might be a *better* party
> > going on upstairs.
> > 
> > Reminds me of a standout episode of the otherwise
> > late and unlamented TV drama "Touched by an Angel,"
> > in which Mandy Patinkin plays a Satan figure who
> > tempts the lead angel character with life as a 
> > human, complete with adoring husband and kiddies, 
> > which she can have if she renounces her faith in 
> > God and her angel status.
> > 
> > (It's really well done; Patinkin underplays
> > brilliantly.  There's a YouTube clip from the
> > episode.  If anybody's interested, I'll get the URL.)
> 
> Not trying to convince you of anything, but
> just checking... You DO realize, do you not,
> that what you're saying is the standard "party
> line" spouted by religions for centuries about
> Satan (or the "mud" of the world, or "succumbing"
> to normal, everyday desires, or whatever) having 
> some nefarious intent to *divert* you from the 
> "path of righteousness."

Uh, yes, Barry.  Unlike you, I can enjoy a good
presentation of a particular mythology without
being afraid I'm going to be "tainted" by it.

What I'm touting here is such a presentation,
particularly Patinkin's performance, but also
the script and other production values.  I
appreciate it sort of like I'd appreciate a
modern version of a Shakespearean conflict,
for the inherent human drama.

But one of the characteristics of mythology--
as of Shakespeare--is that it usually
encapsulates some element of a more abstract
quality of human nature and experience, and if
one has a flexible mind and imagination, one
can translate it into one's own personal
mythology and appreciate it on that level.

In this case, the conflict in the human being
between "positive" and "negative" impulses is
externalized and personified as the opposing
figures of God and Satan, between whom the
human being must choose.

In your case, it would be parallel to choosing
between "low" and "high" states of attention.

> Think Unity. What is it that would *have* such
> a nefarious intent that is NOT the infinite?
> What could it possibly be trying to "distract"
> or "divert" another aspect of that same infinite
> (you) *from*?

What's the motivation for choosing "high" states
of attention, in that case?

> The metaphor you're repeating above is a form
> of "Keep 'em on the path *we* consider the "best"
> by instilling FEAR in them. Tell them about all
> the bad things that could happen if they deviate
> from what we tell 'em to do enough times, and 
> maybe they'll do what we tell 'em to do."

You mean, you've seen the episode of "Touched by
an Angel" you're critiquing here?

> Cool, I guess...if what you like is being told
> what to do. Some of us prefer to pick our own
> paths through life...

Ah, apparently you haven't seen it.

Because that's exactly the point of the episode:
the angel in this presentation has to choose which
path to follow.

Satan catches her when she's vulnerable; she's just
witnessed a terrorist attack in which a building
has been bombed and a large number of people killed,
including children.  She's here on earth in human
form to do God's will by *helping* people, and here
God has allowed this terrible thing to happen to
them, so she quite naturally wonders whether God
has been playing her for a fool and deceiving her
about His innate goodness.

She has to decide whether she'll continue to devote
herself to selfless service to humankind, or chuck
it and pick what Satan offers her, the fulfillment
of her own desires for worldly happiness.  There's
nothing about bad things happening to her if she
makes the latter choice, no hellfire and damnation;
it's just that she'll lose the connection with God
that was motivating her to the selfless service.

In the end, of course, she chooses the "higher"
state of attention--the one that encompasses both
good and evil.

As TV dramas go, it's pretty sophisticated,
archetypal rather than dogmatic, exactly so that
the person watching can see their own situation
reflected in it regardless of specific belief
system, at least if they're secure enough in their
own beliefs that they aren't compelled to reduce
the universal metaphor to a literal, dogmatic
challenge to those beliefs.


Reply via email to