Contents | Previous | Next
Date: 07 Nov 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Subject: Re: Arguments
Message-ID: <20001107001555.24627.00000116@ng-fn1.aol.com>
References: <8u7krp$b0r$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.religion.orisha
X-Admin: news@aol.com
Subject: Re: Arguments
>From: Mamaissii mamaissii@my-deja.com
>Date: 11/6/00 8:11 PM EST
>Message-id: <8u7krp$b0r$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
>
>Greetings "Antinous" & Group:
>
>I have no major issues with the points you've raise except for the
>following:
>
>
><< Eoghan has as much right to state his views as Grisso. >>
>
>
>Though I tend to respect and appreciate the sincerity and integrity of
>Grisso's post, and I believe that I have read them carefully. Perhaps I
>have overlooked this, but I found no indication in his post of denying
>anyone the right to post their rebuttal to his arguments. In fact, he
>has consistently challenged his opponent to dispute with corroborating
>facts any of the issues that he has raised.
Quite right. And thanks for the help, Mamaissii. I was going to make the same
point in response to Antinous's post, and I'm glad to see it's already been
made. As to the rest of his (I detect a male energy, I may be wrong)
observations, I don't agree with them all, but on the whole it is refreshing to
have a new and different voice in the mix for a change.
>Additionally, I take issue with anytime an AA discussing an
>issue "affectively" immediately accused of being "hostile, angry,
>repressive, volatile" , etc.,. Though I hardly am accusing you of
>this, the tension and assumption is clearly present in this NG, and is
>an all too common complaint and cowardly cop-out-- Perhaps the
>underlying issue is an offesive reaction to the subtle racism, and smug
>arrogance of those who would rather take the latter approach to an
>issue than concede credit where it is due.
>
>I appreciate Grisso's spirit and know that it is genuine. Be not for
>him, there would be no reason to visit. I say, allow he and his
>opponent to debate the issue to, if not an amenable conclusion, at
>least an equitable truce, *on their own mutually agreed terms*.
That's an interesting suggestion. For my part, I am quite open to intelligent
debate based on fact, and argument from fact. I am even ready to put aside
things I claim to *know*, based on what I've been blessed spiritually to *see*
for myself, just so as to conform to the limitations of the Academy. I will
not, however, bow to ex cathedra pronouncements, from someone assuming the role
of final authority or final arbiter. He is not. Neither priestly nor academic
title is sufficient to confer that distinction. (I have found that those that
know the most also are the most humble about it, like Wande Abimbola for
exampe.) I also well know the deficiencies of what sometimes passes for debate
within the Academy. Big words that have no meaning. Long lists of alleged facts
that take one no further to a comprehension of truth, but which are asserted as
though they do. Ultimately hollow. Anansi tricks. Dazzling, clever, sometimes
successful in "getting over", but not the real deal. Reminds me of the saying
about the guy that knows the price of everything, but the value of nothing. So
we have an endless recitation of alleged facts. Names are thrown out, dropped.
But one gets the sense that there is no real feeling for the reality, the
gestalt, that these names signify. Thus distinctions are sought to be made that
are not real in the underneath reality, although, yes, there is some
distinction on the surface. Distinctions that are made by the academicians
because they need handles on which to hang their concepts. But which are not
recognized by the people written about. For example, it is not recognized how
completely miscible, forms of ATR really are with each other. Akan priests that
carry both abosom AND orisha. Vodou priests who carry both loa AND orisha.
Etc., etc. I found it significant that the Clover Leaf store here in DC
recently written about as a "hoodoo" store, doesn't call itself that. I've been
there a few times, and unless I missed it, that wasn't there. If you're
familiar with spirit work, from whatever tradition you come, there are supplies
in there that you would recognize. Same with a botanica. The one is not per se
"hoodoo", and the other is not per se "santeria". But academicians get fixated
on these differences without a real underlying distinction... certainly not to
the people that move easily between and through the non-existent walls
separating them.
I might elaborate further at some point, but it's almost midnight and I must
leave it at that.
>
>Mamaissii Vivian
>http://www.mamiwata.com
>
Peace,
Grisso
--------------F558C645829ED65D5E6114D1--
Contents | Previous | Next
Tips for your pocket: