Quote:
Originally Posted by Vulcan
In my way of thinking, you have to differentiate between the true heart and love of the mortal. A girl can say I love my nail polish or a a guy can say I love my car but both will eventually lose their lustre. This is where the problems come in, I can think I am following my heart, whereas really I'm just contributing to my confusion. Especially when these so called loves come to an end. When I focus my heart on my understanding of god, than I use my intellect as a tool to adapt my life to enable this closeness. Not that I'm particularly devoted but I sometimes try to make a small effort, as I enjoy it.
|
My problem is with the categories through which we have emerged to define such things. You continue to use constructs of "heart" and "mind" based on your own subjective experiences; granted, our interpretations of things will always be subjective. Whether or not there is an actual distinction between the two, I think that it is highly problematic in how Evangelicalism—as well as many other religious expressions—has chosen to champion one while vilifying the other. In the end, I'm not certain that you and I are speaking of the same things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vulcan
Most Hollywood films trying too hard to express the human spirit, I find terrible and unwatchable. I don't like being manipulated into feeling these coarser emotions. Just tell the story, I'll interpret it myself.
|
In the first place, whether these sorts of movies are good or bad is irrelevant. My point was to show but one simple illustration of how this ambiguous dichotomy works itself out. In the second place, it is virtually impossible to "simply tell the story", and whether you like it or not, your own interpretations are very much guided by the storyteller. Sociologically speaking, we are incapable as a species of narrating anything without supplying some sort of meaning.