a squared tv screen in wich too many believe blindly ...

by mistake the mailer and I... we send the post unfinished...

david beheading goliath...

> who are these people doing such acts, and do you really
> want them as your neighbor or a public representative?).
> It seems this is stuff of a Saddam-era cruel vision of power,
> dosed out the same way when Rumsfeld & Cheney were
> selling the chemical and biological weapons to their friend
> Saddam and cannot now stop beating the drum about his
> having them-- they know-- they've got the receipts still, and
> handwriting on the checks with photos in their scrapbooks!
>
beheading the saddam statue was also simbolic... and now the real head is in the hands of his judges...

> The empty crosses are, if religious tolerance for a value in
> part of a common symbol may be contemplated, to me is
> a way to see partly what was mentioned of the publicness
> of roman law and the brutality (not to be confused with that
> of modern day landscapes or mindscapes, in the same way)
> of punishment and order and what crosses represented (a
> speculation, now follows) in that there was this method of
> crucifixion and if empty crosses or fields of death and some
> kind of punishment, maybe people knew what they meant.
> The interesting thing about this symbol, in my opinion, is
> that with Christians that they seemed to have taken what
> was a sacrificial lamb, their public representative of ideas,
> and saw a symbol of oppression transformed into one of
> a type of liberation from the process of cruelty it embodied.
> IT would seem that in occupying this symbol, it transformed
> it into another meaning, for a certain kind of belief. What is
> wondered, and has been contemplated by myself, is if the
> symbol may be extra-christian in the way the Middle-East
> and more long-term long-view long-understanding and
> long-relations between cultures may cultivate, a shared
> sense of things, as belonging in some way, together.

agree...
>
Jesus christ IS a symbol, the perfect one for his followers.... just as Saddam , Mao, Stalin Hitler,..., were the imposed ones into their subdite's minds ...or Muhamma or Buddha into other religious cults...
.......
> do humans need a faith to support such leaderships ? what's the difference between a political, moral or religious leadership, if humans generally need to believe in something ( or -one) (or their Only One...) to sustain or support their earthly lifes. There is a kind of accepted social hypocrisy if we consider a political leader is diferent from a religious one, if we consider that the impact of the political leader is as much important, if not much more, than such divine presence we (or at least some) feel necessary, in our everyday life..

Don't we have to believe quite blindly, as citizens, in those political leaderships to accept them , as we may accept faithfully a religious one in our life ?
(eventually we should expose a political leader on some cross to believe in him, too...)
(meaby the modern, empty, cross has become a squared tv screen in wich too many believe blindly ...)

P.

--
The Design-L list for art and architecture, since 1992...
To subscribe, send mailto:design-l-subscribe-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
To signoff, send mailto:design-l-unsubscribe-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
Visit archives: http://lists.psu.edu/archives/design-l.html
Partial thread listing: