This morning I've been struggling away on various bits of Bible, and trying to post to the Sola Panel blog as well. Partial results of my labours are seen here, on the Sola Panel blog.
Do pay a visit and leave a comment!
10 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Hi,
I have visited the Sola Panel blog and read your post on Zechariah, also your post yesterday On Love and Blogging, which I try to be mindful of in asking this question:
Why do you refer to yourself as an "evil genius" when presumably you regard evil as evil and good as good. Do you not think it could erroneously give the impression that you regard evil as a good thing?
I do know it's irony. I was asking rhetorically by way of initiating discussion.
My point is it strikes me as a particularly risky form of irony. It's a blurring of the boundaries. Best to keep them quite seperate to minimise the risk of confusion.
One of the ironies, however, is that even read as a straightforward assertion (that my thoughts are evil), this reflects the Bible's view of my nature (Jeremiah 17:9, for example). It also accords with Luther's formulation that we are 'simul justus et peccator', simultaneously justified and sinful.
So even if people don't pick up any sense of irony, no boundary has been blurred and truth has been asserted.
Biblical examples? Large sections of the prophets and epistles, not to mention Jesus' conversations in the gospels. But one of my favourite current examples is 1 Cor 4:8-10 (especially noting v 8).
But you don't state your thoughts are evil ("evil thoughts of a genius".), you describe yourself as evil ("thoughts of an evil genius"). Then you retract the claim of genius but repeat and reinforce your self depiction as evil. Next to this is a picture of you looking happy.
Ah! Indeed. My knowledge of the intricacies of semiotics is woeful, but my meagre knowledge of the situation is that apparently contrasting elements frequently appear in contiguity without undue harm to comprehension.
Think, for example, of newspaper photos of politicians or leaders smiling, next to serious news items.
I am a little pedantic I admit. But it is necessary if one is to be precise.
So, by analogy, you are the smiling politician and your blog is the serious* news item?
But, as the newspaper reader, mightn't I think the politician wasn't particularly bothered about the serious news item if he was grinning like a cheshire cat next to it? I might think they were in contiguity even if that wasn't the editor's intention.
10 comments:
Hi,
I have visited the Sola Panel blog and read your post on Zechariah, also your post yesterday On Love and Blogging, which I try to be mindful of in asking this question:
Why do you refer to yourself as an "evil genius" when presumably you regard evil as evil and good as good. Do you not think it could erroneously give the impression that you regard evil as a good thing?
It's irony, scollins, which means that I will sometimes say things that have a number of different meanings from the one apparently intended.
I believer irony is OK as a form of communication, since I find it used in the Bible, but I acknowledge its riskiness.
I do know it's irony. I was asking rhetorically by way of initiating discussion.
My point is it strikes me as a particularly risky form of irony. It's a blurring of the boundaries. Best to keep them quite seperate to minimise the risk of confusion.
Where does the Bible use irony?
One of the ironies, however, is that even read as a straightforward assertion (that my thoughts are evil), this reflects the Bible's view of my nature (Jeremiah 17:9, for example). It also accords with Luther's formulation that we are 'simul justus et peccator', simultaneously justified and sinful.
So even if people don't pick up any sense of irony, no boundary has been blurred and truth has been asserted.
Biblical examples? Large sections of the prophets and epistles, not to mention Jesus' conversations in the gospels. But one of my favourite current examples is 1 Cor 4:8-10 (especially noting v 8).
ye-es.
But you don't state your thoughts are evil ("evil thoughts of a genius".), you describe yourself as evil ("thoughts of an evil genius"). Then you retract the claim of genius but repeat and reinforce your self depiction as evil. Next to this is a picture of you looking happy.
I think I've lost sight of where this conversation is going.
The superficial first impression your blog gives is "I am evil and I am happy about it".
Actually, "I am evil and I am happy". Not necessarily happy because of being evil.
(I think it is very important not to overstate ones case).
Ah! Indeed. My knowledge of the intricacies of semiotics is woeful, but my meagre knowledge of the situation is that apparently contrasting elements frequently appear in contiguity without undue harm to comprehension.
Think, for example, of newspaper photos of politicians or leaders smiling, next to serious news items.
I am a little pedantic I admit. But it is necessary if one is to be precise.
So, by analogy, you are the smiling politician and your blog is the serious* news item?
But, as the newspaper reader, mightn't I think the politician wasn't particularly bothered about the serious news item if he was grinning like a cheshire cat next to it? I might think they were in contiguity even if that wasn't the editor's intention.
*although it doesn't always appear to be serious
Post a Comment