RegularJoan

For me, it's the modern-day "A Clockwork Orange." What I appreciate in Cronenberg's films is this obsessive study of the body conducted from "within" the body itself, and seeing how it changes as the cultural and sociological aspects of reality shift. With this film, one of my all-time favorites, Cronenberg managed to convey, twenty years in advance, everything there was to say about the post-human and the intersection between the real and the virtual, and he did it with a handful of images, all the more horrifying in their simplicity.

I forgot to add something about AIDS (which may not have anything to do with the whole reasoning). The fact that homosexuals and drug users are always considered "at-risk categories" is nothing more than the result of a simplification of the problem related to AIDS and HIV. When the epidemic had already reached a significant spread around the world, there was a proposal to test the entire global population for HIV, but many fiercely opposed it. That’s why "at-risk categories" were created that had to include all potential AIDS or HIV patients. At-risk categories that were identified with "gay" and "drug users." Once again, this is a problem of logical reasoning (exploited by those with economic and ideological interests in this matter) and not a comprehensive study based on factual data.

The considerations presented by nofake regarding the limited understanding of sacred texts have led me to reflections that are more about the nature of a certain type of reasoning. At the root of this controversy lies what has been defined throughout the logical-rhetorical tradition as “begging the question,” which consists of starting a reasoning from unproven or even incorrect premises. If one starts from a false premise, then the reasoning hypothesized concerning a problem or even the interpretation of that problem will also be flawed. It may be a false premise to consider what is stated in Leviticus in chapters 11-16 as “divine law universally directed to all men on Earth” rather than as “a series of behavioral norms directed to a single people.” Theoretically, this leads to a series of equations between “norms valid in a specific context and situation” and “norms universally valid for everyone in all circumstances,” which results in applying a brutal law from primitive tribes to contemporary society. If I consider those dictates as “God's law,” it becomes easy to create an equation like “the pig, because it has a split hoof but does not chew the cud, you consider unclean. You shall not eat their flesh, nor touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you.” = “God totally forbids the consumption of pork.” The same equation can be made regarding homosexuals: “‘You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination’” or “‘If a man has relations with a man as with a woman, both have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.’” The fact that it mentions “put to death” should provoke reflection on the normative and purely tribal character of such a statement. In this sense, it cannot be related to a total discrimination against homosexuals, at least in this circumstance. Not to mention that we often read these words with a different meaning than they originally had simply because there are translation errors. In some passages of the New Testament (which are thought to refer to homosexuality), such as this “‘For this reason, God gave them up to vile passions: for even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature,’”: that “para fusin” which is translated as “against nature” could also have been translated as “according to nature.” This applies in many other cases, such as in the passages relating to the destruction of Sodom, which many associate with a sexual sin (simply because in Latin, the term closest to homosexual is “sodomite”), when instead it might refer to a dispute between the angels and the Sodomites. The laws of Leviticus were tribal in nature, and the Bible, as an “open work,” lends itself to multiple interpretations whose validity should not be judged by controlling bodies like the CEI, Gianfranco Ravasi, et similia. In light of the fact that the opportunities to know, to inform oneself (and I would say also to “form oneself”) are now open to a large number of people, why should the authority to judge sacred texts rest solely with high prelates? Who are these gentlemen to judge whether a reasoning about the Bible is logically sound or not? When common sense leads to discriminate between “good God” and “bad God,” one is merely following those tired interpretations recognized as official by a Church that now claims the right of precedence over what should be a shared asset: religious doctrine. If we really want to make a revolution, then let’s ask these gentlemen to let us read the Bible and the Gospel in the way we see fit and according to the cultural tools we possess, as long as the reading is conducted according to rational criteria.

"Taddeus, I like you" :-D

Do not touch the Husker Du... Thank you.

@ Nofake: wow! We can do the interview here as well, over a nice Persian tea, since I love making big revelations. For the questions, I give you "carte blanche" (but make sure it’s Fabriano, okay? I care about a certain refinement :-D). I'll talk to Michelino Serra! See you soon.

I have this strange habit of constantly saying "zao". oh well.

@ Nofake: whenever you're ready. I’m always here. How about we shoot each other a nice interview in the style of Gigi Marzullo or David Letterman and get it published by Michele Serra in Repubblica? Zao, Jovanna

stunning.

Request space: Inkia, can someone review "Three Meters Above the Sky" or "I Want You" so I can have some fun?