Muggle Matters Home
About our site
Make Site Suggestions
Narrative defined (Merlin)
Silver & Gold (Merlin)
Elendil's Sword (Pauli)
"X" Marks/Chiasm (Merlin)
Literary Approaches (Merlin)
We hope you enjoy reading our Harry Potter discussion weblog. Please feel free to leave a comment and return often for more discussion.
Muggling Along
Fact Become Myth: C.S. Lewis and Israelite History
Modern vs Post-Modern: An Explanation of Harry Potter
Giants and Gin: C.S. Lewis' Narnia and Paganism
A Mystery
Paul Simon's Heart
A Wrinkled Face and a Brand New Heart
JKR Reading our site
Foretold By The Prophets
Tragic Endings
Hogwarts, Hogwarts,
Hoggy Warty Hogwarts,
Teach us something please,
Whether we be old and bald,
Or young with scabby knees,
Our heads could do with filling,
With some interesting stuff,
For now they're bare
And full of air,
Dead flies and bits of fluff.
So teach us stuff worth knowing,
Bring back what we forgot,
Just do your best
We'll do the rest,
And learn until our brains all rot!
1: The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
2: Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.
3: There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.
4: Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,
5: Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.
6: His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.
7: The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
8: The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.
9: The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.
10: More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb.
11: Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward.
12: Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults.
13: Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression.
14: Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer.
| Travis is off and running in 2006 with this great post based on character comparisons between Harry Potter and the Narnia books. Sparked by Rowling's statement about her favorite Narnia character, Eustace, he pulls out some great insights and clues about Draco, Narcissa, Snape et al. |
Comments on "Good blog entry by Travis on characters "turning good""
-
Anonymous said ... (January 04, 2006 3:24 AM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (January 04, 2006 3:15 PM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (January 04, 2006 3:18 PM)
:
-
Anonymous said ... (January 04, 2006 5:12 PM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (January 04, 2006 10:34 PM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (January 04, 2006 10:36 PM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (January 04, 2006 10:37 PM)
:
-
Pauli said ... (January 04, 2006 10:53 PM)
:
-
Anonymous said ... (January 05, 2006 2:09 AM)
:
-
Anonymous said ... (January 05, 2006 5:45 AM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (January 05, 2006 6:00 AM)
:
-
Anonymous said ... (January 05, 2006 6:40 AM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (January 05, 2006 12:25 PM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (January 05, 2006 12:26 PM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (January 05, 2006 1:30 PM)
:
-
Anonymous said ... (January 08, 2006 2:15 AM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (January 08, 2006 10:10 AM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (January 08, 2006 1:07 PM)
:
-
Pauli said ... (January 08, 2006 1:47 PM)
:
-
Anonymous said ... (January 09, 2006 6:36 AM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (January 09, 2006 2:19 PM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (January 09, 2006 2:36 PM)
:
-
Anonymous said ... (January 09, 2006 4:08 PM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (January 09, 2006 5:27 PM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (January 09, 2006 6:46 PM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (January 09, 2006 7:04 PM)
:
-
Anonymous said ... (January 09, 2006 7:16 PM)
:
-
Anonymous said ... (January 09, 2006 7:21 PM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (January 09, 2006 7:47 PM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (January 09, 2006 8:11 PM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (January 09, 2006 8:12 PM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (January 09, 2006 8:15 PM)
:
-
Anonymous said ... (January 09, 2006 9:31 PM)
:
-
Pauli said ... (January 09, 2006 11:22 PM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (January 10, 2006 1:31 AM)
:
-
Anonymous said ... (January 10, 2006 1:50 AM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (January 10, 2006 9:30 AM)
:
-
jkr2 said ... (January 10, 2006 6:06 PM)
:
-
jkr2 said ... (January 10, 2006 7:00 PM)
:
post a commentooh yes. i read that last night. great piece.
it will be interesting to see what comes of that particular link (draco - dragon - eustace)
cheers,
jkr (in australia)
On Rowling and "Existentialist literature." Over the weekend my friend Carl (who I stayed with in Queens) and I watched the Scorcese film on Dylan, "No Direction Home." A little bit too much of Scorcese's "artistic comment for my blood" (sentimentalism in disguise, "Dylan has always been a protest singer, including battling the ironclad concept of folk music and protest singers") but Dylan made a good comment in one of the interview sections with him - that an artist never really "arrives" but is always in a state of "becoming." I think this is what exiestentialism is in Rowling - you're neither a complete saint nor a complete sinner till you're dead (precisely because you are human, and neither angel nor devil ... although there are some who attained sainthood in the hour of, and really finally through, their unique heroic death and have been canonized as saints). DD realized this and this is what gave him hope for young Snape turning from being a death eater and young Draco. Most of the "good" wizards would be like "omg, you were a death eater WHILE at Hogwarts?!?!?!?" (which was indeed one of Draco's taunts to DD atop the tower - that there were death eaters in the building, like DD should be completely taken aback) but DD's take is more like, "of course you were ... but where do we go from there?"
btw, that is an official "point" of theology - that angels of both stripes, faithful and fallen, make/made one instantaneous decision, unlike us humans who live out a choice throughour our lives.
A good analogy of such "spiritual beings" would be the dementors ... can you see a dementor "turning good?" Or in Lewis it would be the Eldil.
one thing that frustrates me as i read the 'snape debates' is that the ones for a 'good snape' are constantly trying to assign a positive motive to some of his nastiness. (eg. tormenting harry in class... "no, he wasn't picking on him, he was trying to stop the other children thinking higher of him than he could live up to" and the like.) why not enjoy the complexity of the character, with the constant struggle between his 'lower nature' and his higher motives?
a similar thing happens with harry. he's the good guy no doubt, but he is struggling with his dislikes and prejudices etc.
the 'becoming' IS the point. how the moments unfold. how one choice informs the next.
i agree that it's one thing jkr (the 'real one') handles so deftly in these books.
is 'the becoming' like the idea of 'sanctification' as opposed to 'salvation'. the salvation is A decision. the sanctification is a process..... or do i not have a handle on that?
cheers,
jkr (in australia)
Amen on the "Snape Debates" ... I have heard some say taht "even in the last moment of running away Snape was trying to be a good teacher to Harry (not letting him speak unforgivables and emphasizing non-verbal spells) ... MAYBE, but for the same reason Snape was always faithful to his vocation as a teacher even to Harry ALBEIT grudgingly at times. You can't deny some spite mixed in there ... make no mistake ture purity of intention is one of the highest things to pursue in this life but a VERY ahrd thing to pull off - we often assume that because we are concerned about it, this is the same as attaining it.
When Snape nails Harry with that invisible whip spell, there aint no way that aint spite. No two ways about it: Snape has a problem with Harry - and this will be a core tenet of the reconciliation in book 7, I think, from both sides.
And on the "being concerned" versus "attaining" I would say you pretty much hit the nail on the head with your understanding of "sanctification" and "salvation." The only thing I would add is that I think what you are calling "salvation" is really "conversion." Conversion is a unique choice (the word in Greek is "metanoia" which means " a change of mind, and it is also the word used for "repentance") but sanctification is the living out and continued "remaking" of that choice throughout the rest of your life. "Salvation" proper is really the whole thing, IE taken as a whole. In other words, Salvation is never really complete until heaven because we are not completely who we are until we die
(here again is that post-modern concept of which I am enamored, "time "as the fourth dimension through which our personal identity is extended just as our physical identity is extended through the 3 dimensional material world)
um ... in my comment just above, I have NO IDEA what the word "ture" was a typo of
wait, I think it was "true" ... must be getting late LOL
No - I think you nailed it dead on. It's a really good point. Maybe Snape is bad; I want to see Snape be good in the end - I want to see that he had turned and was continuing to turn. But wither way, his "nastiness" is authentically him, not some ploy or whatever. If he turns "nice" at the end it would ruin that part of the story. It would be like General Patton deciding that he was going to stop swearing at the end of that movie with George C. Scott; come on! he's a "good guy" even with the language.
Admittedly, though, there is a lot of speculation about Snape within the books based on his double-agent role. Lupin, Dumbledore, McGonagall, etc. are always making excuses for his actions, explaining his nastiness away. And Fred, George, Hermione, Harry, Sirius, Ron, etc. are always questioning his motives and loyalty. True, maybe they should all be more focused on the transformation under which he is acting…. Then WHAM! He kills Dumbledore! And the natural thing is to say “Darn it, he was bad all along!”
The "Eustace conversion" is much more stark, it's not like Lewis spent a lot of ink on him. But I think Lewis's stories are much more simplistic because they are extremely allegorical.
that's interesting - the distinction between 'conversion' and 'salvation'. mmmmmm i come from a pentecostal type background and had the 'conversion experience' at 16, so i am sure this was dealt with in a very simplistic way theologically.
so are you saying that 'salvation' is actually what happens as you die?
the snape thing is driving me a bit nuts atm. i can't seem to find anything to read which isn't caught up in this 'either he's good (and therefor nice underneat it all) or he's bad (and since he's such a nasty *.*.*. he obviously has no redeeming qualities or choices at all)' argument. *yawn*.
re eustace. yes it's quite straightforward and doesn't have too many layers, but i still find that book to be just delightful and the simplicity lends a kind of purity to it that is like a balm. i still remember the first time i read about them voyaging further and further towards the edge of the world and the light getting stronger and the water sweet. i could hardly breath at one point with a desire to have been on the journey!
thanks for the theology lesson.
i am looking for a deeper understanding of these matters. when my babies are bigger and not so time consuming (we homeschool too) i would love to do some formal study through somewhere with a longer heritage and tradition than the churches i have known. (if they'd have me lol. i'm a high school drop out too!)
mmm getting a bit effusive i'll go now.
cheers,
jkr (in australia)
oh btw, for clarity in the future (if you can put up with me being here so often!) my family are NOT the pentecostal background. that is what happened at 16 onwards.
cheers,
jkr(in australia)
I would say that "salvation" is what God does for you as a person in saving you ... meaning you as a whole person, including time as a dimension through which your identity, or "who you are," is extended. You consciousness can only grasp one "time-slice" at a time, your memory can grasp past time-slices of you but in a different way, in a way unavoidably filtered through interpretation (I don't believe "objective news" is possible - every recounting of any event is at least part interpretation - you could never get a completely "real time" account, vs "narratological time").
The, let us say, "Full" you that will be in heaven is you extended through your earthly life, your whole identity as extended through time (although the whole is more than the sum of its parts ... cf below, which I actually wrote first LOL)
Lewis has the best image of it in The Great Divorce when he asks George Macdonald, "so you can decide to leave Hell for good - you can change your mind," and Macdonald answers that if you choose to remain in Heaven you will realize that your whole life has really been one continuous choice for Heaven and the "grey town" was only purgatory as the "washroom" of Heaven. If you decide to go back to the grey town, you will realize that it is hell because your whole life was one continuous choice for hell.
Now, it must be kept in mind that there is a unique "you" that will be in heaven, which is really to say that what I am NOT saying is that the whole (you) is JUST the sum of the parts ("time-slices")- the "you" that will be in heaven IS the sum of the "time-slices" that compose your life, but also more than the some of those parts. I'm not explaining too well what I believe on this, but it is sort of a mystery.
NOTE: I am actually borrowing the term "time-slices" from a 20th century MATERIALIST philosopher, of all things, named JJ Smart (must give credit where credit is due ... had too many "scare talks" from profs about plaigarism in college LOL).
ok. i actually understood that!
it fits in with another vague picture i have in my head of time being something like a line that we are on, but god is surrounding so he sees the end at the same time as the beginning etc.
so the entirety of your experience is kind of happening simulataneously.
do you think that it is possible then to die prematurely and short circuit the ultimate choice?
ie die still in the process?
jkr
(in australia)
I don't think it possible to short-circuit the process, but it is possible to do it badly and be like the virgins who were unprepared - in other words that old addage of "live each day like it is your last." The thing to strive for is always to be in the frame of mind that you would want to be in when you are judged, ie when your "true identity" is revealed in who you are at that moment when you die (in reality I think that the "I" of self-reflexive consciousnes,s as we experience it, is a unique fore-shadow of the "eternal self" and that is why it is unique to spiritual beings like humans, the "eternal self" that we have been speaking of as the whole that is more than the sum of its parts).
This doesn't mean always being "serious" - God created us physical beings and meant us to enjoy that. So there should be no problem if I'm focussed on beating the pants off somebody in football or on the foozball table (provided I'm not shirking serious responsibilities by doing it or something like that, or doing it spitefully etc)
When we know death is coming (such as in old age or battle), it is naturally an unknown (ie in the realm of "knowledge" versus the realm of "faith") and naturally causes us some apprehension, so if the hour of death finds us like William Wallace praying "I'm so scared; please help me to die well," expressing that fear to God is the right thing to do because it's the honest thing to do in that situation.
I think the best example is the death of Sirius Black and Nearly Headless Nick's comments on it when Harry asks Nnick if Black will come back as a ghost. The look Rowling paints on Black's face is great ... a little surprised to be sure, but it is obvious he has died a "happy death."
In short, like you said, we can't see our own "time-extended identity" the way God can from eternity ... all we really need to do is live each moment to our best ability, seeking what is truly the "fullest" of being human in it (and, at least for me, that is a monumental task in and of itself - in fact one I can say with certainty I am completely unable of doing - but that is where Grace comes in and that's a whole realm unto itself)
Actually that was a really cook question because it gave me a chance to work in that thought on Black's death, which I thought was great (I mean, I was sad to say goodbye to him, just like Harry - but thought it a sublime story Rowling told) - but I might not have worked it into a post otherwise
sorry, a really COOL question
To clarify on my last comment about "doing the dying thing badly"
... That is to say, it is possible to do the thing badly whether death comes at an unexpected time or an expected one (eg laying on your death bed doing nothing but complaining because you look back on your life and see it as meaningless and that sort of thing - although I think the Shindler line of "I could have done more" is more just one of those natural regrets that go with the bitter-sweet of being human, ... the trick is to ask forgiveness AND, most importantly, be willing to accept it - one of my fave lines from a song is from the song "stawfoot" by 16 Horsepower on their "Secret South" album: "Tell me why it is that you don't want what He's given? It ain't no sin, son, to be forgiven.")
Likewise, it is possible to do it (dying) better at either time.
and to really stray off the hp path, how would/does purgatory play into that whole idea?
is that seen as a way for someone to make up for not quite getting it right with the dying thing? or the living thing??
this is not asked in a combative or derisive way. i am really clueless but curious.
jkr2
JKR2, I'm actually really glad you asked that question ... the question of Purgatory was one that I misunderstood for a long time.
However, right this second I have to teach RCIA class (Rite if Christian Initiation for Adults)in 20 minutes, and since the time I started writing this comment, I had a length call from a friend.
But just to say, there's a reply coming.
Ok, I am back from teaching and actually tis quote fortuitous that I was not able to write this response before class because actually, in teaching the class, came upon a very good analogy for the Catholic understanding of Purgatory.
But before I give the analogy I will succinctly answer your question in the format you asked it (and probably suceed in confusing what I mean even more): Putgatory is about what was left undone in the "doing the living thing" rightly, but NOT about what was left undone in "doing the dying thing rightly" - Actually the two are really very intertwined, which makes an answer like the one I just gave confusing, and that's why I prefer to work with the analogy ... but one thing that is ver important to mention is that in Purgatory a person can do NOTHING. The most apt description of Purgatory is Eustace the dragon having his dragon skin removed by Aslan - God does all the work, we suffer all the pain.
The other thing is that if you're not going to Heaven you're not going to Purgatory because Purgatory is the wash room of Heaven (this is the confusion I had about Purgatory, I thought it was a "second chance" to get out of hell and into heaven and I always pointed to the passage in the NT "It is appointed unto man once to die and then the judgment")
The analogy I lighted on in this morning's class is that of physical health.
Let's say one is overweight and it's affecting their heart and all that because they have a horrible diet etc. Baptism and conversion are like that fundamental choice to do something about it, but then there is the daily living out of that decision, which involves a couple of things. First - don't eat junk; and this is like not sinning. Second - do eat healthy food on a good schedule etc (because starving your body is not healthy either); and this is like the Sacramental life in Catholic thinking and like prayer/worship/fellowship in all generally Christian groups. BUT, while these things are the foundation of maybe dropping the excess weight that is putting bad stess on your heart and lungs and muscles and joints etc, it's not like you make the choice and then *poof* the pounds are gone, the muscles are toned, the lungs are working great etc. It takes proper exercize, and that means some pain ... and that pain is what is involved in the purging of bad health. (really, basically, in effect, what we talking about before as "sanctification")
Now, this purging can happen in this life ... but remember, Rome was not built in a day. If one in such a condition tries to do 1000 push-ups and 1000 sit-ups on the first day, that person is going at least to the hospital, if not to the morgue. Likewise with the spiritual life, it will take a lifetime of getting in shape and staying in shape.
But, what Purgatory is, in reality, is when God finishes for us, after death, what we left undone in that realm of purging during life. We didn't commit mortal sins without repenting and asking forgiveness - but maybe we also didn't quite get done as much as we could have in the way of working off some of those residual effects (and it should be kept in mind that even the part of what we get done in this life can be done only through Grace).
That's what I meant when I said it is not about making up for not doing the dying thing right. If we did not really die to sin, but allowed it some fundamental hold that remained - there is no point in going to purgatory to have the residue cleaned, because we are not going to Heaven anyway. But the living and dying are intermingled in that in order to live rightly and healthy, it takes that "burn" of exercize - and a lot of times in the Spiritual life those kinds of practices are refered to as practicing "mortifiactations."
Anyway, I hope that at least explained somewhat the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory. Ask me if there's anything I should clarify - I know sometimes I might not be the clearest :)
It seems as if a number of characters in HP are being purged and purified for their past sins. That's what both Christianity and alchemical philosophy have in common. Looking at the Marauders, Snape, Hagrid, etc. we can see deep regret of prior actions. Maybe even the Malfoys - in book 6 Narcissa definitely has attrition, i.e. sorrow for one's sins based on fear of punishment. This is at least a step toward contrition - perfect sorrow for one's sins based on love of God and sorrow for having offended him. But even contrition doesn't preclude purgation either in Catholic theology nor does in seem to in the world of Harry Potter.
ok. let me ponder for a while on that. i do have some more questions, but your answer definately spoke to my question.
thanks
jkr2
Jo,
(I have decided that "Jo" will be my new nickname for you JKR2, partly because it is easier to type, partly because I am a rabid consiracy-theorist and still believe you to be the real JKR in disguise (LOL - mostly kidding :) ), and thirdly because I think you are really quite imaginative and an exellent person to dialogue with on these things (which is why I can only be mostly kidding on my conspiracy theory, of course maybe part of that is that you and I agreee so often and I like to humor myself that your are really she lending credibility to my theories :) ) - and this of course resembles JKR herslef and so I think her abreviated name/nickname is fitting for you)
Anyway Jo, I will be more than happy to do my best to try to answer any further questions you put to me on these matters. For the time being though I thought I would add one further clarification.
I am more progamatic about these things than I state on the surface sometimes. In other words I use the example of physical exercise because I think it most fitting as representing the "incarnational nature" (smalle "i") of literature. The Incarnation (capital "I") was all about god becoming fully human and bringing all of human nature up and making it really full of meaning, including very basic biological principles of human life.
This is where the soul comes in (and the import of a distinctly human soul in Christ, and the import of a conciliar decision I have noted on here a number of times, the teaching of Appolinarius being condemned at the Council in Constantinople in 381 AD, the teaching that Christ had not "human soul" but rather the place of that was simply assumed by the Logos). A "soul," as a distinct category from a "spirit," is by nature a thing tied to physicality (where as a spirit is by nature completely immaterial and moreover a non-physical substance, a substance of a completely different order). There are 3 kinds of souls in
Anyway, due to the Incarnation (big I) and the fact that God packed physicality (what I would call "flesh and blood" vs Des Carte's idea of "Res Extensia" or matter/phyicality defined simply by extension in 3 dimensions) full of meaning, and especially the physical part of the biological soul in humanity. and That this is why the analogy of physical health really can give to us concretely solid understanding of things in the realm of spiritual health - the link (as it was in Christ) is psychological health, the health of the soul.
I know I didn't explian that very well and some of it is a bit jumbled, but I figure some things are important enough to risk it ... like Chesterton said, "if a thing is worth doing at all it is worth doing poorly" (although I must admit a frequent frustration at the school where I did my MA, where they seem to quote this non-stop as an excuse for some things, and my usualy response is, "true ... but it is also worth doing well!" and so I have tried to do this as well as I can in the short time I have to do ... and for the rest I will have to offer my humble apologies and my willingnes to answer any and all questions my jumbled explanations give rise to.
Sorry, fogrot to finish the middle on the 3 types of souls (I often do that ... put in enough to remember what it was I was going to develop there and then go ahead and write on so I don't forget what I was going to do later, and then I forget to go back
Medeivals saw 3 kinds of souls: the vegitative, the sensate and the rational. "Soul" is, by nature, the animating life principle of a physical "body" - a living body. Plant life is "alive" in that it grows without being continually supplied. It is continually fed but this is different than the way, say, electricity "animates" a machine by being constantly supplied to it.
But that is all a plant can do, it can lean/grow towards a light source but it cannot have "sensory perception" of it the way an animal can. And, based in this power of perception in the sensate soul, the second type, an animal also has emotions, and so we speak of "animal psychology." It is only in humanity however that you have the rational soul where those emotions such as pleasure can participate in the spiritual phenomenon of love - love is the action of the will and the will is married to the illect in SPIRIT. That is to say that they are married as two of the primary aspect of "Spirit" acoording to the classical Christian definition of "spirit". ("Spirit" is one thing and indivisible, but it has 3 aspects to it defined by 3 functions: The Memory is being self aware of owns own identity, the function of the Intellect is to understand, the function of the will is to love).
Only in humanity do you have a being which is both concretely spiritual and concretely physio-psychic. Every human person is a unique spirit concretely existing/living as a concrete soul in a phyical body - which is why there is a Resurrection and our bodies will be in heaven (contra Gnostic doctrine, so you see this is all connected, what we were speaking of about the Manicheanism in Modern society etc - it is so insidious because it is so anti-Incarnation).
First God made humanity as the height of creation, and then He fulfilled humanity by becoming human himself. I believe with many others that the Garden of Eden was not the final thing that was meant to be, that it was intended as a test and if Adam and Eve had passed the test there would have still been another greater thing to come in the form of God Incarnating - the way things went down this became the antidote to sin, but it is never simply the overcomeing of sin - in short, we are not just returned to the state of the Garden, we're taken up even higher through Christ's Grace.
my name *is* jo..... hilarious huh? but i believe it is a contraction of a different name than jkrowling's. ;-)
i was staying away from it in case anyone i know read this and guessed it was me. but i've probably given WAY too many clues now for that to help at all.
(i got a giggle from the jkr2d2 gag)
you said,
"("Spirit" is one thing and indivisible, but it has 3 aspects to it defined by 3 functions: The Memory is being self aware of owns own identity, the function of the Intellect is to understand, the function of the will is to love)."
the teaching i have received on this is that we are tripartate beings - body, soul and spirit - and it is the soul that is in turn distinctly the mind, will and emotions.
spirit is other, the energizing and life giving essence from god. the part that makes us 'of' him.
is this a catholic/protestant difference in theology or something else?
can you explain in your terms how this would fit together?
i'm going to have to cut and paste this discussion and print it out in a bigger print, to help me process it all.
jkr2(aka jo)
ahh, I see ... a contraction of say "Joleen" as opposed to "Joanne" or something along those lines eh? a very clever ruse indeed ... but I am on to you!
I am, of course just kidding, and (for the record) I know that even if you were she, there is no way you would ever reveal such, nor should she ... and besides, who would believe me that JK Rowling herself officially has my back on my theories :)
but please take it as the highest compliment I ca give ... I think Rowling is the most brilliant author to come out since the Inklings, and I believe you to have a grasp of the core meanings of the works that would make her more than proud to have you as a fan
Ahhhh, you have come far indeed my young Padawan! My youn apprentice!(I'm sorry, I'm 34, and if I am not older than you I apologize for the usage ... but you know me, I'm a big Star Wars head. And the second line, "apprentice" is meant to allude only to my own occassional contentiousness - completely trusting that you, like Luke, will always choose the light side and risk life and limb to save the family you love)
You have arrived at what is possibly the deepest mystery of them all, THE great mystery in my studies in Theology/Religion/Anthropology/Literatur: the debate over the "bipartite" and "tripartite" veiws of the human person. Are we Body, Soul and Spirit - or a marriage of Body and Spirit in which the Spirit uniquely exists AS a soul?
The real question, as near as I can formulate it, is "Is the soul a substantial entity?" - is it a unique, separate substance as matter and spirit are. There is no doub that the soul is real, and as I have noted, one of the MAJOR objections to the Bipartite veiw (and, I mean, it is a BIGGY) is the condemnation of the teaching of Appolianrius, that Christ had no human soul (I would say that Appolinarius' teaching of the Logos replacing the human soul of Christ is akin to what is refered to as the Cartesian concept of the spirit in the body like a "Ghost in the machine" as opposed to the concept of the spirit existing or living AS a soul because it is married to the body in the human person).
And I agree with somebody like Alois Grillmyer, SJ (Society of Jesus - IE a Jesuit order priest) in his seminal work Christ in Christian Tradition (at least this is his implied thesis) that THE biggest stumbling block to Christology being worked out in the way of real truth was the "dualist" influence of Middle Platonism and Neo-Platonism which yielded too strong of a focus on the "ontological" (or "metaphysical" vs the more humanly religious aspects in the story of Salvation history told as a story, as it is in the Bible, rather than as a discursive rendering of a set of principles and categories)and ultimately the neglect of the consideration of the human soul of Christ.
(Origen is the one spot in early Christology where the human soul of Christ was addressed and asserted but Origen was deemed heretical becuase he taught a pre-existence of human souls, that they exist before being in a human body - which is of course wrong by Orthodox Christian belief, although before there is a definition you cannot really say that a person is a "heretic" in the same "rebellious" way you can when they persist after there has been a proclamation) but it was just regrettable that his valid contribution to Chritology was the proverbial baby thrown out with the bath water)
But I am still officially in the Bipartite camp. The Tripartite reaises too many other questions for me, such as "genderless spirit" as opposed to "spirit transcending gender." One philosophy professor I had (during my MA I was able to substitute in one higher level philosphy course into my Theology degree, and I did the philosophy of St Bonaventure, the Franciscan contemporary of St Thomas Aquinas, who was a Domincan) was tripartite and used to say "my spirit has no gender!" and I used to think, "you got that right, buddy!" (this goes back to some of what we were talking about in regards to Lewis and the other worlds and other genders and how they find their ground ultimately in God)
My own synthesis of the Bipartite position which tries to account for the need for a human soul in Christ is that of the formulation I used for it at the beginning of this comment. I hope it helps explain somehwat what I think and believe on the matter.
But either way, Jo, my hat is off to you and my brow bowed low in respect for your getting to the heart of the real question.
ah, almost forgot - I wanted to clear up what may have been one of yoru confusions with my wording etc
"Bipartite" and "Tripartite" refer to the makeup of the human person as a whole - body and spirit vs body, soul and spirit. The three "aspects" of spirit refer solely to that part of the humn called spirit. In John 4 Christ says "God is Spirit and those who worship him must worship Him in spirit." It does not say "a spirit" but "spirit" - He is the very grounding of all spiritual reality (actually I should clarify on this, Neither Greek Nor Latin, Nor Hebrew for that matter, COULD have literally said "a spirit" becuase none have an indefinite article, an aspect of the ancient languages which I like - meaning I like precisely their lack of an indefinite article, I think the an indefinite article is strongly condusive to bigoatry - "I am A ..." usually emphasizes the differences with "those who are NOT A ...", but of course I am no where near consistent in my actually speach and usually choose the more natural path of "going with the flow" - but there are good reasons that English translators have chosen not to insert an indefinite article as is done in other places)
As such, God is simple, having no parts but one simple unity of being ... but Spirit has those 3 aspects I mentioned and this is why there are 3 persons in the Trinity or the Godhead (this is what is generally refered to as "Augustine's psychological model of the Trinity")
Frank Sheed, in his introductino to his book Theology for Beginners (which was my own first introduction to this thinking, although it is pretty much Christian Tradition) has a story in his introduction of hearing a street apologist being asked why "why does God exist in exactly 3 persons" and the apologist replied "He's god, he could exist in as many persons as he wanted to" and Sheeds thought was "NO! that is not the truth, there is a reason He is three persons" (this is, again, what we were talking about in one fo the comment threads as "nominalism")
i like the continuity of 'tripartite' with the being of god as trinity also.
my previous post concerned whether the atributes you mentioned were of spirit or descriptions of soul. it seems more logical to me that memory etc are of soul. another way i visualise it is soul is like a transitional step from body to spirit.
but again, this is my uneducated view....
jkr2
(oh and i'm a little older than you, but am happy to consider myself apprentice!)
oh and my husband called our first son 'my young apprentice' when he was born. we are also star wars heads. on our honey moon we got the trilogy out on vide and watched them through non stop (dates us a bit too hehe)
it was always priceless seeing him with this little wrapped being, (who looked a touch like yoda :-P) expounding on why he must choose to follow the light side of the force!
as we speak this son is now playing 'galactic battlegrounds' and has a real affinity for wookies.
jkr2
Jo,
I can see why you think that in regards to the Trinity and the tripartite view - since it is one of the strongest things I have had to think about myself in trying to understand it all. I'll have to copy and paste some of what I have written here along with further consideration I have on these last questions you have raised and maybe put up a Word doc to a folder you can download it from or something ... like I said, this is one of the most mysterious and deep questions to me, the question of the human soul of Christ - I think it is at the heart of the Incarnation and therefore eveything else ... and one of the hardest to truly understand, and so I am still grappling with it myself like Jacob wrestling the angel (this is also a fairly apt image for my own spiritual life in general quite often LOL)
Oh, and tell your son that Merlin said "Wookies Rule"
That is one of the things bout the old trilogy that is totally missing in the new trilogy, lines like "let the wookie win"
(I'm sure that Pauli will all too readily add a hearty "Amen" concerning my, shall we say, Wookie side LOL)
Jo,
someimtes on nights like this, after a conversation delving into such mysteries, I stand outside my door smoking a cigarette smoking a cigarette and the air and the world are a strange kind of quiet, and I think about the fact that the greatest mystery of all, the Crucifixion, was arrived at by way of the "Via Dolorosa," the way or sorrow, and I am reminded of the last words of Aher Lev's mythic ancestor, "Now journey with me, my Asher. Paint the anguish of all the world. ... We must give balance to the universe."
Life is the greatest mystery, to quote U2 from "Shadows and Tall Trees" - "a street-rain tragi-comedy."
So, to you and your husband and your children and all who read this blog along their journey in the way-faring state - a blessed night.
oops ... the doubling of the "smoke a cigarette" was accidently, I promise (or maybe a slip LOL)
Oh, and I will not buy the original tilogy on DVD and gaurd my "pre-tinkering" vhs copy with my life ... I know Lucas would like to destroy all evidence of anything before his new years, but he'll never get mine LOL
lol at the vhs. we have both. (my dh has this thing about 'sets', and must have the latest set of whatever, so we have the trilogy on vhs, AND on dvd and all the 3 others - even though we didn't enjoy them that much, he just has to *have them*.) i like the vhs the best! i'm an analogue girl at heart. love analogue music way above digital i'm afraid. i'm a classical muso by background (though i played/sang in folk and rock bands too) and hate the compression that happens on so many modern recordings. blech.
my son grinned a wide grin at your 'wookies rule'.
a blessed night to you as well.
jkr2
(of course it's the middle of a hot muggy day here. i check in every now and then throughout the day....)
Re: Wookies, yeah, I finally saw the 3rd Star Wars movie and although it wasn't as painful to watch as the 2nd because it had more sword fights (cool) and less dialogue it still was kind of drab without Han Solo. Even Chewbacca looked like he really didn't want to say much if Han wasn't there to translate and commentate.
yeah, but even the sword fights weren't as cool. Although it was much better than the second movie, attack of the clones ... at least in this one they didn't rush into production any blatant hasty rip-offs of other movies like they did ripping off the car factory scene of Minority Report with the clones movie.
The Grevious fight was very disappointing (he had such an opportunity with that type of a character, evil but not a sith ... they could have made him so much more human and interesting) and too flashy, and the whole "higher ground" thing really cheapened the skill of the Anakin character.
I really am disappointed in Lucas - there are even plot flaws in the second "Knights of the Old Republic" game "Sith Lords" because Lucas Arts rushed Obsidian on the release date for it.
Somebody told me that in a very early interview Lucas lamented that movies were becoming so much about the technical to the detriment of real movie making ... I wish he could hear his own words from earlier for real. I would have liked more dialogue, but real dialogue - it is sad that you're right, less dialogue does make it a better movie than clones.
the only fantastic moment was when yoda took out the light saber and went 'off'. we were at a midnight screening and the whole place just erupted. the place was just about full of 30-somethings like ourselves who had done 'the journey' timewise so could truly appreciate that for what it was. lol.
the rest of the 3 were a bit of a yawn really.
a shame......
jkr2
Well, Lucas does have his genuine talents still, particularly iconic "still-shots" - not meaning completely still (although some are fairly still, like Luke looking at the sunset on Tatooine int New hope) but more "static" as far as story movement - such as Palpatine hurling senate pods at Yoda, which is what he has been doing the whole time, using the senate as a weapon
but everything else is ... oh well
well, the ewoks were a sign that really bad judgement was possible huh?
jo (don't know what to sign myself now!)
totally off topic for a sec. i think i may have popped your conspiracy bubble now. maybe i should have kept it in tact for the intrigue!