Archive Page 2 of 17

Like Mercy

Published by
Darkness Whistler
at 04/03/2009 0 Comments

This poem came out of studying The Cappadocians, three men and one woman who were 4th centery Eastern, Greek speaking xtians who had a huge part in the formation of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. They were affirming the goodness of Creation in the midst of all the muck and dung that we seem to endlessly make out of our lives and world. This has often been a great struggle for me. So there are Hebrew and Greek words referring to various human, social realities. Nietzsche has breathed in my ear in times of agnostic, nihilistic struggle in the past so he shows up dueling with Macrina. I wrote it during a rain storm outside the GF Java Cafe in my hometown of Jamestown, TN. Continue reading ‘Like Mercy’

Unlike
Print This Post

Nobody is Watching

Published by
A.D.
at 03/29/2009 1 Comment

The Watchmen: a film about castration, a film in which each super-hero is made into a superb failure. Written during a time of success (Reagan’s era, we didn’t even know how much money we would make) it can only be fit for the general public at a time when the failure is right in our faces, like a CEO in a $10,000 suit complemented by handcuffs, as the cock of Dr. Manhattan faces us flacidly the whole movie through. As Seinfeld says, “That’s just not something you want to see.” We don’t want to see this failure hanging off the body of the most powerful super-hero of them all. Several times during the film the director has the audacity to show us the erect (Twin!) Towers glooming on the Manhattan Skyline. Luckily, he has the original comic script to blame it on. Those erect towers are now simply wrecked. They have failed, just like the ability of Dr. Manhattan to please a woman, even when he has more than one body. More than one body, more than one tower; it doesn’t matter, the terror and the truth will take them all down. Dan (Nite Owl) also has a moment of failure (with the same woman), which he fixes by trying to save the world. It is only when that fails irrevocably is he able to perform again, on his comfortable, small scale. Bourgeois, attractive. It is a failure which keeps desire alive, and mankind is no happier than when the ultimate goal (peace on earth) is both an utter success (in that Russia and U.S.A become common enemies of the imp Manhattan) and complete fiasco (in that Manhattan is innocent).

So here is how I hash out the failures: Ozymandias, which is pretty obvious, in that he sacrifices the city of New York, and its anonymous millions, for a supposedly secure peace on earth. It is peace based on a lie, but it is the best we can hope for: the logic of sacrifice. It is realistic. This is the failure of ratiocination.

Manhattan, even though he can meld and mold matter at will, ultimately agrees with the unconscionable act of Ozymandias, and departs, a lame duck of a super-hero to “create other galaxies” or some bullshit like that. He condones the murder of millions and departs never having known love. His departure seals the peace. His truth seals the lie. This is the failure of scientia.

The Silk Spectre, the only prominent woman, fails in a fit of sentimentality, for she actually weeps when Dr. Manhattan tells her he is going on his venture of creation without love. She is turned on by the idea of it, and this way, as she’s making love to Dan in their suburban hovel, she might think of these creations millions of light years away and work herself up to an orgasm. This is the failure of concupiscence.

Dan, Nite Owl, he is the big nerd who actually has big muscles, kind of like a boy ugly duckling. He has a fit of conscience when he sees what Ozymandias is doing, but he only gets angry for a little bit, and then realizes that what is realistic for him is just to settle down, fight crime on the weekends, and bone his wife in the ship on the way home. This is the failure of common sense.

Rohrshach. O, how close we came to a hero here. For he was the one who tracked down Ozymandias, he was the one who would never back down to a suburban existence, who would never let the truth be trampled by such a thing as peace. But in the end he is only seeking suicide. He is only seeking death as an escape from a world of people whom he hates. He holds onto the truth, but he has no love for it -  just as Dr. Manhattan has knowledge to create without love, so Rohrschach has truth but without compassion for his fellows.

There is no super-hero here, but its funny that we’re left with a pretty super movie. It was noted a couple nights ago that the best candidate for hero in this story is actually Rohrschach’s journal, which, because of the intractable rapacity of the media will have a chance to see the light of day, to open up the possibility of Ozymandias’ guilty, to re-introduce the threat of nuclear war between earthly enemies – but it is possible that Rohrschach loved his journal, and if he did, the truth there will most suredly see its day.

Unlike
Print This Post

Igor Stravinsky and sacred/secular music

Published by
Shannon Berry
at 03/05/2009 1 Comment

The following is a paper that is in progress.  Any comments or criticisms are welcomed. Igor Stravinsky’s Symphony of Psalms, composed in 1930 for the Boston Symphony Orchestra’s 50th anniversary, is in the vein of some of his earlier works, such as his groundbreaking and controversial The Rite of Spring.  But Stravinsky’s symphony is doing more than reminding the listener of his earlier work.  Rather it plays against and challenges rigid distinctions between sacred and secular music and gives insight into not only his approach to this dichotomy as a composer but may also reveal hints of his own spiritual complexity and ambiguity. Continue reading ‘Igor Stravinsky and sacred/secular music’

Unlike
Print This Post

J. Kameron Carter on the theopolitical orientation of the critique of racial reasoning

Published by
Darkness Whistler
at 01/31/2009 2 Comments

“I say theological and political (or theopolitical) to signal that my claim calls for analyses of the problem of race (and, relatedly, of the Jewish question) that explore the senses in which such a discourse is bound to the nature and practice of modern politics and thereby indelibly tied to what is religious about modernity and the way it parodies theology at the same time that it cloaks this fact. The discourse of race is critical to the cloaking process and thus functions as a vital cog within modernity’s own religious and quasi-theological machinery, a machinery intent, as the quotation by Étienne Balibar that opens this chapter alerts us, on producing bodies and people, but bodies and people of a particular sort. It produces bodies and people that can populate an enlightened, global, and cosmopolitan social order, the domain of civil society. The people produced is the modern citizenry; the body, that of the modern citizen; and the social order enacted and perpetuated, that of the modern (nation-)state. Given this, the politics of race and the politics of the modern state are of a piece, for both are religious or pseudotheological in character. Failing to reckon with this fact not only leaves the problem of modern racial reasoning inadequately understood but also can yield responses that risk–unwittingly, no doubt–reinhabiting, at the politically unconscious, theopolitical level, the very problem that needs overcoming.”- J. Kameron Carter, Race: A Theological Account, 40.

Unlike
Print This Post

St. Maximus Confessor and Christian Hospitality

Published by
Darkness Whistler
at 01/31/2009 5 Comments

These posts are portions of an, as yet, unpublished paper I did recently for a doctoral class on “spiritual practices.” This will the first of a multi-post installment. The project ventures drawing from the well of the cosmic theological vision of St. Maximus the Confessor as a vital resource for the articulation of a theological rationale undergirding the practice of Christian hospitality. I hope that it may also be a fruitful addition for the recent “retrieval” theme on TLOU in which figures like Bulgakov and Chesterton have been explored…

 St. Maximus Confessor and Christian Hospitality

Introduction

St. Maximus the Confessor (580-662 A.D.) understands the cosmos through a theological ontology of Love. All creatures in creation are unified through participation in the ecstatic Love that is the life of the Trinity. Participation in this Love unifies the difference of creatures into a harmony. As such this love is the “reason” or “logos” of creatures. With the fall of humanity this love is disrupted cosmically. The fall of humanity is key in this “cosmic tragedy” for humanity is the microcosm (micros-kosmos or “little cosmos”), which participates in the sensuous, creaturely dimension of being and the rational-spiritual dimension of the hierarchy of being. Humanity, the microcosm, is the center or crux of the hierarchy of being as it co-inheres in the second person of the Trinity, the Logos. It is the crossing of the divine and the sensuous dimensions of the hierarchy of being. Consequently, when humanity falls the harmony of creation is disrupted. This disruption or discord is healed or re-harmonized in the Incarnation of the Second person of the Trinity. In the Incarnation of the Logos in Christ the Love which orders the cosmos is shown or made concrete and the healing of humanity, the ‘microcosmic mediator,’ is accomplished; thus the goal (telos) of Creation, which the Triune God has desired from the beginning, is realized and made possible. Continue reading ‘St. Maximus Confessor and Christian Hospitality’

Unlike
Print This Post

Published by
DWM
at 12/31/2008 2 Comments

“How does it stand with philosophy, if we are open to the ultimate claim that being religious may make on us? I am not countering philosophical reason with an opposing irrationalistic fideism. My purpose is to pose a question to philosophical thinking at certain limits. While I will make assertions and even suggestions about the direction the question points us, the main difficulty is to hear this question, for some of our characteristic ways of thinking deafen us to it. How deafen? We philosophers think we have already heard and answered the question. My argument will be that there is another question that has not been heard, or only rarrely or sporadically, and that this further question solicits a new origination of philosophy: a post-philosophical reverence that yet is philosophical through and through; a reverence that perhaps some philosophers once knew, maybe sometimes in a taken for granted way, when religious reverence was also taken for granted.”

William Desmond, “Religion and the Poverty of Philosophy,” in Philosophy and Religion in German Idealism (2004).

Unlike
Print This Post

An expectant Advent

Published by
DWM
at 12/16/2008 0 Comments

Those of you in DC might know that I’m having a very expectant advent right now.

You all know that I don’t forward emails or post silly stuff here (I don’t know why I make these caveats, but I feel compelled to nonetheless), but I thought that those of you that are intentional about resisting certain rather unhealthy aspects of the seasonal buzz might find this bit encouraging. And I’m all about encouragement here.

From the Sojourners daily email.

Have Yourself a Peace and Justice Christmas

Have yourself a peace and justice Christmas,
Set your heart a-right.
Flee the malls and focus on Christ’s guiding light.

Have yourself a peace and justice Christmas,
Give your time a way.
Share God’s love, And serve “the least of these” today.

Here we are, as we pray for peace,
We’ll live simply and give more.
We care for those far and near to us,
Which brings cheer to us, once more.

God brings down
The haughty from high places,
And lifts up the low.
God cares for the hungry and the humble, so –
Forget the stress and let the peace and justice flow!

Unlike
Print This Post

An ill-formed Primer on “practice” in the work of Alasdair MacIntyre

Published by
DWM
at 11/30/2008 34 Comments

The following is an *under construction* excerpt from a paper that is even more in the works than the excerpt. I’m sharing it as is because of a comment Matslacker made in the pervious post from AD, regarding orienting ourselves to the Spirit through activities like catechumenate that seek not necessarily for intelligibility but rather for points of connection “between dogma and life through the difficult practice of amending one’s life, of practicing humility, prayer, virtue in general, that is, of attaining purity of heart and thereby attracting the life-creating Spirit, whereby one’s “eyes” might truly “see”–even the eyes of the simple (cf. here the catechesis of Paul the Simple as an extreme case–or Aquinas’ last considerations upon his theologizing).” I thought his point was great, and happened to be a line of thought I’m trying to pursue in my own work. I heartily recommend that you read his comment, and offer the following only as an inchoate step toward a “systematic” account of the role of church practice.

As a philosophical historian of ethics, Alasdair seems almost obsessively concerned with recounting the development of practical rationality through the emergence of late modern liberalism. In Whose Justice? Which Rationality? MacIntyre argues that the loss of a teleological orientation in the account of social formation necessarily results in competing practical rationalities. Pursuant to which, modern social science lacks the ability to recognize much less help redress the fracture in practice and rationality caused by the loss of ends-based reasoning. Continue reading ‘An ill-formed Primer on “practice” in the work of Alasdair MacIntyre’

Unlike
Print This Post

Revolution, Paradox, and the Christian Tradition: A Chestertonian Debate between John Milbank and Slavoj Zizek.

Published by
A.D.
at 11/11/2008 32 Comments

So I just presented this at the Popular Culture/American Culture conference up in Niagara Falls. Dan is making me post it here, so if you don’t like you can gnaw his ear. Actually, I’m trying to work it into an article so I’d love to hear comments:

GK Chesterton has been staging something of a comeback in the last few years. While he has always been popular among Catholic thinkers who value his fresh formulations of their tradition, and also, over the past 20 years or so, with thinking Evangelicals, who have been turning to him as proof that one can keep one’s faith without losing ones mind; its only recently that his voice has been heard among the philosophers and the critical theorists, mainly through his influence on two of the most interesting representatives in these fields. One, Slavoj Zizek is a Marxist and strict Lacanian, who has annoyed his audiences by saying that he is a Christian atheist and by claiming that Lenin got it all right. The other, John Milbank, is British, a member of the Anglican church, who has become well known as the most articulate defender of a philosophical and theological movement that goes by the name Radical Orthodoxy, and emphasizes a rediscovery of patrisitic and medieval theologians while at the same time being well read in Jacque Lacan and Karl Marx. Zizek and Milbank have appeared at conferences together as well as edited volumes, and are even co-writing a book. Though they come from radically divergent points of view both Zizek and Milbank see the necessity of philosophy and theology being in close discussion with each other and both have seen Chesterton as a good way to do that. Continue reading ‘Revolution, Paradox, and the Christian Tradition: A Chestertonian Debate between John Milbank and Slavoj Zizek.’

Unlike
Print This Post

AAR, Literary Theory and the Bible

Published by
DWM
at 11/08/2008 2 Comments

I’m sorry we’ve been so absent lately. I know you miss us, a lot. But we’ve been really busy, and we know you’re a patient folk. Besides, we gave you that lovely Bulgakov Blog conference, and we know you still haven’t read every post yet, and you certainly haven’t read every comment made by your fellow readers. Come now, can’t you make at least one comment yourself?

This would be an excellent opportunity for me to offer my sincere thanks to everyone who contributed to the conference. Whether you made a large or small contribution, we are in your debt for what turned out to be a fascinating and thought provoking event!

In any event, we were busy. I was in Chicago with many of you at AAR. However, Aron seems to have joined that contentious group of protesters who haven’t quite come to terms with the AAR/SBL estrangement. Fear not, they’re getting back together, maybe even by 2011. Aron made up for his absence by attending the Chesterton Conference in Niagra, Ontario. Look for his paper to appear here soon once I steal it from his laptop.

I’ve recently become interested in the Bible again after reading Irenaeus’ Against Heresies and teaching the Revelation unit in my advisor’s Seminarian course a couple times.I’m currently writing a paper on the regula fidei, and at Joshua’s suggestion began reading up on some literary theory, including Northrop Frye (although I wonder what you had in mind when you made that recommendation, JADR). Anyway, I stumbled across this bit in Frye that made me laugh, and for lack of anything substantial to post at the moment, I thought I’d toss this one out there:

It took me some time to hit on the right formula for a course in the Bible. I consulted the curricula of other universities, and found that they gave courses called “The Bible As Literature,” which involved chopping pieces out of the Bible like the book of Job and the parables of Jesus, saying, “Look, aren’t they literary?” that approach violated all my instincts as a critic, because those instincts told me that what a critic does when he is confronted with any verbal document whatever is to start on page one at the upper left-hand corner and god one reading until he reads the bottom right-hand corner of the last page. But many people who have attempted to do that with the Bible have flaked out very quickly, generally somewhere around the middle of Leviticus.

- Northop Frye from Northrop Frye and Jacy McPherson, Biblical and Classical Myths

 

Unlike
Print This Post