Re: agree and disagree

["Scott Schrade" <schrade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> I don't know about any of these things for sure, that is why I used the word 
> maybe.  What started  this thought of mine is what Roger said about John's 
> last five years.  Roger felt bad for him healthwise and cared about him.  He was 
> only 57. 

I know, I know.  Not everybody lives to a ripe old age.  I don't have to tell
you that.  Our dear OX might have been *physically* unstable towards the
end of his life, but I don't think that necessarily equates to a *mental* or 
*spiritual* deficiency.

> I don't see negativity in these songs, I see the lack of understanding based 
> on looking at things in an "outward" way.  

Sometimes you say things & I have no idea how to respond to them.  It's like
I'm one or two new-age seminars short of being able to "speak the lingo."

Was Entwistle's "outward" way of looking at things caused by his lack of
spirituality?  And if it was, why is that wrong?  Or reason for pity?  Why is
his individualism a sign of weakness to you?

> Men don't become angels with wings and play harps nor do we go to a
> place where we have a tail and a fork. Nor is it about being good or being 
> bad. 

Hear that?  That's the sound of hundreds of angry Baptists coming to get you!

> The earth isn't only 6000 years old, either... 

Amen.  ;-)

> They are wonderful thoughts.  Every person should have them.  But they 
> should come with the seeking of an answer to them.  Otherwise they are 
> vain thoughts.

Vain thoughts?  Or thoughts in vain?  (serious question.)  Or perhaps both?
Either way, I don't agree.  We're talking about art here.  Entwistle's art.
His music.  I just can't agree that his lack of spiritual searching reduces his
artistic output to confused, unfocused, unenlightened meanderings.

> Take Had Enough for instance. Is it wrong? No.  Is it refreshing to hear in 
> the world of false hope? Certainly.  Does he ask "if you find something better"...? 
> Yes.  Did he find something better?  I don't know.  But that leads me to 
> believe that things weren't all that great and that was written at the peak of 
> their success. Nobody even died yet.

But not *everyone* needs to go on an amazing journey of spiritual awakening
in order to be fulfilled.  The people who need it, do it.  The people who
don't, don't.  Some people would rather not spend all their time worrying &
fretting over such matters.  And that doesn't make them any less of a person.

> Look man, you know his songs are negative. 

"Boris the Spider" - negative or amusing?
"Doctor, Doctor" - negative or humorous?
"Whiskey Man" - negative or a warning against excessive drinking?
"Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde" - see above.
"I've Been Away" - negative or another humorous vignette?
"Silas Stingy" - see above.
"Medac" - darkly negative or ultimately positive?
"Someone's Coming" - negative or a sweet song of young romance?
"Cousin Kevin" - OK, negative (but at the urging of Pete!)
"Fiddle About" - see above
"Heaven & Hell" - negative or giddy in its lust for life?
"When I Was A Boy" - negative or just plain realistic?
"My Wife" - negative or Benny Hill-ish?
"Postcard" - negative or hilarious?
"Success Story" - negative or sarcastically uncaring?
"905" - negative or sci-fi?
"The Quiet One" - negative or a musical caricature?
"Dangerous" - negative or simply the truth?

Come to think of it - *Townshend's* writing is much more negative &
depressing than Entwistle's!

> Maybe you just don't equate darkness with negativeness. 

No, I don't.  I was once told to think that way but I soon made up my 
own mind.  I'm free, remember?

> I wouldn't want to live in that world.  I know both and can tell you 
> that Light is much better.

Absence of your "Light" doesn't mean one wallows in sin & confusion.
You're still thinking in terms of black & white.  Us against them.

> But your lovely tone tells me you ain't buying it ;-)

Don't want no religion......

> Ha. See? Epicurean.

Call me a Spinozian.

> Jesus' first miracle was changing water into wine, you know.  And His 
> was *much* better.

Yeah......that happened.

> A radio signal is neither a riddle nor and allegory.  

It is when you use it as an analogy to receiving spiritual enlightenment.

> You know that I'm talking about God. God is Spirit.  He is detected by 
> our spirit.  This isn't an allegory or a riddle either. 

Prove it. 

> You don't have to believe this of course, but that doesn't mean that I 
> don't know what I'm talking about.

No, you're holding up your end of the antiquated, Bible-fed, male, Christian 
world-view quite nicely.  Congrats.  Let's go demean women, shall we?
Damn Eve.

> Is this unintelligent of me to point out or is this merely the usual point in 
> our conversation that you resort to personal insults because you don't like 
> what I have to say?  

Yes, this is the point where I resort to personal insults.  Ready?  I love
talking/arguing with you, Jon.  There!  Ha ha!  Take *that!*


- SCHRADE in Akron