Percy-L: Literary, Religious, Scientific, and Philosophical Discussion of Walker Percy

["Parlin, Steven" <PARLINS AT culver.org>]

Karey, I am imensely interested in Percy's language theory, and I hope to resume that discussion either concurrently or a little later. But, I am also matters of eathly concern. On the one hand, inquirey into theory is exciting, fun, and even necessary. Let's roll up our sleaves. But, let us not become like that scientist Percy mentions in Lost in the Cosmos who spends all of his time in the abstacted orbit of theory never being able to successfuly achieve re-entry. Homsexuality, among the many deviant sexual behaviors, is one of the most odd behaviors in the Cosmos. I think it's worthy, even necessary, to wrestle with this...especially since it's impossible to ignore it.

 

in fact, this is my point...It's really only possible to entertain the idea of homosexual marriage when we are in orbit and lost. We have lost our moorings. The center is not holding. We really don't understand ourselves -- We are indeed the strangest of cosmic phenomena.

 

 

[For fun-- I adapted the below dialogue from a few excerpts  in Lost in the Cosmos]

 

Interviewer: Are you more confused about sexuality than any other phenomenon in the Cosmos?

Subject: What do you mean?

Interviewer: I mean... gay marriage? C'mon.

Subject: I don't follow...what's wrong with it. It's no different than any other marriage. It's all about love after all.

Interviewer: Love? Is sex necessary for love? And, is marriage a necessary arrangement for love? Isn't marriage primarily for ensuring the health and well-being of family life; that is, for having and rasing children...obviously homosexuality...

Subject: Well...if you mean do gay lovers need to get married, no they don't. .  

Interviewer: If there's no real need, then why the fuss? Homosexuals have been "loving" each other for centuries. Why now the need for marriage?

Subject: Ceremony, validation, recognition...they have rights you know. And why not?

Interviewer: Why?

Subject: Why not?

Interviewer: I asked you first.

Subject: Well...there's nothing wrong with it, and they deserve the same benefits as other married couples.

Interviewer: Such as.

Subject: Taxes...health care... you know

Interviewer: I see.

Subject: They have rights.

Interviewer: I see. Just like two friends living together. Why not call that a marriage too?

Subject: No...that's different.

Interviewer: How?

Subject: Well...two friends aren't a couple; they aren't in love.

Interviewer: Hmmm...so the state should only give benefits to people who are in love.

Subject: No...not just in love...committed.

Interviewer: Friends can be committed...so can brothers...sisters... I'm even committed to my cat. 

Subject: But that's different.

Interviewer: How?

Subject: Well... homosexuals love each other in a special way.

Interviewer: You mean they please each other sexually.

Subject: No...they're "intimate".

Interviewer: I see...how do you measure that? Even though I'm not sleeping with him, I'm probably more "intimate" with my best friend than a lot married men and women.

Subject: It's different.

Interviewer: Perhaps....but how? Can you explain it?

Subject: No...but... I mean...It's still perfectly natural. At least as much as heterosexual marriage.

Interviewer: Perfectly natural?

Subject: Yeah

Interviewer: Can you explain why it is that men and women exhibit sexual behavior undreamed of among the other several million species, with every conceivable sexual relation between persons [or animals] or with only one person [their self] or between a male and female, or between two male persons, or two female persons, or two males and one femaile, or two females and one male; relationships moreover which can implicate every orifice and appendage of the human body and which bear no relation to the reproduction and survival of the species?

Subject: No.

Interviewer: Odd isn't it? Is this sort of behavior natural?

Subject: I dunno...but heterosexual desires...well, some of those aren't exactly "natural" either.

Interviewer: True, heterosexuals can be just as depraved. But then isn't that why marriage is so important for helping to keep these behaviors in order... if for no other reason than for the sake of rasing children?

Subect: Perhaps....but there's still nothing WRONG with homosexual marriage.

Interviewer: That's another mattter... But what about the children? Isn't child-reering natural AND necessary?

Subject: Yeah... but homosexuals can adopt. In fact, they can adopt children that heterosexuals have discarded.

Interviewer: Hmm...that's an interesting point, and a shame that there are some children who need to be adopted...but aside from not knowing what affect this would have on children, isn't it obvious that without heterosexuals there wouldn't be any children at all? No next generation.  No one to adopt?

Subject: Science is changing all that.

Interviewer: I see.

Subject: And, I never said that homosexual marriage should replace heterosexual marriage.

Interviewer: No, but we still haven't figured out what homosexual marriage means...how is it different than any two people living together.  Moreover, I was making a point. That is, I was illustrating that marriage is necessary for raising children.

Subject: Government is changing all that.

Interviewer: I see. 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Karey L. Perkins [mailto:karey AT charter.net]
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 2:25 PM
To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion
Subject: [percy-l] gays, biblical authority and Percy's language theory --

No -- I'm certainly no moderator!  But I am fascinated by the fact that gays and Biblical authority have garnered so much response, but Percy's language theory doesn't get much interest?  There's so much he left unfinished and so much to investigate.  If he had lived longer, I think something tremendous might have come out of it -- like, the answer to, what is the interpretant?  He died before he could solve it.

 

So, here's what I would discuss if I had the choice...

 

What is the interpretant?

 

Why did he use triangles instead of triads, even when a good argument was given against it?

 

What did Susanne Langer drop that he picked up?  (I believe he says what it is in one place, but I lost it somewhere)

 

KP

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Parlin, Steven

To: 'Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion'

Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 10:52 PM

Subject: RE: [percy-l] West Wing

Hmmm...

Because some of my replies that contradict Karey are not showing up in my
inbox, I assumed (wrongly it seems) that I had angered her (isn't she the
moderator?), and that she was preventing my postings from going to the list.


I owe you an all an apology...but especially Karey.

Please forgive my presumption.

I'm an ass. 

Steve



-----Original Message-----
From: David Alan Beck [mailto:dabeck AT iupui.edu]
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 9:45 PM
To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion
Subject: Re: [percy-l] West Wing


Steve,
Why are we getting triplicates of your posting??
-DB

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Parlin, Steven wrote:


  [NON-Text Body part not included]



David Beck                                        


--

An archive of all list discussion is available at
http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail

Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy
--

An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail

Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy