File spoon-archives/lyotard.archive/lyotard_2003/lyotard.0305, message 9


From: gvcarter-AT-purdue.edu
Date: Thu,  1 May 2003 20:37:36 -0500
Subject: Re: love and difference - feeling, reacting



Hugh, Don, All,

Your mention of "Grief is the price we pay for love" reminds me of Charles M. 
Schultz, the creator of Peanuts.  Charlie, his zig-zagged shirt loopy haired 
boy, often exclaims, "Good Grief."  This pairing, this grief, this gravity is, 
perhaps, the most innocent of profanities--more innocent than any innocence in 
a Levinasian sense, or, perhaps, in a Baudrillardian sense a hyper-innocence, a 
more innocent-than-innocent that causes a complete re-reading of Peanuts.  

Who was the distinguished person?  What caused this person to speak out on 
behalf of the extinguished?  Why couldn't they be included?  What did the 
person's non-presence contribute to the murmur that shot through the re-
presentation of "Good Grief"?

"Good grief."  Good-God grief.  God grief.  Grieving God.  Grieving gods.  

Good grief, Charlie Brown, we love you, your zig-zagged sweater, and you missed 
football kicks (though we also love Lucy and her pulling such footballs away 
and your swirling fall.)

Good grief = Love, the sincerity of the approach, the intent of the pulling 
away, the vortex of the swirl, the fall, and the picking up again...

"Good grief, Charlie Brown" = Love = "Repetition is a form of change" 

g    




Quoting hbone <hbone-AT-optonline.net>:

> Don/All,
> 
> Someone present at a memorial service for victims of 9/11, which was held at
> St. Thomas Church in New York, recalls that a letter read from a
> distinguished person
> who couldn't be there, included the words:
> 
> "Grief is the price we pay for love".
> 
> That caused a sensation to run through the audience, and afterward they
> seemed to feel  better
> 
> Hugh..
> 
> 
> 




   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005