luvluv

I read it today and was interested in discussing it. Any takers?

I am especially interested in Shaw's dealing with the question of Christ's ethics. He seemed to think that an ethics based on love was a terrible ethic because love is a "consuming fire" I believe he said. I took him to mean that love caused one to be possesive and controlling. He said that he could concieve of no heaven with love in it, because love was so terrible. That seems to me to be a highly refutable argument but since Shaw was both the for and against parties in his book, no satisfactory rebuttals to the black girl's arguments were raised in this regard (and a few others).

My own opinion was that he took Christ's ethic of love to mean that all mankind was to be involved in some kind of committed relationship with one another that is analagous to the kind of relationship that men have to women, or that fathers have for their children. I don't think the love (agape) Jesus asked us to have for each other is the kind that necessarily causes people to be controlling and domineering. In fact, Jesus Himself claimed to represent this type of love, and whatever one can say of Him it seems to me it would be hard to characterize Him as controlling and domineering. I always took the Christian ethic of love to simply mean treating others as I would want to be treated. It is something I give to other people expecting nothing, or even suffering, in return. It is wholly unlike any love which can produce the impulse to control. (Note: I am not saying that many Christian institutions have not tried to institute control, I am simply saying that Christ's ethical principal "Love your neighbor as yourself" does not produce a controlling emotion. In fact, in as much as you are controling your neighbor, you are disobeying this commandment, as most people would not like to be controlled. Thus it is impossible to control your neighbor and yet be treating your neighbor as you yourself would like to be treated.

I don't know if anyone would like to take Shaw's side in the argument, but I would be interested if there are any takers.

Also would be interested in hearing what you folks think of the books apparent disdain for a purely scientific method of morality.

I was also disappointed, but not exactly suprised, that the book seemed to end without a conclusion. He had rebutted everything, often on shaky premises, so that left him without the ability to errect anything that was not equally susceptible to cavalier debunking.

The same book I was reading also had an article by Shaw about a New Theology, which had some intriguing thoughts in it. I am begining his plays "The Devil's Disciples" and "Don Juan in Hell" and would be intersted in discussing those later. All in all I am already wishing I could ressurect the man so's he could be engaged in a furious debate. (Did he ever debate any competent Christians?) A lot of his premises, it seems to me anyway, would wither under modest cross-examination... but perhaps the beauty of being a playwright is that your characters rarely argue with you.

[ May 04, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

abe smith

OH! not-too-many folks know about that; what edition did you find to read? I thought Shaw's "...Black Girl..." was long OOP. Shaw is a darling twinkly-bright witty feller; he was a vitalist == a kind of crypto-theist, altho he'd never have admitted to that; and he certainly professed to be w/ the Wells, Huxley et al crowd...To the extent that {like a true atheist} he wd NOT admit to agreeing w/ ANYbody. A simplest take on his "Black Girl" wd be to read it as GBS's variation , as an ardent feminist! on Voltaire's *Candide*, wh of course y"oughta read; & bust yer stitches laughing, how not? Might look at GBS's nonfiction "Intelligent Woman's Guide..." Yeah! time to re-read that! It's a leetle dated now, a century later; but full of good sense; any female cd profit from. Seems as if the *Black Girl* work"s ultimate wrap-up, like V's Candide's, is "forget about all that bullshit and cultivate yer-own garden." I don't think I'd read it primarily as a *moral* tract tho; even if Shaw [probably; Like Handel of his *Messiah*] intended it "to make people better". [Way back in my tween-ear midden, a scarcely-consch qy, were GBS and Handel both a bit queer? not too relevant to the matter-at-hand.....] Abe