DIRECTORS’ CUP 2011 VOTING, ROUND 2, MATCH 30: Shin Sang-ok (Pulgasari) vs. Richard Stanley (The White Darkness)

Den, I was hoping you’d have some response to my comments on White Darkness above….

I feel like Malkin captured my thoughts pretty well but I will comment fairly soon; my brain is mush from all these films at the moment.

Pulgasari shouldn’t of been so far behind!!! Great match, wish I could’ve seen early enough to vote, although I would’ve probably voted for The White Darkness so it wouldn’t of matted too much.

I feel like Malkin captured my thoughts pretty well but I will comment fairly soon; my brain is mush from all these films at the moment.

Ok, cool. In the meantime I’ll leave some comments on Malkin’s post then.

The White Darkness really made me confront the way I – or more generally, the society around me – approach other cultures. You constantly encounter the trivialization of culture: culture as a soundbite, as a punchline, as a tourist attraction or a curio or a few tapestries on a wall.

Your insight is very true, the problem is that from my perspective White Darkness trivializes it in exactly this way. It’s just a bunch of soundites. How do you see it as otherwise?

In a film like The White Darkness, it’s not always easy to reconcile what you see with your own ingrained Western beliefs (in my case); and the point, of course, is that it shouldn’t be reconciled at all, nor belittled nor patronized nor looked at from any strict, narrow-minded worldview. Haiti is much more than Voodoo, zombies and poverty, which is the extent of what people know about it (or care to find out about), from what I’ve observed.

Haiti is much more than these things I’m sure. However this is the part of Haiti that the film restricts us to, not that a film shouldn’t have a focus, but it should give some kind of insight into a broader sense of the culture. In this case I really don’t feel like it did that. It seemed to paint everyone in the film as odd or fanatical.

I agree that it’s very important from our Western beliefs not to belittle other cultures. But actually at the same time it has become almost an overbearing tenant of Western belief in the recent history of Postmodernism that most people have become almost fanatical about avoiding being critical of aspects of other cultures. Being critical doesn’t mean you have to belittle. Even though our own culture and beliefs are certainly not perfect, it’s still fine to point out if certain practices in other cultueres could really be negative, unproductive, or even damaging.

Some of the rituals did unsettle me, and then I was unsettled that I was unsettled. I feel like Richard Stanley creates himself a similar character arc over the course of the film: at its start, his camera is focused on full moons and dark nights, and hints of black magic and strangeness and possibly evil. As he speaks to the people, he’s able to shed his ethnocentric viewpoint and by film’s end he ceases to be the invisible and silent man behind the camera and steps forward to speak up.

Sometimes it’s good to be unsettled. What exactly were you initially unsettled by? And then what did you determined unsettled you about the specifically? What then ultimately lead you to believe that you shouldn’t have been unsettled?

It’s also disarmingly sad to think what happened when the earthquake struck and suddenly thousands of well-meaning aid workers and volunteers swarmed to Haiti. This is a religion and culture that was clearly struggling to balance on the edge of a knife to begin with. I can only imagine that it’s waning now.

Well we have certainly seen that some “well-meaning” people will not always handle things ideally. It is possible that many of these well-meaning people will be very concious and effective in strengthening the important parts of the culture. Seemingly that wasn’t happening in this documentary, but I say seemingly because nothing was very concrete but just a cocophany of disembodied soundbites.

Ok, cool. In the meantime I’ll leave some comments on Malkin’s post then.

Excellent! Discussions with you are always interesting.

Haiti is much more than these things I’m sure. However this is the part of Haiti that the film restricts us to, not that a film shouldn’t have a focus, but it should give some kind of insight into a broader sense of the culture. In this case I really don’t feel like it did that. It seemed to paint everyone in the film as odd or fanatical.

Well, they do seem odd, perhaps fanatical, but that strikes me as a limited perspective and precisely the one I was grappling with throughout the film. I don’t think it’s Stanley who’s making a call on how odd or fanatical these people are, but the viewer – and he seems to be very aware of that. That’s the conundrum he’s presenting to his Western audience: can you overcome your ingrained point of view and see these people and their rituals for what they are, or will you stick to your spurs and walk away calling them bizarre?

I agree that it’s very important from our Western beliefs not to belittle other cultures. But actually at the same time it has become almost an overbearing tenant of Western belief in the recent history of Postmodernism that most people have become almost fanatical about avoiding being critical of aspects of other cultures. Being critical doesn’t mean you have to belittle. Even though our own culture and beliefs are certainly not perfect, it’s still fine to point out if certain practices in other cultueres could really be negative, unproductive, or even damaging.

When you criticize something, it’s ideally from a solid bedrock of objectivity. I don’t believe such a thing is possible. To take an extreme example, yes, it’s fine to point out that cannibalism is a damaging practice, but it’s not fine to make judgements of the cannibals themselves; they’re not starting from the same conception of morality or value or “normality” as us, and so to judge them from a traditional Judeo-Christian mindset is hopelessly ethnocentric.

We could talk further about how we could determine what is negative, but then we’d need to determine what’s positive. We shouldn’t enter any discussion about what’s unproductive because a society like that of Haiti is not primarily concerned with what is productive. That’s a very Western concept, progress and productivity as a high good. It’s important to be aware of where our most fundamental preconceptions come from.

Sometimes it’s good to be unsettled. What exactly were you initially unsettled by? And then what did you determined unsettled you about the specifically? What then ultimately lead you to believe that you shouldn’t have been unsettled?

I agree! It’s very good to be unsettled, shaken out of your comfort zone. For me, some of the scenes that you describe as wallowing around in mud were unsettling. The whole notion of possession is unsettling as hell to me, but that’s probably because in my society self-control and self-determination are praised as high goods and the notion of possession is always linked with the devil, with evil, with an inability to fulfill oneself without outside intervention. A Haitian doesn’t look at possession in this way; there’s an element of unity and return to wholeness in it, a sacred element. It’s an opportunity to briefly transcend and become one with something greater than oneself. I don’t say I shouldn’t have been unsettled – like I say, it’s good to be confronted with something discomfiting – but the truly discomfiting thing to me is that I found something different from what I’m used discomfiting. That’s the first step toward fear, and ultimately xenophobia, ethnocentrism or racism. Probably the first step taken by those soldiers Stanley’s camera picks on so much.

Well we have certainly seen that some “well-meaning” people will not always handle things ideally. It is possible that many of these well-meaning people will be very concious and effective in strengthening the important parts of the culture. Seemingly that wasn’t happening in this documentary, but I say seemingly because nothing was very concrete but just a cocophany of disembodied soundbites.

I’m not so optimistic. Who are they to say what are the important parts of the culture? How could they possibly tell, from their own distant and inevitably biased perspective? Lots of Christian aid groups were among those who went to Haiti, and we see in this film that traditional Voudon was already starting to wobble when confronted with a more, let’s say, forceful religion.

The film was haphazard at times, disembodied at others. I preferred it to Van der Keuken’s film because its form seemed to become the message in a powerful way. The Eye Above the Well was filmed in what struck me as a rather static, contemplative style, an aesthetic quite familiar to me from a more quintessentially European school of filmmaking. Well, of course he IS European. But in this film Stanley seems to show through editing and pace a certain understanding of the more chaotic, natural, ecstatic leanings of a religion like Voudon.

Excellent! Discussions with you are always interesting.

Thank you for saying so! Right back at ya. :)

Well, they do seem odd, perhaps fanatical, but that strikes me as a limited perspective and precisely the one I was grappling with throughout the film. I don’t think it’s Stanley who’s making a call on how odd or fanatical these people are, but the viewer – and he seems to be very aware of that. That’s the conundrum he’s presenting to his Western audience: can you overcome your ingrained point of view and see these people and their rituals for what they are, or will you stick to your spurs and walk away calling them bizarre?

Well the fact that Stanley must have anticipated how many people in the Western world would initially assess these practices makes me feel like he should have actually tried a little better to make a call on how odd or fanatical they are from his perspective. From what I found out from other sources he was there living with them for a while and invited into their culture. He has some insight that we don’t have, but I don’t feel he gave us the benefit of that insight. I feel like he gave a detached view which to me doesn’t actually show me the rituals “for what they are”. I can’t tell what they are without some more insight into what is behind them. I got snippets and glimpses, but it was kind of just a tease that wasn’t satisfied with much elaboration. I think there’s something universal about humanity and I could have done to have more to connect with these people in ways that I could find similarities to lead me to better understand the differences.

When you criticize something, it’s ideally from a solid bedrock of objectivity. I don’t believe such a thing is possible. To take an extreme example, yes, it’s fine to point out that cannibalism is a damaging practice, but it’s not fine to make judgments of the cannibals themselves; they’re not starting from the same conception of morality or value or “normality” as us, and so to judge them from a traditional Judeo-Christian mindset is hopelessly ethnocentric.

So it’s impossible to be 100% objective. I agree with that. That might be the ideal, but true it’s not possible. So I’m not sure what you are saying about criticism then. Are you saying because someone can never be objective no one should ever criticize? If that’s what you are saying, then isn’t that statement itself a criticism? And thus doesn’t it become kind of circular? Maybe that’s not what you are saying.

As per your example, I want to point out that I never was saying we ought to criticize the people themselves, just criticizing the rituals. I understand that because of their starting point cannibals in these cultures may not have the same conception of morality as us, but if you personally think that cannibalism is bad and damaging and it would be better off for those people to stop, then that is a judgment you are making from your own starting point (or whatever point you’ve come to at this point in your life). If you hold cannibalism to be bad, then you must hold your conceptions of morality to be good, and thus are also saying that your conceptions of morality are better than theirs. There’s no much way around this that I can see. But that’s not to say that they a bad people, or that you at your core are even a better person. You just feel strong in what you believe is good for someone. They may not be a bad person for not sharing that belief, but that doesn’t mean that you should reject your own carefully thought out belief just because someone else doesn’t share it.

As for a traditional Judeo-Christian mindset, I see how a lot of people who would claim they subscribe to that mindset might hold these beliefs. From my understanding of the actual Judeo-Christian beliefs if you get into them, what is actually taught is just the opposite. That you need to love and accept all people, not just tolerate them out of some obligation either, but truly love them. And that means getting to know them on your own terms and being open to the fact that there are a lot of things their culture could teach you where you are very much misguided. But that doesn’t mean giving up very easily everything that you believe in just because it would be “ethnocentric”. You don’t also seem to be calling the Haitian people “ethnocentric” when they resist or criticize ideas from other cultures. They talk about how they fought to preserve their culture and religion, but how is that any less “ethnocentric” in your terms?

We could talk further about how we could determine what is negative, but then we’d need to determine what’s positive. We shouldn’t enter any discussion about what’s unproductive because a society like that of Haiti is not primarily concerned with what is productive. That’s a very Western concept, progress and productivity as a high good. It’s important to be aware of where our most fundamental preconceptions come from.

It is very important to understand where these preconceptions come from. And I am actually very leery of the term “progress” and understand it is associated with Western thinking. I was not at all associating the word “productive” with “progress” though. When I say “productive” I mean that the person doing the thing can define productive on their own terms. It goes along with what the purpose of something is. It’s hard for me to think that the idea of “purpose” is something that is only Western and not universal. When someone does something, anything at all, there must be some purpose for it. Is does the action achieve the purpose. That’s all I’m asking. If you still think that idea is tied to Western thinking, I’d appreciate if you could try to show me how, or give me examples of other cultures or people who wouldn’t see it that way.

I agree! It’s very good to be unsettled, shaken out of your comfort zone. For me, some of the scenes that you describe as wallowing around in mud were unsettling. The whole notion of possession is unsettling as hell to me, but that’s probably because in my society self-control and self-determination are praised as high goods and the notion of possession is always linked with the devil, with evil, with an inability to fulfill oneself without outside intervention. A Haitian doesn’t look at possession in this way; there’s an element of unity and return to wholeness in it, a sacred element. It’s an opportunity to briefly transcend and become one with something greater than oneself. I don’t say I shouldn’t have been unsettled – like I say, it’s good to be confronted with something discomfiting – but the truly discomfiting thing to me is that I found something different from what I’m used discomfiting. That’s the first step toward fear, and ultimately xenophobia, ethnocentrism or racism. Probably the first step taken by those soldiers Stanley’s camera picks on so much.

Thanks for the specific examples and your interpretation. That’s what I was looking for. The idea of transcending to become one with a greater whole, like the whole of nature is one I can see some appeal in. But did you gather that from what people were saying? Because when I was watching I didn’t think of that at all. In fact, I’m kind of confused about what you said about how they look at possessions. You say they don’t look at them “in this way”. In what way do you mean? If you mean in a Western capitalistic way where people are obsessed with gaining possessions, I would say that the people in the film subscribed to this wholly. Many people talked about selling their soul to some demon who would give them power and possessions. Some even named things like getting a new house and car. That doesn’t seem to me like someone who is trying to transcend into a larger whole.

While finding something in another culture discomfiting could certainly be the first step towards fear and xenophobia it would also necessarily be the first step towards curiosity and understanding, I don’t see that it has to lead to one more than another, especially in someone like you who is obviously already consciously weary and making sure at each step that you are not being swept into xenophobia, ethnocentrism, or racism.

I’m not so optimistic. Who are they to say what are the important parts of the culture? How could they possibly tell, from their own distant and inevitably biased perspective? Lots of Christian aid groups were among those who went to Haiti, and we see in this film that traditional Voudon was already starting to wobble when confronted with a more, let’s say, forceful religion.

I don’t know who they are to say that. I just know there are a lot of different people out there, and it is possible. I can’t say that it will be the majority of them, or how that would even be measured because it would be a complex issue, but I guess sometimes I’m most optimistic than I should be.

Also, you may not like this answer from me, but as someone who believes in Christianity, I think in some way it is good if certain detrimental traditions do wobble when confronted with the message of the Gospel. But I do also believe that Christianity is unusual in the list of what are called world religions in that it is very adaptive to different cultures. A culture by no means needs to be extinguished for Christianity to take hold there. In fact Christianity can emphasize what was good in that culture and even strengthen it. Again, I’m sure this is an offensive idea to many people who do not believe in Christianity, but what good would I be if I believed only half heartedly in something that pertains to things so important.

The film was haphazard at times, disembodied at others. I preferred it to Van der Keuken’s film because its form seemed to become the message in a powerful way. The Eye Above the Well was filmed in what struck me as a rather static, contemplative style, an aesthetic quite familiar to me from a more quintessentially European school of filmmaking. Well, of course he IS European. But in this film Stanley seems to show through editing and pace a certain understanding of the more chaotic, natural, ecstatic leanings of a religion like Voudon.

That’s a good insight about the form becoming the message. And in a way, that is the part I was able to enjoy about it. Even though the message seemed to be arguing for something specific, I was able to enjoy the film more when I just took it that the message was very scattered the same way the form was. I was able to just take in the different people and activity in the quick moments that they appeared and disappeared but not try to figure out what consistent message was there.

Well the fact that Stanley must have anticipated how many people in the Western world would initially assess these practices makes me feel like he should have actually tried a little better to make a call on how odd or fanatical they are from his perspective. From what I found out from other sources he was there living with them for a while and invited into their culture. He has some insight that we don’t have, but I don’t feel he gave us the benefit of that insight. I feel like he gave a detached view which to me doesn’t actually show me the rituals “for what they are”. I can’t tell what they are without some more insight into what is behind them. I got snippets and glimpses, but it was kind of just a tease that wasn’t satisfied with much elaboration. I think there’s something universal about humanity and I could have done to have more to connect with these people in ways that I could find similarities to lead me to better understand the differences.

It could probably have been a much longer film, but I don’t think much more could have been said. The Haitians expressed their worldview and what these things signified to them – in sometimes cryptic terms – and then we’re shown them. If he’d contextualized it much more, the film would have lost that almost test-like aspect, that conundrum presented to the audience.

Also, talk is cheap; in a society like this, actions speak much more loudly and there is no better way to understand these things than to witness them. Or so I’d suppose.

So it’s impossible to be 100% objective. I agree with that. That might be the ideal, but true it’s not possible. So I’m not sure what you are saying about criticism then. Are you saying because someone can never be objective no one should ever criticize? If that’s what you are saying, then isn’t that statement itself a criticism? And thus doesn’t it become kind of circular? Maybe that’s not what you are saying.

We can criticize, of course, but every criticism is fallible on one level or another. Whether a proposition is right is generally decided by how many people agree on it, and which people. We can say cannibalism is damaging to a society, and a tribe somewhere in the Amazon can disagree, but the number of people in the world who consider death the worst of all evils and eating human flesh the ultimate taboo is very big, so we turn out to be “correct”.

That’s the extreme example. More often, though, any criticism of a society and its customs is based on our perception of what’s important. Let me go off on a tangent to make my point clearer: I once saw a Buddhist temple in Taiwan that was very richly and beautifully ornamented, almost to the point of gaudiness. The whole street it was on was paved over and clearly made to attract Taiwanese tourists; there was all sorts of kitsch in the fancy little shops, little Buddha-related trinkets and so forth. Taiwan is often struck my earthquakes and there are some parts of it that are quite poor. From the top of the temple, which was really immaculate, you could see that to either side of the nice, well-lit, fancy-looking street were many, many run-down houses. There’s also this tradition where people pay actual money for little scraps of “paper money”, and then burn the paper money as a sort of spiritual insurance.

To me, the notion of pouring so much money into spiritual insurance – from the grandeur of the temple down to the burning of the money – when living conditions were difficult and people were living in relative discomfort was appalling. But I accept that I see that from the perspective of a more materialistic society based very much on the individual’s comfort and much less on the importantance of spirituality. I could criticize their society for literally throwing away money that could be used to make their lives better, but it’s all a matter of what I value and hold to be important.

So yes, we all have our beliefs and values and we certainly have a right to them, but we shouldn’t measure others or others’ actions by them. I think we more or less agree here and otherwise would just go around in circles.

As for a traditional Judeo-Christian mindset, I see how a lot of people who would claim they subscribe to that mindset might hold these beliefs. From my understanding of the actual Judeo-Christian beliefs if you get into them, what is actually taught is just the opposite. That you need to love and accept all people, not just tolerate them out of some obligation either, but truly love them. And that means getting to know them on your own terms and being open to the fact that there are a lot of things their culture could teach you where you are very much misguided. But that doesn’t mean giving up very easily everything that you believe in just because it would be “ethnocentric”. You don’t also seem to be calling the Haitian people “ethnocentric” when they resist or criticize ideas from other cultures. They talk about how they fought to preserve their culture and religion, but how is that any less “ethnocentric” in your terms?

I’m using Judeo-Christian broadly to refer to the Western world, not specifically to the religions themselves. I think it’s fair to say that most thought in the Western world is in some way influenced by the religions that have predominated in it for a couple thousand years, just as the Eastern world is.

Ethnocentrism is holding another culture to your culture’s standards. The Haitians are just trying to hold onto the beliefs that have seen them through difficult times and many years.

It is very important to understand where these preconceptions come from. And I am actually very leery of the term “progress” and understand it is associated with Western thinking. I was not at all associating the word “productive” with “progress” though. When I say “productive” I mean that the person doing the thing can define productive on their own terms. It goes along with what the purpose of something is. It’s hard for me to think that the idea of “purpose” is something that is only Western and not universal. When someone does something, anything at all, there must be some purpose for it. Is does the action achieve the purpose. That’s all I’m asking. If you still think that idea is tied to Western thinking, I’d appreciate if you could try to show me how, or give me examples of other cultures or people who wouldn’t see it that way.

An Eastern philosophy is generally more concerned with cycles, balance, and perhaps a different view of time. It’s the Judeo-Christian concept that’s most concerned with an “end”, or “purpose”. Compare reincarnation, which has neither an end nor a purpose per se, to the Christian afterlife, which is a definitive end. Of course this doesn’t mean that people from Asia do things purposelessly – it’s human to want a purpose – but it does mean that in highly religious circles like the one we’re looking at here, there are things that are more important than achieving a specific end, than moving “forward” – I wouldn’t consider staying in balance a purpose that requires an action. The ancient Egyptians were a civilization built on the notion of the status quo.

You’ll have to excuse how unspecific I’m getting. It’s been a while since I watched this film.

Thanks for the specific examples and your interpretation. That’s what I was looking for. The idea of transcending to become one with a greater whole, like the whole of nature is one I can see some appeal in. But did you gather that from what people were saying? Because when I was watching I didn’t think of that at all. In fact, I’m kind of confused about what you said about how they look at possessions. You say they don’t look at them “in this way”. In what way do you mean? If you mean in a Western capitalistic way where people are obsessed with gaining possessions, I would say that the people in the film subscribed to this wholly. Many people talked about selling their soul to some demon who would give them power and possessions. Some even named things like getting a new house and car. That doesn’t seem to me like someone who is trying to transcend into a larger whole.

While finding something in another culture discomfiting could certainly be the first step towards fear and xenophobia it would also necessarily be the first step towards curiosity and understanding, I don’t see that it has to lead to one more than another, especially in someone like you who is obviously already consciously weary and making sure at each step that you are not being swept into xenophobia, ethnocentrism, or racism.

Ah, no, I meant possession as in the taking over of one’s body by a spirit, not as in what one owns! ;)

I don’t know who they are to say that. I just know there are a lot of different people out there, and it is possible. I can’t say that it will be the majority of them, or how that would even be measured because it would be a complex issue, but I guess sometimes I’m most optimistic than I should be.

Also, you may not like this answer from me, but as someone who believes in Christianity, I think in some way it is good if certain detrimental traditions do wobble when confronted with the message of the Gospel. But I do also believe that Christianity is unusual in the list of what are called world religions in that it is very adaptive to different cultures. A culture by no means needs to be extinguished for Christianity to take hold there. In fact Christianity can emphasize what was good in that culture and even strengthen it. Again, I’m sure this is an offensive idea to many people who do not believe in Christianity, but what good would I be if I believed only half heartedly in something that pertains to things so important.

It’s not offensive! I don’t agree, of course – it seems to imply that Christianity is the least detrimental religion, a sort of “perfect religion” that has more good to offer than a religion like Voudon – but I understand where you’re coming from. It’s just that the ideals of love and faith that are most central to Christianity are not the most central ideals of Voudon (which, as far as I can make out, are community and generosity – not so different, but still distinct). Which are the “best” ideals to hold will obviously differ depending on which culture you ask. I think you’d say love and faith; a Haitian would say community and generosity. Personally, as an unreligious person (I don’t like that word “atheist”), I’d say wisdom and kindness. Naturally all these things are important together, but everybody values some qualities more than others.

This discussion’s getting a little too far from Richard Stanley, though…

I don’t remember whether I said this in another post, but it seemed to me Stanley appreciates Haitian culture the same way American teenagers appreciate Japanese culture. In a way he fetishizes it, but not in a way that makes anyone think he believes in it. He thinks voodoo is really, really cool. I’m not sure that’s the most respectful way to represent a culture.

As for criticizing other cultures, in the film the characters said “We need more faith healers, to eliminate the need for hospitals!” A few hundred years ago Christians believed if you contract an illness it means you’re unvirtuous, and they cured infections with bloodletting. Somebody criticized that, and now they don’t. Tolerating something you know is logically, factually, demonstrably incorrect is not respect for another culture.

It could probably have been a much longer film, but I don’t think much more could have been said. The Haitians expressed their worldview and what these things signified to them – in sometimes cryptic terms – and then we’re shown them. If he’d contextualized it much more, the film would have lost that almost test-like aspect, that conundrum presented to the audience.

Also, talk is cheap; in a society like this, actions speak much more loudly and there is no better way to understand these things than to witness them. Or so I’d suppose.

If it is indeed a test-like film, and the test is whether or not " you overcome your ingrained point of view and see these people and their rituals for what they are, or will you stick to your spurs and walk away calling them bizarre?" then I feel like only the people who will realize it is a test are those who come to the former conclusion. For me, I have to assume I’m not seeing the rituals for what, because I see conflicting messages about what they are. However I don’t really want to walk away from them calling them bizarre. I still want to understand, so to me it hasn’t seemed like a test like that.

If it’s true that talk is cheap here and that witnessing the actions without any verbal commentary would be enough, why is the film so deeply layered in verbal commentary from the people trying to explain it?

We can criticize, of course, but every criticism is fallible on one level or another.

So wouldn’t it be that the very criticism you just made there is also fallible?

Whether a proposition is right is generally decided by how many people agree on it, and which people. We can say cannibalism is damaging to a society, and a tribe somewhere in the Amazon can disagree, but the number of people in the world who consider death the worst of all evils and eating human flesh the ultimate taboo is very big, so we turn out to be “correct”.

What you say is true in general about what overall populations define as true, but I cannot have a discussion with an entire population or culture. I can only have discussions with individuals. So as I am having a discussion with you as an individual I can only ask what you as an individual believe. So what is your personal opinion on cannibalism, do you personally believe it is fundamentally wrong? In that case obviously there is such a thing as an absolute which transcends what the majority in a society believe.

It’s important to realize that a lot of our beliefs, even very deep seeded ones are derived from our culture, but if you personally think that there are no absolutes at all that aren’t just culturally relative, then it doesn’t seem to me like there is any possibility of any kind of discussion, especially with anyone outside of your own culture. What do you appeal to for the basis of an argument? Also you have to realize that the statement “whether a proposition is right is generally decided by how many people agree on it, and which people” invalidates itself because there are some societies in which the majority of the people would disagree with that very statement. How do you rectify that?

That’s the extreme example. More often, though, any criticism of a society and its customs is based on our perception of what’s important. Let me go off on a tangent to make my point clearer: I once saw a Buddhist temple in Taiwan that was very richly and beautifully ornamented, almost to the point of gaudiness. The whole street it was on was paved over and clearly made to attract Taiwanese tourists; there was all sorts of kitsch in the fancy little shops, little Buddha-related trinkets and so forth. Taiwan is often struck my earthquakes and there are some parts of it that are quite poor. From the top of the temple, which was really immaculate, you could see that to either side of the nice, well-lit, fancy-looking street were many, many run-down houses. There’s also this tradition where people pay actual money for little scraps of “paper money”, and then burn the paper money as a sort of spiritual insurance.

To me, the notion of pouring so much money into spiritual insurance – from the grandeur of the temple down to the burning of the money – when living conditions were difficult and people were living in relative discomfort was appalling. But I accept that I see that from the perspective of a more materialistic society based very much on the individual’s comfort and much less on the importance of spirituality. I could criticize their society for literally throwing away money that could be used to make their lives better, but it’s all a matter of what I value and hold to be important.

So yes, we all have our beliefs and values and we certainly have a right to them, but we shouldn’t measure others or others’ actions by them. I think we more or less agree here and otherwise would just go around in circles.

Is there ever a point at which you would criticize? What if the majority of the people in a culture accepted self mutilation or hunting a species to extinction. What if they enforced genocide or human trafficking? I certainly don’t know you very well and don’t want to make any assumptions, but what it kind of sounds like to me is that the reason you don’t criticize the people in Taiwan is because in some way you do indentify with them. Maybe you still suspect that the way they are going about it is not really effective to what’s important to them, or maybe you feel that they are missing part of the bigger picture, but the reason you don’t want to criticize is because you personally don’t feel like you have enough of a grasp of the complexity of their culture. How can a person come in an criticize from the outside until they’ve really experienced the complexity of a culture long enough to understand it. I suspect that if you lived in Taiwan yourself long enough and go to know the people there that after a period of time you would feel like you could understand them better and deeper to a point where you might feel like you might be able to offer criticisms because you would be offering them from not just an outside perspective but both an inside and outside perspective. I don’t want to say that’s how you really feel, but that’s how I feel and I suspect deep down that’s how a lot of us feel.

I’m using Judeo-Christian broadly to refer to the Western world, not specifically to the religions themselves. I think it’s fair to say that most thought in the Western world is in some way influenced by the religions that have predominated in it for a couple thousand years, just as the Eastern world is.

It’s true although I don’t think people realize that the Western world was as much influenced by a kind of melding of that Judeo-Christian tradition with pagan and Greco-Roman traditions as well. Although more people profess to believing the narrative of the Bible as a basis for their spiritual beliefs, many of those deep seeded beliefs about what is important come from many of those other traditions. Christianity is spreading considerably in Africa and Asia. The people believing the Judeo-Christian narrative in those countries will look different in many ways from those subscribing to the Judeo-Christian tradition in the Western world.

Ethnocentrism is holding another culture to your culture’s standards. The Haitians are just trying to hold onto the beliefs that have seen them through difficult times and many years.

But if as you say that all beliefs about what is right and wrong come from our own culture, isn’t it impossible not to be somewhat if not entirely ethnocentric? You say about Stanley that “as he speaks to the people, he’s able to shed his ethnocentric viewpoint and by film’s end he ceases to be the invisible and silent man behind the camera and steps forward to speak up.” I see what he is actually doing is not becoming invisible, but becoming more a part of that culture he is living in. So now it’s not that he is shedding his ethnocentric viewpoint, but his viewpoint is now becoming that of the culture he is within. So he is still holding a culture to his own culture’s standards, it’s just that now his own culture is that same culture. He’s holding that culture to its own standards because he has become a part of that culture. And while I do think there are some absolutes, I do think this approach is closer to what I would advocate. You do have to go talk to people in a culture and live in it before you can criticize it.

An Eastern philosophy is generally more concerned with cycles, balance, and perhaps a different view of time. It’s the Judeo-Christian concept that’s most concerned with an “end”, or “purpose”. Compare reincarnation, which has neither an end nor a purpose per se, to the Christian afterlife, which is a definitive end. Of course this doesn’t mean that people from Asia do things purposelessly – it’s human to want a purpose – but it does mean that in highly religious circles like the one we’re looking at here, there are things that are more important than achieving a specific end, than moving “forward” – I wouldn’t consider staying in balance a purpose that requires an action. The ancient Egyptians were a civilization built on the notion of the status quo.

I don’t see how you couldn’t consider “staying in balance a purpose that requires an action.” I mean if there is a possibility of falling out of balance without doing something to stay in balance then it seems like “staying in balance” is an action with a purpose to me.

Ah, no, I meant possession as in the taking over of one’s body by a spirit, not as in what one owns! ;)

Oooops! I’m sorry, I just read your post again and it seems so obvious. Obviously I was trying to find a way to fit in my comments about their view on possessions.

Going back to your original comment then, I think it is good that you recognized your fear of possession. Giving up self control and self determination are scary things from the point of view of our culture and I think it’s a positive thing that you recognized that we can’t have full control. That it’s actually more freeing sometime to not have control. Of course it’s of critical importance of what we give up that control to. As you may guess my belief is that there is a God that we are designed to depend on. I do respect all people who don’t believe this though and recognize this is because people hold so many different beliefs through their cultures and other sources.

It’s not offensive! I don’t agree, of course – it seems to imply that Christianity is the least detrimental religion, a sort of “perfect religion” that has more good to offer than a religion like Voudon – but I understand where you’re coming from. It’s just that the ideals of love and faith that are most central to Christianity are not the most central ideals of Voudon (which, as far as I can make out, are community and generosity – not so different, but still distinct). Which are the “best” ideals to hold will obviously differ depending on which culture you ask. I think you’d say love and faith; a Haitian would say community and generosity. Personally, as an unreligious person (I don’t like that word “atheist”), I’d say wisdom and kindness. Naturally all these things are important together, but everybody values some qualities more than others.

But then from my perspective when someone says a person or a culture of people value things like community, generosity, wisdom, and kindness, I say that all of these things are valued in Christianity as well as coming from God, and in fact that you can only fully realize these things through God. So I think that is why Christianity can take hold because cultures intrinsically do hold on to good things that are important, Christianity just allows them to realize the true source for the things they hold important and allows them to bring them to fruition more than they ever could have through their old rituals. Again, that’s just my perspective which I hold on to but would be willing to discuss and doubt and probe to see where I might be wrong or where my own culture has taught me in ways I might not see the whole picture.

This discussion’s getting a little too far from Richard Stanley, though…

That’s ok with me though if it’s ok with you. I think good discussions about art take you beyond the piece into bigger areas.

Tolerating something you know is logically, factually, demonstrably incorrect is not respect for another culture.

Exactly. Toleration is almost disrespectful. It’s like saying, “you can do what you want and we won’t criticize you but because of that we don’t really care enough to engage with you either.” Intolerance of some behaviors and thoughts actually means respect and caring for the person performing them. Now it’s an incredibly dangrous position as well because someone who tries to help someone else with this attitude will have the urge to feel like they are somehow better than the other person, which is totally untrue. They are not a better person, and in fact they may not even know better. There should be some dialogue there and constant reexamining, but to even doubt and argue you have to believe something to doubt and argue about in the first place.

If it is indeed a test-like film, and the test is whether or not " you overcome your ingrained point of view and see these people and their rituals for what they are, or will you stick to your spurs and walk away calling them bizarre?" then I feel like only the people who will realize it is a test are those who come to the former conclusion. For me, I have to assume I’m not seeing the rituals for what, because I see conflicting messages about what they are. However I don’t really want to walk away from them calling them bizarre. I still want to understand, so to me it hasn’t seemed like a test like that.

If it’s true that talk is cheap here and that witnessing the actions without any verbal commentary would be enough, why is the film so deeply layered in verbal commentary from the people trying to explain it?

What are the conflicting messages?

The verbal commentary is there to ease the audience into the “action”, it seems to me. It helps to start out by letting the people themselves explain how they view their rituals and traditions, even if it’s only in imprecise, almost impressionistic fragments. The way they describe their religion is neither factual nor detailed – it’s all about impressions and feelings. It’s not a typically “educational” documentary in this sense.

What you say is true in general about what overall populations define as true, but I cannot have a discussion with an entire population or culture. I can only have discussions with individuals. So as I am having a discussion with you as an individual I can only ask what you as an individual believe. So what is your personal opinion on cannibalism, do you personally believe it is fundamentally wrong? In that case obviously there is such a thing as an absolute which transcends what the majority in a society believe.

Well, no, I’m not convinced. What if five men will die unless one of them is eaten by the others? From a utilitarian standpoint, it would be logical for one man to die for the others to live. And what if one of them is willing to be eaten, or even considers it a very great honour? In that case, I wouldn’t say it would be inherently odious for them to do it, and so I don’t consider cannibalism fundamentally wrong, which would imply that it’s wrong in every situation and every circumstance.

It’s important to realize that a lot of our beliefs, even very deep seeded ones are derived from our culture, but if you personally think that there are no absolutes at all that aren’t just culturally relative, then it doesn’t seem to me like there is any possibility of any kind of discussion, especially with anyone outside of your own culture. What do you appeal to for the basis of an argument? Also you have to realize that the statement “whether a proposition is right is generally decided by how many people agree on it, and which people” invalidates itself because there are some societies in which the majority of the people would disagree with that very statement. How do you rectify that?

Discussion doesn’t have to involve value judgments. Can’t we discuss without calling something wrong or right?

I’m not saying we can’t make an argument against a culture’s practice, on the basis of it causing long-term damage to its people, but only that to purport objectivity in such a case is generally to impose one’s priorities on somebody else. It’s a dangerous mindset to get into.

Here we can find cases like the faith healers vs hospitals. If good health is more important than conviction, faith and spirituality, than of course we should replace the faith healers with as many hospitals as we can afford. I would agree that it’s more important to be healthy than to have unfaltering belief in one’s deities and healing rituals. But one could argue that fully accepting modern medicine would be taking a stride away from one’s traditional spirituality, and may even be a first step in losing faith altogether. Who’s to say that it’s more important to be healthy than firm in one’s faith? Well, I would, but I’m not so sure about all of the Haitians.

That doesn’t mean we should pretend to believe that faith healers work better than hospitals, just that the I’m-right-you’re-wrong mentality is damaging and rarely justifiable.

Is there ever a point at which you would criticize? What if the majority of the people in a culture accepted self mutilation or hunting a species to extinction. What if they enforced genocide or human trafficking? I certainly don’t know you very well and don’t want to make any assumptions, but what it kind of sounds like to me is that the reason you don’t criticize the people in Taiwan is because in some way you do indentify with them. Maybe you still suspect that the way they are going about it is not really effective to what’s important to them, or maybe you feel that they are missing part of the bigger picture, but the reason you don’t want to criticize is because you personally don’t feel like you have enough of a grasp of the complexity of their culture. How can a person come in an criticize from the outside until they’ve really experienced the complexity of a culture long enough to understand it. I suspect that if you lived in Taiwan yourself long enough and go to know the people there that after a period of time you would feel like you could understand them better and deeper to a point where you might feel like you might be able to offer criticisms because you would be offering them from not just an outside perspective but both an inside and outside perspective. I don’t want to say that’s how you really feel, but that’s how I feel and I suspect deep down that’s how a lot of us feel.

I more or less agree with you. There certainly is a point at which I would call a society’s practices destructive, especially if they affected other societies (cases of genocide, slavery, colonialism, etc).

But if as you say that all beliefs about what is right and wrong come from our own culture, isn’t it impossible not to be somewhat if not entirely ethnocentric? You say about Stanley that “as he speaks to the people, he’s able to shed his ethnocentric viewpoint and by film’s end he ceases to be the invisible and silent man behind the camera and steps forward to speak up.” I see what he is actually doing is not becoming invisible, but becoming more a part of that culture he is living in. So now it’s not that he is shedding his ethnocentric viewpoint, but his viewpoint is now becoming that of the culture he is within. So he is still holding a culture to his own culture’s standards, it’s just that now his own culture is that same culture. He’s holding that culture to its own standards because he has become a part of that culture. And while I do think there are some absolutes, I do think this approach is closer to what I would advocate. You do have to go talk to people in a culture and live in it before you can criticize it.

Well, can’t we overcome what our culture teaches us is objectively right or wrong? Can’t we eventually step back and see our own limitations, and appreciate another culture’s view on right and wrong without losing our own?

I agree with the latter part, though. It’s not that no culture should ever be criticized, just that its practices need to be understood from the point of view of the people who pratice them. If they’re arbitrary or damaging from that point of view as well, then criticism is neither damaging nor unfounded.

I don’t see how you couldn’t consider “staying in balance a purpose that requires an action.” I mean if there is a possibility of falling out of balance without doing something to stay in balance then it seems like “staying in balance” is an action with a purpose to me.

I see it as the difference between walking down a road and sitting on a mountaintop. Maybe just different views of what purposefulness is? An emphasis on the effect vs an emphasis on the action?

But then from my perspective when someone says a person or a culture of people value things like community, generosity, wisdom, and kindness, I say that all of these things are valued in Christianity as well as coming from God, and in fact that you can only fully realize these things through God. So I think that is why Christianity can take hold because cultures intrinsically do hold on to good things that are important, Christianity just allows them to realize the true source for the things they hold important and allows them to bring them to fruition more than they ever could have through their old rituals. Again, that’s just my perspective which I hold on to but would be willing to discuss and doubt and probe to see where I might be wrong or where my own culture has taught me in ways I might not see the whole picture.

Aren’t they all valued in Voudon as well? Well, maybe they are and maybe they’re not. I’m not a scholar on the topic. But I’m sure that they feel the true source for the things they (and you) hold important is the one that they recognize (the Loa, was it?), and are just as sure of it as you are that they stem from God.

Malkin, I’m sorry it has taken a while to respond since I’ve been thinking about it and wanting to. I have rewatched The White Darkness and an interview with Richard Stanley about the film on the DVD. This gave me some more perspectives on the film. In light of this, I’ll answer your questions and add a few more comments.

What are the conflicting messages?

The verbal commentary is there to ease the audience into the “action”, it seems to me. It helps to start out by letting the people themselves explain how they view their rituals and traditions, even if it’s only in imprecise, almost impressionistic fragments. The way they describe their religion is neither factual nor detailed – it’s all about impressions and feelings. It’s not a typically “educational” documentary in this sense.

Upon review the messages are actually not that conflicting. To me they are however vague and scattered. And maybe when you say we need to see them for what they are, that is indeed what they are, and it’s my culturally conditioned response to want something a bit more solid of a reason or narrative behind the rituals. However I still feel like that is a valid thing to want, so I spent a bit more time rewatching and researching it further.

Based on my rewatching the film, Stanley’s comments, and a small bit of additional research it seems that the Hatian Voodou culture and religion is an extremely syncretic (new word I learned) religion. While the characters in the film cite influences being from various practices and regions in different parts of West Africa (which may be in conflict actually), other sources say the religion is also a meshed with Catholic traditions and beliefs, although some of the Voodou practitioners in the film have different opinions towards that aspect of it. Some accept the Catholic elements in it and some don’t. Stanley in his interview also states that while he was expecting to see West African traditions (some of which would be familiar to him from when he grew up in Africa) and Christian traditions, what he actually found most of was rituals and symbols coming out of European pagan religions. He said he saw a lot of rituals which only could have been taught to these people by pagans or pagan rituals that had been incorporated in Freemasonry. Giving a Freemason handshake actually gave him respect in the eyes of one important Voodou practitioner.

So I think the reasons I found a lot of it rather confusing initially is because from an overall perspective the people themselves are confused. There are so many varying traditions coming together that there is not much of a consensus. Of course there are rituals and myths everyone has heard, and some people will stress that certain threads of Voodou are the better ones and that you must practice the rituals from those traditions to perfection, but people overall seem to feel like they have some choice in what kind of traditions or Loa they want to follow or worship. Stanley said based on his research before he went to Haiti he believed there were about five or six different kind of Loa or deities worshipped there. But when he got there he started finding a lot more and wanted to document them. However when him and his crew got to about five or six hundred they gave up and realized there were too many to document. To me this seems like people are inventing new ones however it pleases them.

I wish some of the eclectic qualities of the culture was made more apparent in the actual documentary. I know you said it’s not so much an educational documentary, but what frustrates me is that part of it isn’t, part of it is. We have a historian who tells us about the oppression and genocide of the people by the US Government in the early 1900s. They parrallel it with what was happening there at the time they were filming. I think it’s a fair connection to make, although Stanley said this was not what he was intending to focus on at the start of making the film. He didn’t even know US troops would be there and stumbled upon them. It’s at this point where I sense maybe he had problems making up his mind about what the film would be about. Would it be an educational film about the oppression in Haiti by the US? Or would it be more of an impressionistic piece showcasing some of the actual Voodou rituals? I tend to feel he should have chosen one or the other. Then again, I like a higher level consistency of focus and not everyone does. But the images are so full of energy I don’t think we needed to or could be “eased” into it with the commentary. This is probably partially my fault too though in how I view. I can easily be distracted or miss certain things.

Discussion doesn’t have to involve value judgments. Can’t we discuss without calling something wrong or right?

Most statements in discussions involve value judgements to some extent. Any discussion without value judgements, if that is even possible, would be too bland to even be interesting or worthwhile. Our conversation has been full of value judgements on all sides. Just look at your very question “Can’t we discuss without calling something wrong or right?” It implies that it’s not right to call something wrong or right, which doesn’t even make sense since it disqualifies itself.

I’m not saying we can’t make an argument against a culture’s practice, on the basis of it causing long-term damage to its people, but only that to purport objectivity in such a case is generally to impose one’s priorities on somebody else. It’s a dangerous mindset to get into.

Sure it’s dangerous, but just because something is dangerous doesn’t mean it should be avoided. A lot of important endeavors are dangerous. Of course it’s important not to be blind to dangers and to take precautions. Thus I think if you are going to make an argument against a culture’s practice you have to be extremely cautious and realize the impossibility of ultimate objectivity.

Here we can find cases like the faith healers vs hospitals. If good health is more important than conviction, faith and spirituality, than of course we should replace the faith healers with as many hospitals as we can afford. I would agree that it’s more important to be healthy than to have unfaltering belief in one’s deities and healing rituals. But one could argue that fully accepting modern medicine would be taking a stride away from one’s traditional spirituality, and may even be a first step in losing faith altogether. Who’s to say that it’s more important to be healthy than firm in one’s faith? Well, I would, but I’m not so sure about all of the Haitians.

So you ask the question “Who’s to say that it’s more important to be healthy than firm in one’s faith?”. Then you answer it by saying that “you would”. There must be deeper reasons for why something is important to a person that can be explored. When you start with the question of “which is better, faith healers or hospitals?”, you try to answer it by going down deeper and discover that the question actually hingers on “which is more important, physical health or faith?”. Why stop there? You can go deeper and say one who believes physical health is more important may do so because they believe that there is no spiritual deity to have faith in, thus if there is to be any value it must be defined strictly by our current physical comfort in this tangeable realm. And you can go deeper and say one who believes faith is more important may do so because they believe there is a metaphysical world which transcends and affects this world that has eternal consequences. Then when you get to that point you can go deeper yet and see what informs those beliefs in a person.

You may say no matter how deep we go that your response would still be the same. Every person has different things that are important to them and we should respect this. But if you say that you reveal that one thing that is important to you is other people. This statement shows the one who is saying it things that all people are important and that their option to decide what is important to them is important. But then you have to say that it’s an objective truth that people are important, and anyone who believes people (or some people) are not important are objectively wrong. And if objective truths are real, then there must be some meta-physical standard for things in our world, most likely what would be called God who declares these things. And if there is a God who thinks people are important and you believe you have been given some insight about what kinds of things are important, then it would be much kinder to them to not just say about people that whatever anyone wants to decide for themselves is important is fine, because that isn’t true and they could be destroying themselves.

Of course no one can know everything or even a discernable fraction of everything, so again you have to be open and cautious not to behave in an oppressive way. But if your guide is that people are important, not that your own views are what is important, then that should be a good guide for loving and respectful learning from each other.

That doesn’t mean we should pretend to believe that faith healers work better than hospitals, just that the I’m-right-you’re-wrong mentality is damaging and rarely justifiable.

Again, any time someone has a debate or discussion proposing something they believe to be true we technically have an I’m-right-you’re-wrong mentality. No one would be able to disseminate new ideas or truths if that mentality was always avoided as unjustifiable. I suspect what you are saying is damaging is the bad additute that can be presented behind that mentality. I’m talking about an attitude of I’m-right-you’re-wrong-about-this-important-matter-thus-I’m-better-than-you mentality. Someone in this state won’t listen or consider another person’s point of view because they are not open to questioning their own ideas in any way and don’t believe they could learn anything new. Thus they also think the person they are talking to is inferior for holding a wrong belief. Just because you feel like you have grasped some truth doesn’t mean you have done anything to make yourself more worthy to receive it. However we have clearly seen that human beings are apt to fall easily into that mentality. That’s where the danger and damaging behavior is. But trying to convince people of something you think is right is inherently damaging, only if it is done in a way the disrespects and devalues people (which ironically is often counter to the thing that people think is “right”).

I more or less agree with you. There certainly is a point at which I would call a society’s practices destructive, especially if they affected other societies (cases of genocide, slavery, colonialism, etc).

So how do you draw that line? And why is it bad if societies do destructive things to other societies but not if they do destructive things to themselves?

Well, can’t we overcome what our culture teaches us is objectively right or wrong? Can’t we eventually step back and see our own limitations, and appreciate another culture’s view on right and wrong without losing our own?

Yes, I think we can. In fact I think one of the best ways to appreciate either your own or another culture’s views is to step back and see them within the context of what is possible and what views are held elsewhere because very rarely are two cultures diametrically opposed on what they thing is right and wrong in every area. I think we agree in this regard. What we maybe don’t agree on is that by overcoming and stepping back this way it also allows us not to just be appreciative but critical as well. In fact because I believe all people are good and important, things that are good will be important to people in all cultures. However the specific beliefs that come out about how to attain this goodness may vary. Thus you must appreciate something like this before you can criticize it.

BTW, I’m realizing a lot of this as I’m writing it, so this conversation has been quite useful for me to think things out. And in light of that I’m appreciating the White Darkness documentary more now. You’ve made me realize how I do agree with you in a big way but was initially kind of falling into the trap that you described. Thanks for that.

I agree with the latter part, though. It’s not that no culture should ever be criticized, just that its practices need to be understood from the point of view of the people who pratice them. If they’re arbitrary or damaging from that point of view as well, then criticism is neither damaging nor unfounded.

Yes, I think you are right. And when we step back and look at our limitations as you said we can see that what is important to people around the world is often similar, it just comes out in different although very complex ways. I was expecting this film, White Darkness, to give me the same ammount of information I would need a few years of living with these people to get. An impressionistic kind of experience is all you can really ask for an hour of documentary. I’m not saying I think it is great now after thinking it over. I still think he could have done better not to mix the impressionistic stuff with the educational stuff, but again that’s my preference.

Aren’t they all valued in Voudon as well? Well, maybe they are and maybe they’re not. I’m not a scholar on the topic. But I’m sure that they feel the true source for the things they (and you) hold important is the one that they recognize (the Loa, was it?), and are just as sure of it as you are that they stem from God.

They could be things the people value in their core in some way, but from what I’ve seen Voudon doesn’t allow it to manifest as well as it could. They believe that they have to perform these perfectionistic rituals to appease these Loa and if they do it right they will be rewarded and if they do it wrong they will be hated by the Loa and harmed. In Christianity there is nothing you can do to lose God’s love. You just accept it and the gift of Jesus’ sacrifice for your suffering. We might both believe these things (community, generosity, wisdom, and kindness) come from different sources, but I see a pretty limiting potential for them to be manifested in the kind of situation presented by this kind of Loa worship and mentality.

I know this has probably been an exessively long post for a forum like this, but if anything it has been useful for me to contemplate on it by responding. I still hope you’ll continue to respond though. Thanks. :)

Malkin,

Just bumping this to see if you still had any response.

Yeah, sure! I’m sorry, I really meant to do this sooner, but it slips your mind and then one thing and then another and suddenly it’s three months later – you know how it goes.

Most statements in discussions involve value judgements to some extent. Any discussion without value judgements, if that is even possible, would be too bland to even be interesting or worthwhile. Our conversation has been full of value judgements on all sides. Just look at your very question “Can’t we discuss without calling something wrong or right?” It implies that it’s not right to call something wrong or right, which doesn’t even make sense since it disqualifies itself.

I phrased that question very carefully on account of just such a potential retort. ;)

And it’s not a retort I can really do much with. It’s like when somebody says “everything is subjective” and the other person replies “then your statement is subjective” – well, yeah, that should be evident. At this point we’re getting into my playing devil’s advocate just a little, but I don’t agree that a discussion without value judgements is uninteresting or not worthwhile. It just means it’s more detached, which can yield its own results.

You may say no matter how deep we go that your response would still be the same. Every person has different things that are important to them and we should respect this. But if you say that you reveal that one thing that is important to you is other people. This statement shows the one who is saying it things that all people are important and that their option to decide what is important to them is important. But then you have to say that it’s an objective truth that people are important, and anyone who believes people (or some people) are not important are objectively wrong. And if objective truths are real, then there must be some meta-physical standard for things in our world, most likely what would be called God who declares these things. And if there is a God who thinks people are important and you believe you have been given some insight about what kinds of things are important, then it would be much kinder to them to not just say about people that whatever anyone wants to decide for themselves is important is fine, because that isn’t true and they could be destroying themselves.

I have no insight at all into what’s objectively important. I haven’t the foggiest what you might mean by that. All I have are beliefs, and I’m using those beliefs to inform my stance in this conversation. If you find that a compelling stance that jives with your own, all the better; if not, perhaps in the discussing of differences between the two we might draw out something valuable that’ll get us both looking at, say, this film, in a new light. That’s how I approach discussion, and I think that’s more-or-less what happened here.

If their behaviour is self-destructive… well, how much store do you place in the individual’s free will and ability to make choices? Do you have a positive view of mankind or not? Are they generally competent or not? This is an old question and maybe I can make the easiest example of government. Should government make smoking illegal? What about alcohol? Fatty foods? Television? It’s a slippery slope when you start limiting choices for the sake of another’s well-being. There are many practices that people have that are bad for them, but few would argue that the government should start banning them – even if they could be destroying themselves.

So how do you draw that line? And why is it bad if societies do destructive things to other societies but not if they do destructive things to themselves?

What belongs to us, if not our own bodies? And who’s to say we can’t do whatever we want with what belongs to us?

BTW, I’m realizing a lot of this as I’m writing it, so this conversation has been quite useful for me to think things out. And in light of that I’m appreciating the White Darkness documentary more now. You’ve made me realize how I do agree with you in a big way but was initially kind of falling into the trap that you described. Thanks for that.

No problem! The discussion has moved pretty far from The White Darkness, but I suppose it’s just common courtesy for me to (however belatedly) acknowledge your wall of text. ;)

They could be things the people value in their core in some way, but from what I’ve seen Voudon doesn’t allow it to manifest as well as it could. They believe that they have to perform these perfectionistic rituals to appease these Loa and if they do it right they will be rewarded and if they do it wrong they will be hated by the Loa and harmed. In Christianity there is nothing you can do to lose God’s love. You just accept it and the gift of Jesus’ sacrifice for your suffering. We might both believe these things (community, generosity, wisdom, and kindness) come from different sources, but I see a pretty limiting potential for them to be manifested in the kind of situation presented by this kind of Loa worship and mentality.

Their religion has that element of fear as well as love and respect, yes… but as I understand it, so does Christianity. It’s not emphasized to the same degree in modern times, but the threat of the ocean of fire and so on is still a motivation in Christianity, no? I don’t want to go to Hell – I fear it – so I will be a good Christian, love my neighbour, etc, etc. The difference is that in Christianity that step is taken early on and the rest can be devoted to a doctrine of love and respect for God – while in Voudon that step is cumulative, and the element of fear is permanently present in addition to the (watered-down) love and respect part. Whether it’s fear or love that’s better at getting people to behave well to one another is another old question. Machiavelli said it, right? Is it better to be feared or loved? And his answer was: both would be preferable, but that’s unlikely – so it’s better to be feared (but never hated). I can’t imagine you’re a big fan of Machiavelli? He had a pretty pessimistic view of people and their honesty.

By the way, I saw in the other thread that you’re going through a tough time right now. I’m not the praying type, but I do wish you all the very best and hope everything works itself out. :)

Thanks for the response. :) I understand how things can take time. And these threads aren’t going to disappear so feel free to take as much time between responding as you want!

And it’s not a retort I can really do much with. It’s like when somebody says “everything is subjective” and the other person replies “then your statement is subjective” – well, yeah, that should be evident. At this point we’re getting into my playing devil’s advocate just a little, but I don’t agree that a discussion without value judgements is uninteresting or not worthwhile. It just means it’s more detached, which can yield its own results.

What is the difference between “worth” and “value”? To me they are synonyms. So to me what it seems like you are saying is that a discussion with no value can have value. Or that a discussion with no worth can have worth. Those just seem like contradictions to me. Can you give an example of a type of discussion you’ve had or seen that could be described like this?

I have no insight at all into what’s objectively important. I haven’t the foggiest what you might mean by that. All I have are beliefs, and I’m using those beliefs to inform my stance in this conversation. If you find that a compelling stance that jives with your own, all the better; if not, perhaps in the discussing of differences between the two we might draw out something valuable that’ll get us both looking at, say, this film, in a new light. That’s how I approach discussion, and I think that’s more-or-less what happened here.

I think we have the same attitude which is good. I think how we define what we are looking for exactly may be different though which is what I would like to continue to discuss, and I would think the results could be valuable as you said. But again I’m confused because you are now saying that you are looking for something valuable, where as earlier you said you would prefer to discount any value judgements. So again it seems like a contradiction.

If their behaviour is self-destructive… well, how much store do you place in the individual’s free will and ability to make choices? Do you have a positive view of mankind or not? Are they generally competent or not?

The free will thing is a difficult question for me. Here’s my current stance I suppose. From a Christian perspective I would say left on our own we have some free will, but for the most important things we don’t really have any free will and are doomed to sin. It’s only with God’s intervention that allows us to want and to do what is good. Mankind apart from God is on a negative track and not competent. But even though we are not good, God’s nature is still to love the unloveable. And because he has loved us and endowed us with his character, we can see each other in the same positive light.

This is an old question and maybe I can make the easiest example of government. Should government make smoking illegal? What about alcohol? Fatty foods? Television? It’s a slippery slope when you start limiting choices for the sake of another’s well-being. There are many practices that people have that are bad for them, but few would argue that the government should start banning them – even if they could be destroying themselves.

This is actually a big question I’ve been thinking about and talking to people about. I’ve often felt that it is not government’s job to limit many things. But as people it is our responsibility to confront those who we love and let them know if we feel that they are doing something self destructive. If you had a good friend who you saw who was an alcoholic, wouldn’t you want to help him out of it?

I suppose then it may depend on the type of government we are talking about. I think the government of the United States of America for instance governs such a large number of people that it should probably not limit these things. It is up to us on a smaller and more personal level to stand up and take personal investment in these things instead of just voting for someone we are hoping will do it for us.

What belongs to us, if not our own bodies? And who’s to say we can’t do whatever we want with what belongs to us?

Is that a rhetorical question? It sounds like a value judgment to me. ;)

Their religion has that element of fear as well as love and respect, yes… but as I understand it, so does Christianity. It’s not emphasized to the same degree in modern times, but the threat of the ocean of fire and so on is still a motivation in Christianity, no? I don’t want to go to Hell – I fear it – so I will be a good Christian, love my neighbour, etc, etc. The difference is that in Christianity that step is taken early on and the rest can be devoted to a doctrine of love and respect for God – while in Voudon that step is cumulative, and the element of fear is permanently present in addition to the (watered-down) love and respect part. Whether it’s fear or love that’s better at getting people to behave well to one another is another old question. Machiavelli said it, right? Is it better to be feared or loved? And his answer was: both would be preferable, but that’s unlikely – so it’s better to be feared (but never hated). I can’t imagine you’re a big fan of Machiavelli? He had a pretty pessimistic view of people and their honesty.

Actually no, that’s not the way of Christianity. That’s a huge perversion people have put on to make it just like every other religion. If you are oprating out of that kind of fear you are still being subject to a very selfish motivation. In fact if you are operating strictly out of a fear of hell then you are ironically just damning yourself further. Because at it’s core that’s what hell is. It’s this kind of preoccupation with yourself and your own destiny and pleasure and selfish attempt to control your own destiny and everything around you. God gives freedom in a way that may also initially seem ironic, by giving up control completely to him. It’s a freedom of realization that God has already saved us from hell. There’s nothing else to fear. There’s nothing you can do to lose God’s love and salvation.

Let’s put it this way. Why don’t you want to go to Hell? Why do you fear it? Is it because of a fear of physical pain? Is it a fear of loss of control? If that’s your reason and you only see obeying God as a way to avoid those things, then you do not understand where those things come from. Loving your neighbor will not save you from these things. Pain and loss of freedom come from being disconnected from God. That’s because joy and freedom come from being with God. It’s only when you shift your focus to a desire to be with God instead of a fear of Hell that you can truely avoid Hell.

By the way, I saw in the other thread that you’re going through a tough time right now. I’m not the praying type, but I do wish you all the very best and hope everything works itself out. :)

Thank you! Things have actually worked out quite well. I’ll describe the specifics some time later. But I learned to rely on God more than ever. And my friends have been so amazing. I can really see God working through them. Their generocity has been astounding. Seriously people, have good friends outside of MUBI. I mean real ones who care and would sacrifice for you. And be willing and joyful to do the same for them. It’s so life fulfilling!