I just heard someone I knew talking on the radio: in fact he was doing "prayer for the day" - no doubt this is just a start - he'll be doing "Thought for the Day" on the Today programme (note to foreign readers: this is the 3-minute religious spot that occurs on the UK's most significant early morning news programme). The thing is about this guy is that he sounds terribly convincing. I was following what he said before I recognised him - and I thought "that's an interesting way of looking at it {Hallowe'en] - perhaps I should change my views". It occurred to me that the change I would make to my views would make my life easier in some ways... and then I realised that it was Him - and I realised where this view came from. I immediately felt that it was all a bit of a "snare and a delusion" - so I unthought it.
Actually, a few years ago, I felt envy towards this guy - he had a relatively smooth path to ordination - his worldliness didn't seem an obstacle - his PR skills were probably beneficial. I was jealous that he'd achieved something I'd also wanted. I don't have those feelings towards him now. HOWEVER.... I do know something about his character and ability to deal with difficult situations, his care for others (or lack of it)... and this is why anything I hear him say on the radio - unless it has a ring of emotional truth and comes from personal experience - I cannot take without fitting to what I know about him - and as a result, I can't take his reasonable sounding pronouncements very seriously, because I know more about his character.
Now I have always felt that understanding the author didn't always feed one's understanding of the work. I think finding out what a selfish git James Joyce was didn't really change my pleasure in reading Ulysses etc. I definitely think of them as separate. I know a lot about Virginia Woolf that I don't much like - but re-reading Mrs Dalloway recently was a great treat - and made me admire her more.
Now, this isn't the same. Someone whose character I know, is making moral pronouncements - I know some of his shortcomings - so does that mean I needn't take any notice of what he says? I have plenty of shortcomings, and I've never let that get in the way of providing an opinion on a moral question. Actually I think it just means, that if I know someone is speaking out of their own shortcomings, then one doesn't listen to them. Unfortunately, one can't know the shortcomings of all the persuasive speakers one hears - which makes it more difficult to judge what they say. And of course everything they say is appealing to different aspects of one's nature - so one has to judge whether they are appealing to a good or bad part of one's nature, before being swayed by them.
This was meant to be a blog about Halloween, but perhaps I'll leave that until it has happened - no doubt trick and treaters will be out in the next few hours.
Actually, a few years ago, I felt envy towards this guy - he had a relatively smooth path to ordination - his worldliness didn't seem an obstacle - his PR skills were probably beneficial. I was jealous that he'd achieved something I'd also wanted. I don't have those feelings towards him now. HOWEVER.... I do know something about his character and ability to deal with difficult situations, his care for others (or lack of it)... and this is why anything I hear him say on the radio - unless it has a ring of emotional truth and comes from personal experience - I cannot take without fitting to what I know about him - and as a result, I can't take his reasonable sounding pronouncements very seriously, because I know more about his character.
Now I have always felt that understanding the author didn't always feed one's understanding of the work. I think finding out what a selfish git James Joyce was didn't really change my pleasure in reading Ulysses etc. I definitely think of them as separate. I know a lot about Virginia Woolf that I don't much like - but re-reading Mrs Dalloway recently was a great treat - and made me admire her more.
Now, this isn't the same. Someone whose character I know, is making moral pronouncements - I know some of his shortcomings - so does that mean I needn't take any notice of what he says? I have plenty of shortcomings, and I've never let that get in the way of providing an opinion on a moral question. Actually I think it just means, that if I know someone is speaking out of their own shortcomings, then one doesn't listen to them. Unfortunately, one can't know the shortcomings of all the persuasive speakers one hears - which makes it more difficult to judge what they say. And of course everything they say is appealing to different aspects of one's nature - so one has to judge whether they are appealing to a good or bad part of one's nature, before being swayed by them.
This was meant to be a blog about Halloween, but perhaps I'll leave that until it has happened - no doubt trick and treaters will be out in the next few hours.
