Both Wearing Black Masks

I get knocked-down, but I get-up-again.

2010-09-26T18:37:00.000-04:00

Update your life.

The Ring of the End of Liberty

2010-09-26T11:32:00.000-04:00

Paraphrase from Voltaire, for 2010 in America:

I disapprove of what you eat, but I will defend to the death your right to eat whatever you want--but I think you should be penalized financially for your poor choices. Sure has a ring to it, doesn't it?

Make sure to re-visit the comments page from my recent post on intervention / "nudging" / tyranny. My last comment could've been a fine post on its own!

Conversation about my daughter, after reading Meister Eckhart

2010-09-25T20:08:00.000-04:00

I opened my laptop to see this picture of my 5-month old on my desktop:

I showed the screen to my wife, and said, "Look at your daughter. God, she's perfect."

"What did you think she'd be like?--look like," my wife asked.

"Well, I guess about like this--but the way a doll would look like this. I couldn't animate her. Couldn't imagine her being human and responding to me as she does..."

"Yeah, but--"

"It's like--she sees me, and stays perfect. Somehow."

Getting Bruised from all the Nudging

2010-09-25T12:35:00.000-04:00

Appearing today: another article about "nudging" Americans to make better choices. I'm really disappointed and somewhat surprised (decreasingly surprised) that others don't see this as a corrosion of liberty--or that if they do see it that way, that they aren't bothered by it. Somewhere one of my Austrian economists said something like, "Without economic liberty, there is no political liberty," and so when I hear some bureaucrat (or doctor who will probably soon be a bureaucrat) say, "We have to make the healthy choice the easy choice," I know that they're talking about raising prices on junk food.

Now, are you "free" if your government intervenes between vendors and consumers? If your government artificially increases prices on choices that it disapproves of? Do you care for choices? Or were you such goodie-two-shoes as children that you never felt an impulse to clench your jaws shut and throw your asparagus at your mom?

Republicans have overused the term "Nanny State" for a long time, admittedly. But I'm just so discouraged that people believe that it's the government's business whether I eat my vegetables. And of course--of course!--it almost officially is now the government's business whether we eat our vegetables, because health care is now a public good. But then why stop at vegetables? Certainly vegetables will soon be subsidized, and cigarettes and whiskey and pastries will come with taxes attached. But why not take the school lunch program national? Oh, you know you namby pambies would love to drink a half-pint of Chocolate milk and some Salisbury steak or some bullshit every day. G-d save us from the State.

Or else: somebody convince me that Freedom isn't really an absolute value.

Also:

2010-09-24T18:39:00.000-04:00

WTF am I doing wrong? This blog is so awesome, with upwards of 30 posts a month. Still none but the highest-quality, most-discerning readers. Oh well; to quote Melville, "Though I wrote the gospels in this century, I should die in the gutter."

Blogs like fine wine, I guess--right?

(I just finished glass two of Shiraz.)

Objective Confirmation: The Author of B.W.B.M. is a Genius of Style.

2010-09-24T18:33:00.000-04:00

Recently I got an email from a really fine academic journal, who had two "outside-readers" go over my manuscript. The first reviewer answered the first of fifteen questions as follows (the other 14 answers weren't as flattering, needless to say):

1. Is the paper's style readable? Does it read appropriately like an article rather than, say, a dissertation chapter?

This article is eminently readable--gracefully written, mercifully free of jargon, and not at all dissertationy.

Thank you, Reviewer #1, for giving me objective reassurance of something I've always felt to be the truth! Hahaha! So this is just a thank you to my 4 or 5 regular readers for helping me to refine my "eminently readable, graceful, jargon-free, not-at-all-dissertationy" style.

Seriously, I did this...

2010-09-24T12:12:00.001-04:00

Here's the quiz I gave my students today on chapters 31-47 in Moby-Dick:

Quiz on Moby-Dick

What does Captain Ahab nail to the mainmast?

A map of the Pacific Ocean.
A statement of purpose
A gold doubloon
A silver chalice

One of the shipmates hesitates even after Ahab’s Quarter-Deck speech. Who is it?

Starbuck
Flask
Stubb
Queequeg

What phrase best expresses what the white whale represented to Ahab?

“all evil”
“a mystery”
“the great democratic god”
“a meaningless freak."

What do you think of Ahab?

he’s crazy
he’s awesome
he’s crazy
both a & b
both a & c
Other (explain): _________________________________

What’s up with the chapter called “The Whiteness of the Whale?” What do you think that was all about? – try to use one specific example in your answer.

[P.S. -- the answers are C, A, A, D, and "Ishmael is a spineless postmodern liberal."]

What is Religion (again)?

2010-09-24T07:14:00.000-04:00

Well, something freed me in my sleep last night, so I'm starting over again. I'm discussing with an ancient friend behind-the-scenes Karen Armstrong's definition, in the video below, of "Religion":

If you want to watch more of the speech, here's a longer version of (~~I think~~ it's not!--it's better!) ~~the same talk~~. Sidenote: I used to think the highest aim for my career was to make it on C-Span. Now I think it's to get to do a Chautauqua lecture. Monica, don't miss the reference to midrashic reading around 15:30 in this longer version!

Anyway: the question that most interests me here is: can there be Religion without rituals? And on the other hand, is there any sensible justification for rituals?

Funny Passing Thought

2010-09-23T07:39:00.000-04:00

Lately I've been suffering from this mindset that nothing happens as fast as I'd like. I click a webpage, and it pisses me off that it takes two seconds to load, because I know where on the webpage that's laboring to load I want to go, to click a link, to get to another webpage, but now I'm just waiting.

This morning I went in to make some copies at the copier, and the idea was complete in my head: so it just pissed me off that I had to wait for the copier to warm up (30 seconds), and then go-through-with my copying job (1 minute). And I was supposed to just stand there?

At the gas station or the ATM, I'm supposed to wait while your 20th century receipt printer "processes" what's just taken place! Jeeeez!

But this morning I woke up and conceived of the whole day--a whole Thursday--and had the same feeling of imposition: I knew what was going to happen, and couldn't believe I actually had to allow it to develop in time. I'm like a psycho/manic dog, panting for the future, aren't I? Guess that's check-mate, isn't it, Technology?

Finding Just the Right Amount of Evil

2010-09-23T07:24:00.000-04:00

There's an interesting sleight of mouth going on at the Federal Reserve, one that might serve as an(other) [you like that, Wrangler?!] example of the difference between moral speech and sophistry, as I understand the difference.

Tyler Cowen's a badass of Economics blogging, but even he seems to understate this shift in my liberal-arts-educated opinion.

In short, the major charge of the Federal Reserve Bank has long been to fight inflation--and by "fight inflation," I mean keep it as low as possible. Zero, ideally.

But now there's talk of "managing the pace" of inflation, which suggests a continuum along which the ideal amount of inflation is somewhere in the middle, rather than at zero. But consider what inflation is--what that means, exactly: it means that the Federal Reserve is going to make credit available to big banks in hopes that those banks will lend to people who, right now, they won't lend to. In other words, the Fed is creating another round of what was called "Predatory Lending" just two years ago... and promoting that as the cure for the disease that such practices caused!

Only the Zen logic of Nobel Prize Winner Paul Krugman could bring this strange state of affairs about: Krugman has succeeded in making "us all" fear a "deflationary spiral" (sounds scary!) as much as we fear inflation.

Well, he could be right. Maybe the new view of inflation is like the modern view of germs: the goal need not be to eliminate them altogether by bathing in Clorox Bleach. Okay. But if Krugman is right, then I don't understand what caused the 2008 recession and foreclosure rodeo.

Passing Thought

2010-09-22T20:38:00.000-04:00

I can't recall ever convincing anyone of anything. Do people ever change their minds anymore? Did they ever? Am I doing something wrong?

Have to Watch the First to Laugh at the Second

2010-09-20T19:54:00.000-04:00

Pop Quiz on Sophistry

2010-09-20T18:59:00.000-04:00

What's the difference:

Here is a man who is in favor of the state recognizing same-sex marriage. He reads a speculative article in Newsweek that suggests that STD rates even among heterosexual people may run higher because same-sex marriage is illegal. The argument seems implausible to him; he is a professor of biology at a state university. He imagines that if he could make this argument cogent, it might be persuasive in Washington, but he doesn't try to make the argument because he doesn't believe the data is there. [Or: he applies for a grant and runs some experiments, but discovers relatively inconclusive data, and pursues the line of thought no further, despite knowing that if the data were more conclusive, it would help the case for same-sex marriage.]

Now here is a man who is in favor of the state recognizing same-sex marriage. He reads a speculative article in Newsweek that suggests that STD rates even among heterosexual people may run higher because same-sex marriage is illegal. Although the article seems implausible to him, he decides to try to discover some data along these lines just to help the cause of same-sex marriage. He applies for a grant, and runs studies where he gets relatively inconclusive data; then he makes charts to make the data look as conclusive as possible, and contacts his friends who have friends in Washington. The charts are smattered across the evening news, and the headlines in the New York Times read, "Legalizing Gay Marriage May Reduce STD rates -- in Heterosexuals!"

In my hypothesized view, this is the difference between moral people and sophists. A sophist will say anything to achieve his ends. A moral person requires that the ends are not deceptive or manipulative.

And this is the only thing keeping me from trying to propagandize all of my students into being afraid of their "carbon footprint." See, I dislike exhaust. It hurts my asthma, and I find it unaesthetic. Indeed, I've tried to tell my students that they should not only not litter, but also that they should drive less, and not work for polluting companies--but I've always made those requests on the grounds that I find the results of those pursuits ugly or unappealing to me. But guess what: my students find me laughably unpersuasive.

Now it occurs to me that I could persuade them by telling them that the very planet they depend on for existence is going to die in one generation if they don't stop littering, stop driving, and stop working for polluting companies. But that would be deceptive and manipulative, despite the fact that it would serve my ends--and so I refrain from making the argument, because I'm a moral person and not a sophist.

Okay now I'll listen to how this hypothesis is flawed.

Climate Science, a Follow-Up

2010-09-20T12:43:00.001-04:00

Here's a terrific follow-up article to our comment-string on "Climate Change," or whatever it's called most recently.

Through the Mud and Slush of Opinion

2010-09-20T07:25:00.001-04:00

I know I generate almost negative traffic here, but read Pure_Sophist_Monster's recent post on meaning-making.

He reiterates very clearly a point I've heard made time and again--a point that's always sparked what feels like a "next thought" in me. Well actually, let me just quote who he quotes, Ed Hutchins, who says:

The illusion of meaning in the message is a hard-won social and cultural accomplishment.

I don't have a problem with that. I feel like maybe I'm supposed to, as a literature professor? But I'm okay with that. But what I've always struggled to understand--and always been fascinated by--is how, given our culturally contextufied situatedness (ahem), we are able to wriggle our heads up through the sludge of comfortably calcified "meaning," to critique that culture (that meaning) within which we discover ourselves to be situated. The easiest example is something like slavery, which required a whole web of social meaning to support it: how does one minister in the 18th century finally snap himself out of it and say, "Wait a minute!--that's wrong!" What I'm asking is, from what perspective is he thinking? He seems not to be distracted by the "illusion" of meaning. But what/where else is there?

Thoreau:

Let us settle ourselves, and work and wedge our feet downward through the mud and slush of opinion, and prejudice, and tradition, and delusion, and appearance, that alluvion which covers the globe, through Paris and London, through New York and Boston and Concord, through church and state, through poetry and philosophy and religion, till we come to a hard bottom and rocks in place, which we can call reality, and say, This is, and no mistake; and then begin, having a point d'appui, below freshet and frost and fire, a place where you might found a wall or a state, or set a lamp=post safely, or perhaps a gauge, not a Nilometer, but a Realometer.

The Sophists would have it that there is no such reality. But then as I said, how/from-where are we able to critique this set of meanings we've accumulated? Where does the needle on your Justice-magnet point?--what attracts it?

Adonai, Hashem, The Ultimate Reality in which we all exist... Or: G-d is the Beer!

2010-09-19T21:17:00.000-04:00

Good talks, Rabbi:

Visual Rhetoric: A Dumbinstration

2010-09-19T09:19:00.000-04:00

I really believe that most people were bad enough at understanding graphs in math class that they are easily manipulated by "charts." That's why AlGore's An Incovenient Truth was persuasive: it showed graphs featuring temperatures over the last 100 years, followed by graphs showing temperatures over the last 600,000 years, and pretty much any graph within that time span that made things look dire. Of course, showing a graph of temperatures over the past 250 years would make it look flat. So he didn't show that one. Wrangler just shared a link to the same kind of pseudo-persuasive bullshit (but again, that's just me; I was really good at math). Here's two graphs I just made, hurriedly, because I need to be grading papers and not teaching the truth right now:
These two graphs show the same data: about a .7-degree rise from 1.3-2.0 in the time from the start of the industrial revolution through now. I just made these numbers up as examples, but you can manipulate a graph like this with whatever numbers you select. Somewhere there's probably a tool specifically made for zooming in and zooming out and getting the graph to look like a hockey stick or a baseball bat, depending on which "look" benefits your fake cause more.

But anyway, don't litter, okay? And check your mufflers.

"Global Climate Disruption"

2010-09-18T09:23:00.000-04:00

Yeah, what this guy says. Your silence is being mistaken for tacit agreement. Or if your tacit agreement is really tacit agreement, then your tacit agreement is going to ruin civilization. And that's because, even if (goliath sized-"if") you were right about the ends, the means are disturbing the very basis of civil society. See Confucius on the Rectification of Names.

Fun Storytelling

2010-09-17T12:24:00.000-04:00

Fareed Zakaria Slips a Gear, or, "Pure" Islam is Terrible

2010-09-16T14:45:00.000-04:00

Listen to the first minute of this video, but pay really close attention to the language Zakaria lets slip around :58 seconds in:

Sufi poets routinely extol the virtues of wine and song, both forbidden in the purer versions of Islam.

This makes it sounds curiously-much like Islam is itself a problem. But maybe this was just a very poor choice of words, right?

Augustine's "Confessions" versus "The House on Mango Street," or, This Anthology Ain't Big Enough for the Both of Us

2010-09-16T09:18:00.001-04:00

Revisiting the canon wars. Great article in the New York Times. You know what I think, and you probably know what you think -- but let's refresh our memories. And this is a link to a maybe-even-better article on the same general topic. The second one features Bob Dylan, walking the narrow path that leads to eternal life, disappointing natterers on the left and the right:

When Wenner pressed him as to who would solve the world’s problems if not politicians, Dylan came out with words so Biblically harsh or nakedly Libertarian they are frankly astonishing to the modern ear. Forget politicians: “The world owes us nothing,” he told Wenner, “not one single thing.” And: “Human nature really hasn’t changed in 3,000 years. … It’s not meant to change. It cannot change. It’s not made to change.” Which does rather leave social engineers out in the cold.

Social engineers, or "behavioral economists" who are into "nudging."

Foot-in-Mouth Disorder

2010-09-15T15:21:00.001-04:00

In an ironic twist, I'm teaching excerpts from the Qur'an this week in my introductory college writing course. I just read a little ditty that I love:

Verily, in the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the alternation of night and day, and in the ship that runneth in the sea with that which profits man, and in what water God sends down from heaven and quickens therewith the earth after its death, and spreads abroad therein all kinds of cattle, and in the shifting of the winds, and in the clouds that are pressed into service betwixt heaven and earth, are signs to people who can understand.

All-h!, who would ever consider burning a book with that in it?!

Nudge me one more time and I'll cut you, Sunstein (figuratively)

2010-09-15T10:53:00.001-04:00

If you haven't heard of Cass Sunstein, you're obviously not watching any Glenn Beck. And in that case, you're probably going to disagree with the main premise of my argument/resistance here. But give it a listen:

Sunstein is the Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. In this role, Sunstein plans to bring his work on "behavioral economics" (oh, Euphemism, thy name is Bullshit) into practice.

Slate's website has a review/summary of Sunstein's book, co-authored with Richard Thaler, titled Nudge. "Nudging" has become hot lingo lately, and academics seem to like the idea. Slate says in the review:

Laissez faire economics holds that faced with a broad menu of choices, most of us will choose wisely.

This is flatly false. Let me reiterate: that's not true. Laissez faire economics doesn't recognize an objective/transcendent "wisdom," but allows that each individual might define and act-out wisdom in different ways. A strictly logical person might assume that anyone who has approached and/or gone through a postmodern-perspective ought to appreciate that, but alas... so here the philosopher kings show up, only this time they're talking not like Platonists, but like sophists. Out of one corner of their mouth, they talk about the need to respect cultural differences, to understand that there is no authoritative "Truth," etc. -- out of the other corner, they're disappointed that you're not making value judgments in the same way that they would.

Enter Cass Sunstein, endorsed and lauded by Obama & Co. Now as long as you prefer electric cars and arugula, Sunstein may not be much of a bother. But if, as Sunstein himself has spoken, you desire to occasionally let your inner Homer Simpson have his way--then watch out. You might be, ummm... "nudged," back toward making "wiser" choices. Wikipedia reports:

Sunstein (along with his coauthor Richard Thaler) has elaborated the theory of libertarian paternalism. In arguing for this theory, he counsels thinkers/academics/politicians to embrace the findings of behavioral economics as applied to law, maintaining freedom of choice while also steering people's decisions in directions that will make their lives go better. With Thaler, he coined the term "choice architect."

Yes, Cass Stein is going to let you choose--but he's going to, ummm... "nudge" you in the right direction. "Libertarian Paternalism" -- Oh, Euphemism, thy na... wait, I already used that one.

"If you don't like my fire, then don't come around..."

2010-09-14T14:43:00.001-04:00

Oh, I can't believe I didn't think of this a week ago. Now I'm finally ready to move on from the Koran/Bible-burning obsession:

Let it go, Casey--

2010-09-14T07:27:00.001-04:00

Nope, nope -- still haven't moved on. I wish I had heard this view in the media last Tuesday, but better late than never.

If Muslim sensibilities are so tender they can't ignore the bizarre rants of an insignificant American fanatic then this is a culture with a serious anger management issue, and one the West can't help with.

I strongly agree with the first part of that. As for the last part, I wonder. I wonder if the West can help by refusing to respect and fear that kind of fanatical response. In other words, I wonder if the West is helping precisely by producing Terry Jones and others. It's a good article, though. Go read it. Go.

Repost on Law & Anarchy

2010-09-14T07:16:00.000-04:00

I didn't get any thoughts on this old disagreement the first time, but I'm curious -- even if you leave only a word -- what everybody thinks about this old post that didn't get any comments the first time around.Publish Post

Smoking a Koran & a Bible

2010-09-13T15:17:00.000-04:00

Sometimes it takes a lawyer to dot the i's and cross the t's on an "issue" like Koran-burning. A lawyer and/or an Australian.

Identity & Stuff

2010-09-13T14:42:00.000-04:00

Interesting article on Non-Jew Jews from Killing the Buddha.

A related confession: I was skyping the other day with Wishydig when we were talking about Identity--which is your primary identity? Can you have dual-primary identities? Can you be, for example, a Seventh Day Adventist who is also an American, or do you have to be an American who happens to be SDA, or an SDA who happens to be American? At one point Wishydig suggested that America might dissemble into smaller units of political organizations--fall back into Disunited States or something. And I started riffing on how I would be okay with that: my identity is not terribly caught up in that, I said. Nor is it caught up in my European ancestry, nor is it caught up in any particular religious discourse or tradition.

But I wouldn't be okay if all of that was taken from me. I told Wishydig I would: I said, "You know, I mean--I'd be okay because I'd always have 'Casey' as my primary identity." But in reflecting on that statement later in the day, I felt a little vertigo. I'm not sure there is a 'Casey' that is: not white, not American, not insured, not loosely Judeo-Christian with a mystical influence from Gnosis and Neoplatonism, etc. What would be left? And the same of my friends? Who would we all be if it weren't for the New York Times and television and English?

The Author of Both Wearing Black Masks, Reproached by Bulleh Shah.

2010-09-12T19:46:00.000-04:00

Remove duality and do away with all disputes;
The Hindus and Muslims are not other than He.
Deem everyone virtuous, there are no thieves.
For, within every body He himself resides.
How the Trickster has put on a mask!

Bulleh Shah (1680-1757)

...and effectively reproached by The Huffington Post.

Okay, I'm Dropping This...

2010-09-12T08:23:00.000-04:00

Here's some video of the guy who lit the Koran on fire yesterday in Manhattan. I find his performance to be utterly dignified, the definition of civil. He even refused to give his name to reporters, and complied as soon as the police asked him to stop (on the grounds that fire is illegal, or something?). So here's to you, Joe-the-Koran-burner:

One reporter late in the video asks: "Are you worried about, uh, repercussions; are you worried about people, uh, Muslims, coming after you about this?--you don't care?" And if you missed Update 2.0 from yesterday, check out this video of Terry Jones being interviewed. Very interesting to me.

Silencing the Opposition

2010-09-11T17:40:00.003-04:00

I gotta say, I was very disappointed that no Korans burned today, not because I disapprove of Islam (jury's still out) or Arabs (I certainly don't), but because I strongly believe that people who mistake the symbol for the thing itself are in need of confrontation. Just as we would challenge a racist ideology because it mistakes skin color for something significant, and just as we would challenge those who would burn witches as superstitious and ill-informed: I think it's necessary to confront untruth wherever it finds expression.

That's why I think this is a disgraceful moment in American media:

I realize that holier-than-thou posturing and self-righteous moral indignation are big sellers, especially on MSNBC; but to altogether refuse to listen is enough for this particular program to have permanently lost at least one viewer.

I know this'll sound too conspiratorial for ya'll, but I can't even find a video-interview with Terry Jones on the internet. This ABC News transcript of an interview conducted by Terry Moran bizarrely mis-spells "Moslem" whenever Jones says the word (but not when Moran says it) throughout the text. Notably, Jones seems to me perfectly coherent and certainly not frothing at the mouth in this interview -- he cites Acts 19:19 as evidence that there is precedent in Christianity even back to the early church for burning other so-called holy books. "The News" seems to confuse the fact that book burning is not much of a part of American history with the notion that it's not part of Christian history. See also, Cyril of Alexandria. Here's an excerpt:

Moran: But there are a billion and a half Muslims in the world. Most of whom aren't radical and you are going to burn their holy book.

Jones: Right.

Moran: You think that will persuade them of anything but the fact that they feel you hate them?

Jones: No, I think that they probably will be hurt and insulted by it.

Moran: So why do it?

Jones: Well when people burn the flag when they burn the bible when they burn down churches I'm also hurt and insulted. But we feel that this message to that radical element is that important. In fact to a certain extent we would expect moderate Moslems to agree with us. We would expect for them to say the burning of the Koran we don't agree with that's not a message that we agree with. We do not believe that this man this church this society should burn our holy book, there is no problem with that. But the message we are trying to send with that even Moslems should agree with. We are trying to send a message to the radical element of Islam. They should also be against that. Because it makes their religion look very, very bad. They should also stand to that and say yes that we agree with. We do not want sharia law. We do not want radical fanaticism Islam.

The very obvious fact about this transcript, to me, is that it ought to be considered within the realm of discussability. If Jones were calling for a genocide of all Arabs or Muslims, I would expect him to be ushered off the television. The points he makes in this interview are far from warranting this kind of treatment, and in a sane society, would be an embarrassment to Mika, Joe, and even Willy (I'll miss him most of all).

If any of you can find a video-interview with Jones, will you pass along the link?

UPDATE: Oh, good. One guy did burn a Koran today near ground zero. And for good measure, somebody burned a Bible too. Now if only somebody would burn some Derrida...

UPDATE 2.0: Oh, I found some video of Jones being interviewed. He sounds just like Hitler. I honestly can't believe the Obama administration is saying "it puts the troops at risk" to burn a Koran. That's mind-boggling to me. "A recruiting tool for the Taliban," they say. Really? So if we just do their bidding, recruiting for the Taliban will struggle? That's so paradoxical it's Zen. Fascinating 4-minute vid there, though.

How 9/11 Changed America

2010-09-11T07:56:00.000-04:00

The most fascinating observation that I've ever personally made is so keen and interesting, that you won't believe that I'm the one who noticed this, and you won't believe you never heard it before (unless you read it on my blog a few years ago). The three images below are screen captures from the year 2000. Take a look:

So... what's missing? The constant stream of scrolling "news" at the bottom! One of the strangest facts of American history is that on 9/11/01, all three channels adopted the scroll bar at the bottom of their screens, and the scroll bar has never stopped scrolling since!

That's true. And if you ever use that fact in a book or paper, I expect citation.

Another Angle

2010-09-10T19:02:00.000-04:00

Today I asked my students if they could describe the difference between the way that they approach reading the Bible and the way that they approach reading, say, Thoreau's Walden:

"I start reading Thoreau critically, whereas I accept-already what the Bible will say."

"If Thoreau bores me, I blame him. If the Bible bores me, I blame myself."

Now: are these reasonable, good answers? Is that an acceptable distinction to make in our minds? Can any of you see how this question is related to the question of where values come from? It seems we make up our minds about books before we open them. Same with values, in many cases. But there is another conceivable attitude, wherein the reader approaches all books with the same attitude: the attitude I recommend is to always approach them as if you are unknowing, and the book is knowing.

Skeptics might interject: "But what happens when you read a book that is awful, or untrue--a false prophecy?" My answer, and of course you'll have to sort of take it on faith, is that something in you will let you know if you encounter that kind of thing even if you are reading with the eye of faith.

So then: what we are simultaneously talking about is something I've talked about before (in this YouTube video): what is a religion? We seem to conceive of it as a special category, and give it special protections, so understanding its nature seems important. We generally believe that all religions should be honored; but we do not believe that about ideas. And what I'm trying to suggest is that the supposed difference between "an idea" and "a religion" is illusory, is non-existent, and reflects only the fact that we are taking certain assumptions into our confrontation with these ideas before we learn the ideas. And I don't think we should be content to do that--not any longer. I think public schools should deal critically with religions, and not give them a free pass: obviously, this would involve doing a better job of teaching metaphor and symbolism and "figurative" literary style and consciousness studies, etc. -- but it seems worthwhile. Will it offend the Southern Baptist in the classroom who believes the Bible is the exact and infallible word of G-d? Probably: but it sounds like he needs to hear it. In any case, these ideas are obviously too important and influential to leave them out of public classrooms.

If we treat Christianity and Islam as ideas, rather than as religions, I believe we would all be better off. I asked jokingly in one of my recent posts, "Should we respect other people's bad values?" Maybe that's not fair: maybe I'm approaching the Koran as my students are approaching Thoreau (in contrast with the Bible).

Then let's ask: Why? Why can't I open my sensibilities and read the Koran as if I were dim, and it were wise?

Also, a friend linked me to a now-relevant video, and I really appreciated it, so:

A Contest of Ultimate Values

2010-09-10T12:14:00.000-04:00

IN THIS CORNER...

On one side, SIDE A, we have a group of people who hold in common an particular value: namely, these are the people who are "offended" in varying degrees if you burn copies of the book they deem most holy. This group includes some Muslims, some Christians, and maybe some Jews, and maybe some people of other faiths.

On the other side, SIDE B, we have a group of people who hold in common a particular value: namely, these are the people who do not believe that it is wrong to burn anything that is a) not a sentient being and b) not their property. And possible c) nothing that emits toxic chemicals. There are probably Muslims, Christians, Jews and everybody else in this category also.

Now, the news is covering this Koran-burning as if it's all about the values of SIDE A. Why is that? Why aren't the values of SIDE B to be respected by those in SIDE A?

News Item

2010-09-10T10:49:00.000-04:00

Well, finally, we've reached the point of no return: a Tennessee pastor has seen the extremist Muslims' bet and called them on it: "I believe I am right and I am willing to die for that." Interesting.

More on Why the Good is Good

2010-09-10T10:35:00.000-04:00

Sorry about the low-light quality here. This is from another Iris Murdoch book (I'm on a kick with her), The Sovereignty of Good. It is directly related to our conversation from yesterday about the source of value and value judgments. Enjoy. Pages 52-55 of the edition linked above:

Facebook status updates that were almost...

2010-09-10T09:54:00.001-04:00

"First they came for the Koran burning pastor in Florida, and I said nothing..."

"Would Paul Krugman stop writing columns if I told him I was offended and threatened violence?"

"Bikkhus, the All is on fire..."

"Where was this indignation when Jesus Camp was released?"

"Before the Holocaust, Nazis refrained from burning Korans."

"If a Christian told an American cartoonist to stop drawing Jesus, and threatened violence, should the cartoonist self censor?"

"Can somebody turn the sensitivity down in here?"

"Should other people's bad values be respected?"

"Cyril was made a saint for burning the whole library of Alexandria, so don't say that book burning is 'against the principles of Christianity.' "

"What's worse: inciting violence, or doing violence?"

"Were those Korans going to be English translations, or...?"

"In private conversations, you've all agreed with me about the frivolity of Koran burning; publicly, silence?"

Freud: "What progress we are making. In the Middle Ages they would have burned me. Now they are content with burning my books."

"The paper burns, but the words fly away." --Akiba ben Joseph

"Not burning a Koran on Saturday will offend me, and I will retaliate with thunderous violence."

"Mark Twain once said, 'people should burn Korans sometimes, just to keep 'em honest.' "

"Hey, has anyone ever read the Koran?"

"New Marketing Opportunity: fire retardant Korans!!!"

Still Disagreeing with the Consensus View

2010-09-09T15:00:00.000-04:00

I'm think about burning a Koran.

Here's a sampling of headlines from Drudge Report:

PASTOR: KORAN WILL BURN...
'Meant to Be a Warning'...
AP WON'T DISTRIBUTE IMAGES, AUDIO...
FOX NEWS WON'T COVER, EITHER..
Church website shut down...
FBI PAYS PASTOR A VISIT...
Obama says call it off...
Then sends 'best wishes' to Muslims worldwide...
Vatican: 'Outrageous'...
NYPD: 'Dangerous'...
Holder: 'Idiotic'...
Clinton: 'Disgraceful'...
Palin: 'Unnecessary provocation'...
FBI: Retaliation 'Likely'...

I remember a few years ago when I was at a bonfire and whipped out a dollar bill and set it on fire, and then another few of them -- all of the American idolaters around me just about lost their minds: "That's a felony!" "Are you insane?!" And I'll definitely burn a Bible as kindling before throwing the Koran on the pile. Only the Buddhists wouldn't object (all things are on fire), and even those f*ckers are starting to get stupid about it (anybody see the documentary about the destroyed Buddhas of Bamyan?). Same goes for anybody who would do any violence for "Holy Land." It's all stuff, stuff!

It's not like it's actually burning Allah. I mean Jesus Christ. Paper and ink, people. And don't call me a hypocrite, because I'm not a "Christian," at least in any sense of the word that's generally understood. And even if I were!!! [I secretly am]--I'm currently reading Camus' (equivalent of a) master's thesis, titled Christian Metaphysics and Neoplatonism, and he makes the very interesting point that early Christians were intentionally, doggedly, unlearned in all of the contemporary supposed-wisdom of their day. If they had been educated in a Greek tradition, they threw away all of their books and stopped speculating when they converted to Christianity. Indeed, legend has it that St. (that is, SAINT!) Cyril was the one who burned down the Library of Alexandria, so there's a long and honorable tradition of book burning within even the most ancient version of Christianity. Have we all forgotten the images of burning American human soldiers hanging from a bridge somewhere in Iraq or Afghanistan or wherever?

I'll burn whatever the f*ck I want. Your mom's house, if I want. Well no, that's private property, which is the basis of civil society. :)

Somebody's gonna learn a lesson here. Either it's Americans, and the lesson is not to burn holy books from other countries or cultures. Or it's extremist Muslims and the lesson is... "we'll burn whatever the hell we want to burn. Shut up."

Somebody explain to me the difference in offensiveness between the two videos below.

P.S. -- it's a wonder to me that I don't get more readers at this blog. It's such an ongoing masterpiece. Probably, like Melville, I'll be forgotten until after I die, and then I'll be rediscovered by some 22nd century scholar and hailed as the prophet of a new era of thought and culture.

Conversation with Gorgias

2010-09-09T09:17:00.000-04:00

The frustrating exchange on Facebook yesterday has sent me into a tailspin of moral frustration. So ya'll-my-loyal-readers can help two ways: a) I need a good, new translation of Plato's complete works. I'd like something that's exact, even if awkward, in its translation & terminology.

B) Take a look at this: I'm looking for help around the bold spots. Commentary welcome!

Casey: So, we finally meet in person, Gorgias.

Gorgias: Don't be so dramatic.

Casey: Look, I just want to know what the essence of "the good" is, but since nobody wants to talk about "the good" anymore, I'll be satisfied with getting your take on what "the ethical" is. I have a suspicion that you'll say, "It's a matter of convention--something sprung from consensus and always contested, always 'becoming.' " Am I close?

Gorgias: That's pretty good, actually.

Casey: Thank you for being so concise in your answers.

Gorgias (rolling his eyes): Oh, spare me the Socrates act.

Casey: I was just kidding. But so, if all of this stuff--"being ethical" or "doing good" is conventional, I want to know why people are so concerned with defending one convention over another?

Gorgias: So you mean, you want to know why some people think it's good to give 10% of their income to the Catholic church, and why others think it's better to give to Greenpeace?

Casey: Well, okay... something like that.

Gorgias: Those reflect their values.

Casey: So, so, so... slow down. I asked, "What is good," and you responded by saying, "What is good is a reflection of value." Is that right?

Gorgias: Right.

Casey: Come on; aren't you just deflecting here? Avoiding the question? Now don't I have to ask, "Well why do people hold certain values"--

Gorgias: --and I say, "values are conventional."

Casey: Right, and I ask, "But then why are people so concerned with convention?"

Gorgias: Because they are afraid of what their own social-consensus/convention network will do to them if they dissent.

Casey: What!?! -- would you really say that, Gorgias? I mean, if I weren't imagining you right now and putting words in your mouth? Is that the Gorgian/Sophistic answer?

Gorgias (again rolling his eyes): Oh, Jeezus. Now we're going to do the whole are we in a cave act, aren't we?

Respecting Violence Because It's a Religion

2010-09-08T19:36:00.001-04:00

This kinda drives me crazy. I'm not understanding why I can't just see it as simply and as starkly as everybody else. I feel like others would look at my role in this conversation and say, "the mistake Casey makes is to worry about what others are doing that is evil." But the fact is, the people in Florida are just as "other" to me as the supposed Jihadist Muslims are. I'm judging both.

And am I really supposed to "respect" some other religion if that religion condones violence against infidels--and I'm considered an infidel? How long do I respect it? How close to my doorstep do I let it get?

----

Sarah White What an incredibly unchristian and repugnant thing to do. Stupidity has to be the deadliest sin of all...

Florida Sept. 11 Koran-Burning Spurs Debate

news.yahoo.com

A Florida church led by pastor Terry Jones has spent weeks publicizing its plan to burn Korans on September 11. But now that hundreds of people in Afghanistan and Indonesia are protesting the planned event and General David Petraeus has condemned it, saying it will endanger his troops, the U.S. i...

Yesterday at 9:36am · Comment · · Share · Report

Nancy Fahy likes this.
- Dan Coffey Free speech protects their right to do this, but hopefully there will be enough counter-speech to reach the humanity of this congregation and get them to do the right thing. I wonder if the damage is already done, though. The actual burning may just be symbolic; what's already discovered (in the mideast) is that there are kooks in America who want to burn their sacred texts.
  Yesterday at 10:03am ·
- Blaise Allen such hypocrits!
  Yesterday at 10:42am ·
- Molly Whitmer I hate how some Americans take rights that are given to all and only apply those rights to themselves. Christians are not the only ones allowed to worship as they see fit, so are Muslims. Such ignorance!
  Yesterday at 11:07am · · 1 person
- Marylene LeFurgy To do something like this is against Gods teaching of love our neighbor as our self. This is against our neighbor and God.
  Yesterday at 12:30pm · · 1 person
- Casey Pratt Actually, murder is the deadliest sin of all, and we should at least make passing mention of the fact that, however crazy it is to burn someone else's holy text, it's WAY crazier to be so offended by someone burning your holy text that you decide to violently retaliate. I mean I agree: burning the Koran is mean. But reacting as these offended people (assuming they exist?) supposedly might is so insane as to preclude any impulse to respect their preferences about our own behavior.
  Yesterday at 12:54pm · ·
- Dan Coffey Casey, you're fine up to your second comma. Direct violent retaliation is not the chief concern. Building a positive relationship between two nations (well, one nation and one region of the world), is what's at stake here. What I'm reading is that you're assuming the worst is going to happen ahead of time, judge them on that basis, and then in using reverse-causality logic, justify the burning of the Korans because their reaction makes them deserving?
  Yesterday at 1:15pm ·
- Ryan Ernst I hate to think how many of my fellow servicemen may be harmed by this fanatic act. Living in the Middle East, I hope rationale minds will prevail or the public outcry from my fellow Americans will deafen the hypocrisy of this ignorant pastor. Truly extremists exist in every religion.
  Yesterday at 2:16pm · · 1 person
- Casey Pratt
  Dan: I'm not assuming the worst is going to happen: Petraeus is. My students trash my favorite books all the time, and I don't get violent with them. -- and if I did, would that be a reason for them to stop trashing Moby-Dick? Because I'l...See More
  Yesterday at 2:47pm · ·
- Sarah White Of course, I would also say that "favorite book" is a quite bit different than "sacred text." I still think stupidity is the deadliest sin of all...
  Yesterday at 3:51pm ·
- Stacey Timmons Higgins I agree with your post completely!
  Yesterday at 5:50pm ·
- Julie Sugg Peebles Whole heartedly agree with you!
  8 hours ago ·
- Turgay Bayindir
  Casey, even though I am not a practicing muslim, I come from that culture and I am really baffled by your comparison of your favorite books to what a large part of world population consider sacred.
  
  The point is, 'sin' is defined by differen...See More
  7 hours ago · · 1 person
- Casey Pratt
  Turgs, I hear you. But just as we can't define "sin" for anyone but ourselves, we can't well define their religion either -- apparently *this* bunch of Christians in Florida doesn't find it to be against the principles of their religion to...See More
  7 hours ago · ·
- Sarah White Dr. Pratt, I think you're wrong :) A "sacred text" is what I said--not a '"holy text." That is different than "favorite book." I believe academic and scholarly perspectives would allow that there is a major difference when discussing a text that members of a particular society hold "sacred" and Moby Dick...Also, it may not go against the "principles" of that Florida church to burn Korans in vengeance, but it is against the religion they claim to practice...
  6 hours ago ·
- Casey Pratt Okay, I'll concede the point about holy texts and favorite books if you address a question: isn't killing infidels for burning Korans against the religion that the Muslim extremists claim to practice? Or not? Who is to say? Certainly a moderate/mainstream Muslim would claim that killing infidels IS against that religion, just as you claim that burning Korans is against the Christian religion. All I'm looking for is a moral equivalence, I guess?
  6 hours ago · ·
- Sarah White Why do you look for moral equivalence in two different cultures and two different religions? It's not against the Christian religion to burn Korans. It's the motive behind the act that is...Bottom line: both religions have extremists who are looking for an excuse like this to do more stupid things to each other and the rest of us...
  6 hours ago ·
- Turgay Bayindir
  Casey, as you all know, there is something called 'jihad' in Islam, which means fighting to protect and preserve the religion against attacks from infidels. Now this 'fighting against infidels' is interpreted differently by different groups...See More
  5 hours ago ·
- Casey Pratt
  What I'm getting at is that on one hand, Turgay, you're saying that there is cause for Jihad in the text. If that's true, then we must conclude that Islam is a violent religion. If that's true, then we *can* blame the Koran and its religi...See More
  5 hours ago · · 1 person ·
- Turgay Bayindir
  I won't go on any more Casey. The one thing I would warn against, though, is not discuss this issue vis-a-vis 'first amendment' because that is a legal issue that is only binding to American citizens within the borders of the US. The action...See More
  5 hours ago · · 1 person

Cool Court Transcript

2010-09-08T07:12:00.000-04:00

Anne Hutchinson, before the court of scary Puritan judges who had her on trial for heresy (she was sort of preaching her own sermons or counter-sermons Sunday afternoon after church, first to "the ladies," and then the men started showing up...):

Mrs. H.: [...]after that being unsatisfied in the thing, the Lord was pleased to bring this scripture out of the Hebrews. he that denies the testament denies the testator, and in this did open unto me and give me to see that those which did not teach the new covenant had the spirit of antichrist, and upon this he did discover the ministry unto me; and ever since, I bless the Lord, he hath let me see which was the clear ministry and which the wrong. Since that time I confess I have been more choice and he hath left me to distinguish between the voice of my beloved and the voice of Moses, the voice of John the Baptist and the voice of antichrist, for all those voices are spoken of in scripture. Now if you do condemn me for speaking what in my conscience I know to be truth I must commit myself unto the Lord.

Mr. Nowel [assistant to the Court]: How do you know that was the spirit?

Mrs. H.: How did Abraham know that it was God that bid him offer his son, being a breach of the sixth commandment?

Dep. Gov.: By an immediate voice.

Mrs. H.: So to me by an immediate revelation.

Dep. Gov.: How! an immediate revelation!

Mrs. H.: By the voice of his own spirit to my soul...

...and then some more gasping, followed by this conclusion:

Gov.: The court hath already declared themselves satisfied concerning the things you hear, and concerning the troublesomeness of her spirit and the danger of her course amongst us, which is not to be suffered. Therefore if it be the mind of the court that Mrs. Hutchinson for these things that appear before us is unfit for our society, and if it be the mind of the court that she shall be banished out of our liberties and imprisoned till she be sent away, let them hold up their hands.

[All but three did so]

Gov.: Mrs. Hutchinson, the sentence of the court you hear is that you are banished from out of our jurisdiction as being a woman not fit for our society, and are to be imprisoned till the court shall send you away.

Mrs. H.: I desire to know wherefore I am banished?

Gov.: Say no more. The court knows wherefore and is satisfied.

Observation

2010-09-07T14:49:00.001-04:00

"Service" is the new "'Charity.'"

I know this reads like a riddle, but I'm not going to explain it. I almost posted it as a facebook status update, but I just don't have the energy to defend the statement. It's just true.

In which Orestes Brownson is mentioned...

2010-09-06T21:44:00.000-04:00

I was writing a message to Wishydig that I lost, so now I'm trying to sort of recreate the main content. At some point, he casually dismissed the idea of a unified American identity by asking what has become a pretty common, even predictable, question: "Whose values?--which history?--what behavior?"

So in response I wrote this impassioned argument where I insisted that Wishydig knew damn-well whose values we were talking about when we claimed that America was exceptional or whatever. I made mention of the fact that he comes from a conservative religious background, and that he's over 30, which allowed me to suggest that today's 19-year olds might really not know what we're talking about when we say "American."

In my objection I said things like, "If those were actually good questions, then we wouldn't have well-known platitudes about 'white picket fences,' and nobody would understand what it means to 'go visit an apple orchard.'" Those values. That history. That behavior. Whether you're of that culture or actively against it, or turned off by it, or whatever: you understood, until about 1988, that that was what we were talking about.

Then I talked about what I was teaching today. I'm teaching Margaret Fuller's "Woman in the Nineteenth Century." I wanted my students to have a good understanding of the kind of heavy tradition she was up against in arguing for the vindication of women. So I showed them a little bit from (incidentally, a very nice webpage; and I just got a new screen-capture tool) Orestes Brownson's oeuvre:

Browson, who started as a mainstream Protestant, then turned Transcendentalist, and then apparently saw the light (?!) and converted to a conservative Catholicism, says things like:

As we read along in the book, we keep constantly asking, What is the lady driving at? What does she want? But no answer comes. She does not know, herself, what she wants. She has an ugly feeling of uneasiness, that matters do not go right with her; and she firmly believes that if she had- I know not what- all would go better. She is feverish, and turns from one side of the bed to the other, but finds no relief. The evil she finds, and which all her class find, is in her, in them, and is removed by no turning or change of posture, and can be. She and they are, no doubt, to compassionated, to be tenderly nursed and borne with, as are all sick people. It is no use attempting to reason them out of their crotchets; but well people should take care not to heed what they say, and especially not to receive the ravings of their delirium as divine inspirations.

And what's important about that is that his was the vast-majority view right up until Fuller made her argument. And when Fuller showed up, challenging those widely- and long-held values, she didn't pretend all of the sudden that Brownson's views were just one set of views among many, neither privileged nor implicitly more worthy of addressing.

And so when I hear people say, "Oh, but which America," I kind of roll my eyes -- at least if they are under about 30. Because even if there was a Sylvia Plath behind almost every Mrs. Cleaver, we all know that they all at least believed that they believed that Mrs. Cleaver was a reality.

Bizarro Journalism

2010-09-06T18:14:00.001-04:00

I just saw a whole segment on CNN that really pissed me off. The headline said, "Planned Quran-burning could endanger troops, Petraeus warns."

I know you all agree with me that that's an absurdly warped way to cover that "story," right? I'm trying to figure out what ends these journalists have in mind--why would they conceive of framing the story in such a way, and why would Petraeus apparently "start it?"

A bunch of hillbillies in Florida want to burn the Quran, and that puts American troops' lives in danger? No mention of the insane, insane mindset of Muslims who are so offended that some infidels are burning their favorite book that--

Oh wait, Muslims are a peace-loving people. So violence against the troops won't increase, right?

No seriously. That's what I believe. I don't believe burning the Quran puts troops in danger; only an insane ideology of violence and a too-easily-taking-offense generates that kind of danger. So great freaking job, CNN. Way to cut right to the clear, clean truth of the matter. I'm really more and more interested in figuring out what end is motivating all of the absurdity I'm witnessing in contemporary news coverage. What exactly does Wolf Blitzer's utopia look like? I imagine a room full of people, exactly half men and half women. The women are all white (or at least they have straight hair) and under 45 and very attractive. The men, if they are black or otherwise not-white, are under 45, and if they are white, they are over 45. People like Fareed Zakaria come and go, ostensibly proving that Wolf's utopia is a veritable treasure trove of diversity and open-mindedness, but in fact wearing exactly the same suit and tie as everybody else in the damn room, and all believing a confused mishmash of ideas ranging from anti-consumerism (but only for others; fancy watches for them) to American Unexceptionalism to "postmodern-art-is-really-challening" to "Yes, I drive a large minivan with a six cylinder engine, but only because I have three kids." And maybe it's this vision that motivates them: trying to get everyone else to share in such a vision, or at least start by switching from Merlot to Malbec. Everybody needs to be a Unitarian Universalist... unless they're a Muslim extremist.

/rant

Hell Freezing Over?

2010-09-06T12:29:00.001-04:00

Whoa, wow: even the New York Times is seeing the light: let the market be free!?

Michael L. Moskowitz, president of Equity Now, a direct mortgage lender that operates in New York and seven other states, also advocates letting the market fall. “Prices are still artificially high,” he said. “The government is discriminating against the renters who are able to buy at $200,000 but can’t at $250,000.”

(Bold, red, italics added)

Diminishing Student Self-Esteem

2010-09-05T19:27:00.000-04:00

One of the things I've noted now that I've been teaching for ten years or so is that my best students share one interesting characteristic: they have a kind of imperfect self-esteem. So for example, leaving aside the issue of whether there "really is" something wrong with the way they talk, the students who believe they speak imperfectly show a greater motivation for learning new content--and not just "grammar."

Two things follow: 1) this flies in the face of thirty+ years of pedagogy bullshit: the self-esteem stuff, which says, "you're perfect as you are," etc. Obviously, if you're perfect as you are, why should you pay attention in class, or do two hours of homework a night, or figure out what a gerund is? And consequently, 2) maybe we should reinforce this kind of low-self-esteem in our students. Not to grind them into feeling horrible about themselves, but to convince them (I think rightfully) that education can help them improve themselves.

This seems like it should be quintessential American pedagogy. It seems obvious to me. But I would be chased out of a conference of higher education if I presented such a vision. But think about the assumptions we make if we don't think this way: don't we then have to admit that class-structure is rigid and determinative? Only education offers a way out of that trap.

Self-improvement. Think about how that implies an imperfect subject at the starting point. I don't get the feeling that most of my freshmen think of themselves as incomplete or imperfect -- but the best ones among them think that way.

I hate how often I hear colleagues say, "I heard on NPR this morning..."

2010-09-04T10:10:00.001-04:00

So sophisticated (and I mean that with all of the etymological connotations I can pile on!) was NPR's dance around the topic of whether Martin Luther King, Jr. originated the famous phrase, "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice" that I left the interview feeling warm and fuzzy, and it didn't occur to me until about two hours later that this was part of a pattern with King: I had heard him accused of plagiarizing parts of his dissertation a while back.

Anyway, read the transcript and note the way NPR and guest manage to totally elude the topic of plagiarism in this short conversation. I was actually excited about hearing Theodore Parker mentioned on the radio, though!

But I mean, who cares? Stanley Fish told me just two weeks ago that plagiarism isn't a moral issue. Still, I love the way that the guest on NPR is asked, "Did King ever mention Parker?" and the guy responds, "I can't recall anywhere specifically..." and then when they get to the topic of how that happens, the guy says, "Well, typically how it happens is that we cite the source first, then we say 'someone said,' and then we just say, 'as I have said before.' " Leaving aside the fact that King doesn't seem to have attributed credit the first time around.

Respondez!

2010-09-03T20:02:00.000-04:00

Because the comments post page can only handle 4,096 characters:

Dear Jon Sealy, you wrote in the comments; here is my utterly reckless and unworthy attempt at a response:

It's not metafiction I'm talking about, tho' I think early efforts (Melville's interruptions in The Confidence-Man, maybe? Ch. 33, 44?) were probably motivated by this aim.

As I said, this is really difficult for me to articulate, probably because I'm not a great artist.

So if you're willing to follow along, try to free-associate with me here:

Take zen koans. Why are they? I mean we know, with those, very specifically, right?--that they have an "end" (namely: enlightenment). So, that's part 1. Purposive, ends-driven writing (and keep in mind, this is me "theorizing," speculating).

Part 2 would be what I call the problem of pedagogy. You've taught undergraduates enough to know that particular frustration that comes on a day when you've put together a good lesson plan, but only a few of the students are actually listening. You may have had an impulse, like me, to wonder about if there are ways, techniques, to sort of "trick" them into listening. So that's part two: how can we "teach" the unwilling student? [Incidentally, this is important to me because I have been the unwilling student. Nothing could get me to doubt my assumptions, or to search inwardly, or to be self-conscious, until I read "Billy Budd." And I almost think it was just the onslaught of big words and strained syntax--the Melville style, as much as the content--that moved me like that.]

So step one is: have a purpose--a great one. Ideally, the great One. Y'know? Enlightenment, G-d, whatever.

Step two: find a way (a technique) to hook even those who aren't "readers." [...which, to sort of reiterate, is in my head like finding a way to convert the happy pagan.]

And finally step three: combine steps one and two in such a way that you're teaching your readers about the highest Tr-th without them even realizing it.

Like right now, honestly: I'm under Cormac's spell. As a reader, I have recognized something in his language early on that has gained him my trust. So, he's made me from a skeptic into a believer.

The most dangerous part about this is to wonder whether it's possible to create this kind of literature, but to ultimately offer a false end, a false highest Tr-th. Frankly, I'm nervous about that with McCarthy.

So I guess I want to see his books know that about me, somehow--and to work with that emotion in me. To tease it, tempt it, and ultimately, I hope, bring it to that highest place in "Mind."

---

I have this theory that the final four or five chapters in Hawthorne's The Marble Faun are an effort to actually make it possible for the reader to have a mystical experience. Allow me to not explain what a mystical experience is for now, okay? So here's how he does it: Hawthorne (I imagine) must've had some experience like the one he's trying to communicate. But the experience itself is "ineffable" (see William James on "Mysticism" in Varieties of Religious Experience). So how do you show readers what's it's like? Hawthorne's solution is to bring them to a Carnival: because, I theorize, the person who is approaching a mystical experience will begin to perceive a strangeness about the world itself that corresponds to the normal-perception weirdness of Carnival. Then Hawthorne focalizes through the mystical experiencer, saying thinigs like (I'm paraphrasing from memory): "Kenyon felt as if he were in a dream. He decided to trust that some invisible intelligence would lead him to the place he needed to be...." Now, Hawthorne knows damn well that any normal 19th century reader is going to read that and say, "What!?"

And at that point, the book becomes, for the reader, the Carnival. And the Carnival, remember, was for Kenyon what the strangeness of the world was for an actually existing mystic.

At that point, the choice to simply keep reading becomes equivalent to Kenyon's decision to "trust an unseen intelligence..." And now the reader is following, one step behind, or one level up.

Hawthorne mentions that Kenyon feels a paranoia -- then ends the "book proper" with a kind of red herring paragraph alluding to Babylon and the number 7 and 777 and menorahs and stuff... perfect temptations for the reader to feel paranoia.

---

Obviously, I hate how unclear this all sounds--and I know how unpersuasive it sounds. It's really just a hunch, of course, but when some unseen intelligence made sure I was at the bowling alley that night, and the bowling alley felt like a Carnival, and I was reading these chapters in the Faun: well, it's sort of an experienced-based hunch?

Oooooh. Curse. I'm ridiculous. To steal the epigraph to Gretchen's forthcoming book (it's James Wright): "Here are some fragments of my hammer that broke against a wall of jewels."

I read that thing on Marginal Revolution before you posted it because you tuned me into that website -- it's one of my "Favorites," and one of my favorites.

And lastly: if I knew how to make this kind of experiential fiction happen, I'd write it myself! I like to think simply recognizing it is a virtue. Hawthorne wrote to a friend concerning The Marble Faun: "I somewhat doubt whether your dull English public will quite appreciate its excellencies. It depends upon the view a reader happens to take of it, whether it shall appear very clever or very absurd."

As a reader, I just try to take the right view of it.

Incidentally: as a person, I just try to take the right view of life, too.--y'know, because it'd appear absurd instead of very clever otherwise. Related?

The Science of the Self and Enlightenment

2010-09-03T12:25:00.000-04:00

This is a sweet video. Sorry I can't embed it. It's about the Self, Enlightenment, and the neuroscience of the brain. Yeeeeessss, the guy has hippie-weird hair. But give him a chance.

Narrative is Essential, or, See the Stars During the Day

2010-09-03T07:08:00.001-04:00

So... I'm in the mood to beat this blog up a little bit. I'm sick of it's face.

Let me try to reissue my foundations:

I've read plenty of narratives, but I've had an involuntary perception over the past five or so years of one essential divide among literary narrative: most narrative (say 90% +) seems to depict elements of human experience (exposition, conflict, climax, etc.) without being conscious of itself as part of that experience. When you open Little Women, you will not feel that the author is making metacommentary about human experience by conceiving of your reading experience as a usable example of said human experience. It's just a book about life. Not a book that is life.

The other 10% of books -- and, again, to me, they stand out as if they carried another dimension with them -- seem very conscious of the experience that reading creates, and work deliberately to make that experience the fundamental subject of inquiry. That's really hard to express, and probably more difficult to "receive" if you haven't already had the thought yourself. Let's see if three examples help:

#1: The Stranger, by Camus: it begins like this: "Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don't know. I got a telegram from the home: 'Mother deceased. Funeral tomorrow. Faithfully yours.' That doesn't mean anything. Maybe it was yesterday."

When I have taught that book, I pause right there and ask my students, "How many of you kept reading--kept listening to this unfeeling sociopath--past these lines?" They sort of reluctantly/confusedly raise their hands. And I try to explain then that Camus is teaching you to listen to even that man.--teaching you that human sympathy, ethics, requires nothing quintessential other than attention. And you've already shown that you're capable of it.

So the reading becomes a kind of discipline or practice -- just like saying a rosary or doing Yoga -- in a highly ethical way of being.

#2: A book like Faulkner's The Sound and the Fury: most people who have read this read it as part of their sophomore literature survey, and found it immediately impenetrable, and so purchased a Cliff's Notes and then figured out that the narration was coming from a mentally challenged person in part one. Some readers of the book may have been forewarned by their teachers. But I don't think Faulkner intended it to be so. The trick to reading a book like that is to change everything about yourself, everything about your expectations, and just be willing to see in that other way, trusting that there is some logic to it.

Then, like Camus' book, the reading of Faulkner itself becomes the highlighted experience: are you able to make the kinds of adjustments to your appetites and expectations to experience some shade of reality/human existence that you may have previously been unwilling to see? Books like these have always been most difficult for me: I have not finished Ulysses, not because "it's too hard" or "I don't get it," but because I haven't been able to look the way Joyce is requiring me to look long enough to get to the end. In that way the book--my reading experience--reveals to me my own ethical shortcomings.

#3: The Bible. You've heard people who don't really want to argue about G-d or Jesus--people who simply reiterate: just read the Bible. Have you read it? No? Read it. These people are intuiting the special nature of Biblical narrative.

One of my favorite examples is in the New Testament. Jesus tells his disciples, "Wait here while I go pray," and then he goes on "a little further" and readers are given the precise language of his prayer (!). It ought to beg the question: who is reporting? Who is the teller? Did Mark really not sleep, but slink along behind Jesus to overhear his prayer? Absurd! Similarly when Jesus is being interviewed by Pilate: who was privy to that conversation? The narrative perspective cannot remain consistent with the apparent journalistic mode of much of the rest of the gospel.

And so the narrative itself teaches us without "saying" it to be wary, to ask not only of the book, but of our own experience: who is the teller?

So to quote/paraphrase Borges, who wrote in another language: "Nobody realized that the book and the labyrinth were one and the same."

Narrative is not, in this way, extravagant, but necessary. It is a complete way of thinking. It does not supplement theory, it replaces it.

In this way, the authentic historical response to Derrida will not come in the form of a bizarro-Derrida, who writes similarly but offers different content. Rather, the response may be a narrative experience. Which may be a novel. Or may be something exactly like a novel, an experience that surpasses what Derrida was pointing out:

You know you're all invited to my August 21, 2017 "It ain't just the sun that's getting Eclipsed" eclipse party in Charleston, SC, right?

A total solar eclipse is not like the one you saw in tenth grade, where you looked through a pinhole in wax paper at something and couldn't see anything. A total solar eclipse will change your life. Here's a preview. And it's paid for, folks. On me.*

*Flights and accommodations not included.

Follow-Up Post: More on the Structure of Silence

2010-09-02T07:18:00.001-04:00

When I was about 18 I was really into novels and memoirs about how bad it was in Soviet Russia. A pretty dorky habit, admittedly. But as a result, a switch tripped in my head last night when I heard one of the Obama administration officials say that she wanted to lead a "re-education campaign" on the healthcare bill--a switch that wouldn't have any reason to trip in the heads of Americans who had not read similar literature. And thus was created in me a sense of correspondence, a little truth-nugget, that would not have formed in the minds of those who hadn't shared my reading background: "Hey, is the Obama administration using language similar to that used in the U.S.S.R.?"

One of the perennial features of those novels and memoirs was a situation involving a person with clear vision of how insane things had become, but who nevertheless held his tongue for fear of being, well, forcibly re-educated.

[Free association here]: Last night I heard Rachel Maddow make fun of right-wing organizations that had recently applied for healthcare funding--from a bill they actively opposed. She said, "You can't do that!," and I remembered how party members always got access to service first in the Soviet Union. I thought to myself, what a rotten point, Maddow: if I'm an anti-theft lobbyist, and then I get mugged by Robin Hood, who then takes all of my money and dumps it in the town-center, do I really undermine my position by scrambling to seize back whatever stolen money I can salvage?

A recent exchange with a virtual friend [meaning I've never met him in "real" life] included this from my friend, who was speaking about a kind of interpersonal duty to speak up during disagreements, if only to root out smugness in those shouting ill-gotten opinions:

...the persistently silent person is like the yes-man in the corner who won’t tell the guy in the ring he’s losing....all this acquiescing in/by silence produces a sorry army of storefront martial artists who never spar. That is, in silence, we REFUSE to, as we say, ‘keep them honest’, by at least an intellectual jab or two. And then we charge them with intellectual dishonesty, and secretly laugh at their penchant for sloppy haymakers? Does not the finger we (silently) point at them start to curve back to us?

But in those Soviet memoirs and novels, the silent person was silent only for fear. Often, the silent person recognized perfectly well that Jesus (for example) would have spoken the truth despite the treat of "re-education" (or a gulag) -- but they didn't have the courage of Jesus. They had a family, a humble livelihood, a routine.

Our conversation started over my "complaint" that I work in an environment that is not conducive to me speaking truthfully about my politics. I've justified the situation to myself by imagining tenure as a solution to the problem (maybe then I'll be able to speak!), but in fact even that seems to involve such a dynamic that speaking up then will not get me fired, but it might lose me the respect of my colleagues: "You mean you 'infiltrated' our campus by remaining silent and deflecting direct questions and agreeing where you could with us? That's insane." And it almost would be insane, wouldn't it?

It can't be true that academia is like Soviet Russia (except in the means of disincentives), can it? Or even if it is, I can blame myself for purposely, half-consciously identifying that structure and choosing opinions meant to bring that structure into contrast--to make it visible. I've wanted to be an outsider.

...[cricket, cricket]... anybody still reading this? :)

If only it had been in "Silent Spring," Maryland...

2010-09-01T16:42:00.000-04:00

Oh, oh--can you all, knowing me as you do!--can you all imagine the Schadenfreude (oh, the humor!) I'm experiencing as I read the text of the manifesto written by the Discovery Channel Building gunman!? Please, in honor of my daily griping, if you do nothing else that I recommend on this blog ever, read at least the first paragraph of this guy's manifesto. It is pure gold. I mean really, just imagine my chuckle when I saw on MSNBC (of all places: "Green is Universal!") that a man was holding people hostage in the Discovery Channel building to try to make the channel start changing their propaganda's content to re-emphasize sterilization instead of heralding human birth. Hahaha.... oh, man. A progressive environmentalist domestic terrorist aiming at a television channel. G-d bless America.

Well, wait. This will only be funny if the hostages are okay, I guess.

MSNBC reports: "Lee said he experienced an ‘'awakening' when he watched former Vice President Al Gore’s environmental documentary 'An Inconvenient Truth.' "

That reminds me of one of my favorite lines of inquiry, where I say to a global-warming fool: "So, what data was it that convinced you that humankind was causing the earth's temperature to increase? I mean, where did you learn the tide-turning bit of information that really solidified it for you?" But anyway...

Oh, that is richer than Godiva. And I love how MSNBC has to put the word "awakening" in quotes. But honestly, what liberal didn't have an "awakening" during Gore's "film?" Next we'll have an "awakened" Michael Moore junky holding hostages at an auto plant in Michigan.

Alvin Greene Update

2010-09-01T12:00:00.000-04:00

Democratic candidate for Senate in South Carolina Alvin Greene's website is finally up. It is just what I was hoping it would be: totally 1.0. Take a look for yourselves. It's gonna be a Greene-Party in 2010!!!

Also, there's a new interview available at Keith Larson's page. Give it a listen.

Glennbeck and the King Legacy

2010-09-01T09:56:00.001-04:00

Everybody's rolling their eyes at G-Beck incorporating MLK into his schtick this past weekend. Last night he showed a clip where he had Rev. Al on his show back in April of this year. The exchange went something like this:

Glenn: Don't you think, though--beyond politics--that a return to foundational values in our personal, individual lives--to faith, hope, and charity--is what's really required in this country?

Al: "Yes, I agree."

Glenn: "So, those guys over there [pointing to Ben Franklin, Jefferson, and Madison, with the words "Faith," "Hope," and "Charity" under their images]?"

Al: "Well, I'd like to see a few African Americans in the mix with them..."

Then Glenn returned to the present and said, "So that's what I did. That's why I had huge posters of Frederick Douglass and MLK at our rally. That's why we ran the series on our Black Founding Fathers."

Well, whatever. But anyway, all this making fun of Glenn Beck in relation to the legacy of King reminded me of my favorite of King's sermons, which reads (surprise!) just like a Glenn Beck segment. I'm not kidding. Check it out.

Ode to Jon Sealy

2010-08-31T22:01:00.000-04:00

Friend Jon Sealy (2.0) has been telling me that I need to read Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian ever since we expressed our shared love for Moby-Dick to each other for the first time some four or five years ago. I'm only sixty-something pages in, but that's a lot in such a book, so I'm going to follow Sealy's format and say a few words:

What it is:

The nearest thing I've ever read to this isn't Moby-Dick, which the book jacket compares it to, but Willa Cather's Death Comes for the Archbishop. So far, it's soaked in the landscape. It's as much about the dirt as it is about the Kid who seems to stand in the place where a focalized protagonist should be. The only other McCarthy I've read is The Road, and it shares a theme: something about how fragile civilization--"our" kind in particular--is.

Why it's Interesting:

What strikes me so far is the bare/starkness of the narration. In this regard, it's almost an antithesis of Moby-Dick. In Blood Meridian, you get frightfully objective description like this, a scene where a bunch of American soldiers (loosely angling toward the Mexican-American War in 1850ish) are attacked by a band of marauding Native Americans:

...Now driving in a wild frieze of headlong horses with eyes walled and teeth cropped and naked riders with clusters of arrows clenched in their jaws and their shields winking in the dust and up the far side of the ruined ranks in a piping of boneflutes and dropping down off the sides of their mounts with one heel hung in the withers strap and their short bows flexing beneath the outstretched necks of the ponies until they had circled the company and cut their ranks in two and then rising up again like funhouse figures, some with nightmare faces painted on their breasts, riding down with the unhorsed Saxons and spearing and clubbing them and leaping from their mounts with knives and running about on the ground with a peculiar bandylegged trot like creatures driven to alien forms of locomotion and stripping the clothes from the dead and seizing them up by the hair and passing their blades about the skulls of the living and the dead alike and snatching aloft the bloody wigs and hacking and chopping at the naked bodies, ripping off limbs, heads, gutting the strange white torsos and bodies, ripping up great handfuls of viscera, genitals, some of the savages so slathered up with gore they might have rolled in it like dogs and some who fell upon the dying and sodomized them with loud cries to their fellows.

Holy Toledo. A sentence like that (yes, that's one sentence!) makes me see what Faulkner was trying to do. Aside from the thrilling images, the deftness of the language, what demands my attention is the absence of any narrative commentary. Nowhere in the first five chapters does the narrative voice descend to level judgment on any of the scenes he reports. Melville could never approach this kind of ruthless perspective. Melville, even in the guise of Ishmael, always offers readers a hand:

Is it that by its indefiniteness it shadows forth the heartless voids and immensities of the universe, and thus stabs us from behind with the thought of annihilation, when beholding the white depths of the milky way? Or is it, that as in essence whiteness is not so much a color as the visible absence of color, and at the same time the concrete of all colors; is it for these reasons that there is such a dumb blankness, full of meaning, in a wide landscape of snows - a colorless, all- color of atheism from which we shrink? And when we consider that other theory of the natural philosophers, that all other earthly hues - every stately or lovely emblazoning - the sweet tinges of sunset skies and woods; yea, and the gilded velvets of butterflies, and the butterfly cheeks of young girls; all these are but subtile deceits, not actually inherent in substances, but only laid on from without; so that all deified Nature absolutely paints like the harlot, whose allurements cover nothing but the charnel-house within; and when we proceed further, and consider that the mystical cosmetic which produces every one of her hues, the great principle of light, for ever remains white or colorless in itself, and if operating without medium upon matter, would touch all objects, even tulips and roses, with its own blank tinge - pondering all this, the palsied universe lies before us a leper; and like wilful travellers in Lapland, who refuse to wear colored and coloring glasses upon their eyes, so the wretched infidel gazes himself blind at the monumental white shroud that wraps all the prospect around him. And of all these things the Albino Whale was the symbol. Wonder ye then at the fiery hunt?

So the Moby-Dick comparison is baffling to me, except insofar as I am catching, in Blood Meridian, an early glimpse of the granduer of McCarthy's book.

Further Reading:

Like I said, Willa Cather's Southwest is comparable for its vividness. Possibly (for descriptive setting) also Carlos Castandeda's A Separate Reality. But the only other book I've read with such a studied narrative restraint is Camus' The Stranger, a book that asks readers to listen to the ravings of a madman ("Mother died today, or maybe it was yesterday...") from the very first page. Well, and maybe Dostoevsky. But that is some serious company. And remember: I'm only on page sixty-something!

Wait, wait, wait... what!?

2010-08-31T07:28:00.001-04:00

So I'm reading Stanley Crouch's latest opinion piece about how the Tea Party is racist, and I'm thinking to myself as I read, "Oh, I'm so sure, etc..." and then--seriously out of nowhere--Crouch starts a new paragraph (the 9th of a 12-paragraph piece) like this:

In "The Confidence Man," Herman Melville describes the passengers on a Mississippi steamboat. They are of different ethnic groups, beliefs and religions. But as long as they're careful not to harm one another, they are doing the right thing. This is who we are at our best, like it or not.

And the words "Herman Melville" and "Mississippi" are hyperlinked. Whaaaaow. Weird. Anyway, wait... what? What!?

Bad Question

2010-08-30T07:20:00.001-04:00

I'm teaching John Smith's narrative today in Early American Literature. The students all recognize one part of the story because they saw Disney's Pocahontas as children. Listen to the musical digression from the movie, below:

This whole thing seems so wildly overcooked to me. I can just feel the good-intentioned people at Disney trying to get the message through to children of the next generation: "You must value the idea of a pluralistic society! Don't make this mistake!"

But is there really no other way to imagine a society that isn't "universalist" in nature? The Chinese, for example, have a long history of not exactly embracing outsiders -- but they also, excluding the cases of Tibet and Taiwan, generally don't go meddling around the globe. In other words, China is not a particularly pluralist civilization; yet maybe we don't have to fault them for that? Maybe it's okay to write off others (politically) because they are different? Is it always a fault to take refuge in a society with others who are like you?

The Structure of Silence

2010-08-29T18:29:00.001-04:00

I confess, as I have hinted before: I have thoughts that I wouldn't dare speak in public. Which includes here, on this blog. Stuff about culture and maybe race and identity and ethics and so on. I envy my colleagues who--I can tell--are able to speak their consciences without hesitation. They all agree with each other, and their only problem is tricking undergraduates into thinking like they do (or: "They are convinced they are correct; and they work hard to share this conviction with others.") I say I envy them. I wonder...

I wonder if maybe I've just chosen opinions guaranteed to keep me aloof, to keep me on the outside. In other words, I wonder if my "politics" (loosely conceived) are really just a means to landing in this peculiar social position?

One of the reasons I half-assedly like Glenn Beck is that he stands on the Lincoln Memorial and says things like, "Speak the Truth, people. Let me tell you, the Truth will set you free -- oh, warning: it'll devastate you first; but it will set you free. Speak the Truth." I like that because I don't speak the Truth. I try to get myself off the hook by remaining deeply interested in concepts that are inherently unspeakable (there can be no duty to speak the unspeakable!), but I feel a sting when Glennbeck says what he says.

So why can't I speak what I think? How bad could it be, honestly? I guess pretty bad, it seems to me. The reason is that to express certain opinions to people who clearly hold different values makes finding a common ground with those people impossible. I have an example that might be useful:

With a topic like abortion, a pro-life person who is unreflective may stand on a stump and make the case that abortion is murder. But a more sensitive person who is, nevertheless, pro-life, might not want to speak about the issue at all for fear of worsening the psychological condition of one of his listeners who, in this case, though he doesn't know it, has had an abortion.

The same delicacy may be required in all kinds of circumstances, then: if the cultural position you are angling against will feel your counter-position as a reproach, then--if you are sensitive to the feelings of others--you may choose to bite your tongue.

This strange structure: where the position is so profoundly ethical that it refuses to indict those who hold different values. This group is easily "framed" as a judgmental, standoffish bunch. Because, well, there always is one ass who holds a poster of an aborted fetus and shouts about murder through a megaphone. So then what you have is a whole "side" (pro-choice) willing to impugn the character of what they perceive to be the other side... and another side that may consist of 90% silent non-judgers and 10% insensitive jerks.

Abortion is not my topic here. I'm talking about everything from work ethic to speech patterns to attitudes toward government and neighbors and so on.

I just find this to be an interesting phenomenon -- this is a fascinating structure to me. It may even be that you bite your tongue so as not to offend me. Perhaps you believe I shouldn't be so something, but you know that any repudiation would hurt my feelings, and so the conversation that might've ensued remains unspoken.

So: don't name the case, but: am I alone in noting this duty-to-silence?

---

Case in point: the other day I was in the car driving to lunch with some liberal arts colleagues. A piece came on NPR about the upcoming Glenn Beck event. "I heard one of them saying the other day, 'these are some of the finest people on the planet gathered here.' There's no racial tinge to that claim (inflected with dripping sarcasm)." And then another rejoined, "Yes, I think that's the only explanation for this energy: they keep saying, 'Our country has been taken away from us,' and it seems clear that they are simply motivated by racism. There's no other possible motive, honestly -- I mean, what has been taken away from them?" And another: "Yes, well, look at the demographics: not a black face in the crowd tomorrow, I bet." Then the second one spoke again: "The closest I know to a Tea Partier is my brother in law. He was raised in a situation where he had everything he needed; he's never really worked hard; and he simply doesn't want to see the American Dream extended to people who don't look like him." The first said, "These Libertarians are just unthinking and dogmatic--it's best to just ignore that discourse. I think the Democrats shouldn't pay any attention to it." Then the second speaker continued, a moment later: "The new hire in the history department has very problematic politics. He did his dissertation on Eastern European finance and his economics are practically laissez-faire. I was on the committee, and I voiced serious concerns." "Really?," my other (liberal arts!!!) colleagues lamented: "How does someone get through a serious program and still think like that?"

The closest you know to a tea partier, by the way, is sitting in your back seat, afraid to speak, for realistic fear of losing his job.

No Word for Blue

2010-08-28T11:46:00.000-04:00

Here's a link to a long and (I thought!) interesting article on how and whether language can influence our thought. I know Wishydig advises me not to consult the New York Times for science-writing, but Linguistics isn't really a science anyway... hahaha. ;)

Whatever the case, this article makes me re-regret that I never became fluent in a second language. I feel like my career as a prophet could've really benefited from that advantage.

Still, I remain skeptical when the article says, "As strange as it may sound, our experience of a Chagall painting actually depends to some extent on whether our language has a word for blue."

But okay: I've gotta go focus on C-Span right now. I've been watching the Glenn-Beckcitement for an hour now, and haven't seen a white person on stage: just white people in the crowd, clapping awkwardly to the gospel music booming from the stage.

Really?

2010-08-27T12:22:00.001-04:00

I think it's suspicious that I've heard, dozens of times now, about a floating heap of plastic garbage "twice the size of Texas" somewhere in the Pacific Ocean... but have never seen a photograph.

Chart Not Including Yesterday's 27% Drop in Existing Home Sales

2010-08-25T07:35:00.000-04:00

US Zillow Home Value Index

US Home Values - Interactive chart

I'm pretty ready for people in my generation to start waking up to how screwed we're getting. Nobody I know can afford a house, and it's because of the government's efforts to keep housing prices artificially inflated. The government is doing that because they're feeling the most pressure from people who are in homes. But if renters would enter the arena more vocally, that might begin to change.

Another scam: I can't believe that anyone under 50 is in favor of the social security program. I heard yesterday some crazy numbers. Something like if you started working in 1937, that when you retired, it took two years collecting social security to get all of the money back that you paid in. For a worker who started in 2001, they'll have to live to 97 to collect what they paid in. In other words, it's impossible for anyone in our generation to win. We're just being politically robbed, and we seem to be okay with it.

Anyway, maybe Obama will fix it for us... (?!).

Vote Alvin Greene!

2010-08-22T18:55:00.001-04:00

This is honestly the funniest thing I know about:

The greatest thing going on in the world right now is Alvin Greene (D), nominee for Senate in South Carolina. Pleeeeeze, if you aren't paying attention, start paying attention! Greene has an outside chance of ousting incumbent Jim DeMint (R).

At Keith Larson's page on wbt.com (my local news-radio station), there are ten interviews with Alvin Greene. Each one is solid. gold. But I really recommend the most recent (the tenth) interview. I can't link directly to the interviews, but I can offer a link to Keith Larson's page. After you follow that link, it's pretty easy to find interview #10.

Larson does an excellent job in all of these interviews keeping it together, but sometimes you can hear in his voice the pure astonishment. Anyway, seriously, Alvin Greene is taking me into the next level. I have long thought that politics was sort of serious business, and gotten more involved emotionally than I would like. Alvin Greene is teaching me not to be so serious.

Keith Olbermann clearly isn't in on the joke. In his own interview with A-Greene, Olbermann employs language that Hemingway would've described as "speaking with that omission of syntax stupid people employ when talking to drunken people or foreigners."

Don Lemon doesn't quite seem to get it either.

Donning the Cilice

2010-08-22T09:46:00.000-04:00

In a 10-page article in today's NY Times about a bullshit "new stage" of psychological development (only in America) called "Emerging Adulthood," a 24-year old from Virginia is quoted saying,

"There is pressure to make decisions that will form the foundation for the rest of your life in your 20s. It’s almost as if having a range of limited options would be easier."

They always told me that the next Hitler would be popularly elected, but I couldn't see how that would be possible. But this kind of thinking is real, and ought to be discouraged, and ought to be frightening to us: Less freedom, they seem to be demanding. And the institutions as we have them are prepared to respond in one of two ways: either, as I hinted, to elect a dictator or Great Moral Leader, or else, the happier alternative, to create new institutions where these people can be "shepherded" for a few more years until they are ready to face the full-sheet of options.

I like to make fun of Psychology, so I called this a bullshit new stage of development. But it does seem (objectively, if we are to believe the article) true that today's young people are taking their sweet time "growing up" (defined basically as finishing school, getting married, having kids). And I'm not implying I have no sympathy for these wallowers: I marinated in limbo until I was almost 30 myself, and was very interested in "issues of identity" and the "sense of possibilities." But now I speak as a card-carrying grown up when I say that I think we ought to be pushing people off the diving board rather than helping them slowly inch their way to the end in fear.

To these wallowers, even the term "growing up" is ambiguous, and that makes sense -- they would have to trade in their naive faith that "it'll all work out just as they like" for the realities of never getting a good night's sleep, having to bite their tongue in committee meetings, or buying a less spectacular house than they had imagined. But this is one of those cases where I want to quote Pascal, or paraphrase him anyway, saying something like, "Kneel down, mouth the words of prayer, and then believe." Having crossed that river, I want to say that that's the only way: it will always feel like you're not ready, no matter how long public institutions make is safe and comfortable to forestall.

I only minored in psychology, but even that was enough to get me in on the secret that "discovering" a new stage in life is always a big deal. But I wonder at what point psychology will make a "Zen" move and suggest something even remotely counterintuitive? Oh, you're paralyzed by depression? Then see if you can lie still for three straight days without moving. Oh, you don't want to grow up? Then get married, get somebody pregnant, and take a job you don't want.

Put the damn hair-shirt on, kids. It's good for ya.

Global Oneness Project

2010-08-21T14:47:00.001-04:00

I like it. The third video features Peter Kingsley, whose books should by now have transformed the way you understand what philosophy was before it became an embarrassingly institutionalized form of mental masturbation (if you only have time for one video, watch that third one). Make sure to visit the "Film Library" at the Global Oneness Project's website--something for everybody there.

I've got a whole bunch of stuff from a while ago on Kingsley, if you're interested (now).

A Spinal Cord for a Spinal Cord Leaves the Whole World Paralyzed

2010-08-20T11:22:00.000-04:00

A judge in Saudi Arabia heard a case involving a man whose spine was injured when an attacker came at him with a meat cleaver. The injured man requested that, per Sharia law, the judge injure the attacker's spine in a similar manner.

Link here.

(The judge has sent letters to local hospitals inquiring about whether any of them would perform the injury!)

I Found a New Blog

2010-08-18T08:32:00.001-04:00

Fascinating little segment on Jack London's raging racism, with commentary on how/why he's been remembered neither as a raging racist, nor as a die-hard progressive/socialist, but instead is taught as the guy who wrote a story about sleeping in a dog's intestines.

What is Language? -- Schopenhauer & Wishydig

2010-08-17T19:12:00.000-04:00

A recent and barely civil (my fault) comments string brings me to a question: what is language? For my purposes, it'll be helpful if we all start with the following paragraph from Schopenhauer (play along). This is from The World as Will and Idea:

Speech, as an object of outer experience, is obviously nothing more than a very complete telegraph which communicates arbitrary signs with the greatest rapidity and the finest distinctions of difference. But what do these signs mean? How are they interpreted? When someone speaks do we at once translate the words into pictures of the fancy, which instantaneously flash upon us, arrange and link themselves together, and assume form and colour according to the words that are poured forth and their grammatical inflections? What a tumult there would be in our brains while we listened to a speech, or to the reading of a book. But what actually happens is not this at all. The meaning of a speech is, as a rule, immediately grasped, accurately and distinctly taken in, without the imagination being brought into play. It is reason which speaks to reason, keeping within its own province.

Comments? Does that sound right: reason speaks to reason?

End of Melville Article!

2010-08-17T09:22:00.000-04:00

My concluding paragraph (let's pray it's not too "lyrical" for the editors of Leviathan):

-----------

To consider Melville’s fiction, and Moby-Dick in particular, as spiritually evocative in nature requires, it is true, a leap away from typical models of literary criticism. But Melville’s own reading seems to have followed such a path: markings in Melville’s Bible show him underscoring Jesus’ parables often, and highlighting the discussions about the use of parables even more frequently. As Brian Yothers has remarked recently, “Melville’s markings [in his Bible]… indicate how his personal religious thought is inextricably intertwined with his sense of vocation as a novelist and a poet.”[1] To understand Melville’s fiction deeply, then, we must be willing to imagine—and perhaps even to experience—that which is beyond the text, that to which the text alludes. In a 2001 article on the connection between narrative and mystical experience, Catherine Garrett wrote,

…for most people, literature has more power than theory: that is, narrative reaches more people than metanarrative, even though behind every story is an earlier, greater story which gives it form. The power of narrative… comes from its ability to generate emotions to which theory can only refer.[2]

Garrett’s article focuses on the experiences of the well-known mystic, Julian of Norwich, whose mystical experience came after an extended period of personal suffering and despair. In the same vein, in William James’s chapter on “Mysticism” in The Varieties of Religious Experience, James notes that Saint John of the Cross proclaimed that the highest state of consciousness “is reached by ‘dark contemplation.’”[3] This path through challenging and deep, emotional doubt may not always yield fruit; but when it does, the result is not only a change in metaphysical perspective, but also a kind of renewal of the moral and ethical vision. This is the profound democracy—not of social class (for anyone may be initiated into this seeing, regardless of wealth or prestige or education)—but of soul. And it is for this reason the most unsettling; it promises neither perfect material equality, nor universal salvation; it destabilizes and undermines the structures of power that mainstream society takes for granted and comfortably works within; it may even have allowed the son of a bankrupt and half-mad fallen aristocrat to board a whaling ship, and learn the some of the holiest secrets of existence.

[1] Brian Yothers, “One’s Own Faith: Melville’s Reading of The New Testament and Psalms” (Leviathan 10.3 (Oct. 2008), 39-40.

[2] Garrett, Catherine. “Weal and Woe: Suffering, Sociology, and the Emotions of Julian of Norwich” (Pastoral Psychology, 49.3, 2001), 189.

[3] William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience (New York, NY: The New American Library, 1958), 312.

Property Rights and the Manhattan Mosque

2010-08-16T19:10:00.001-04:00

For my 500th post on this blog, I'd like to publish something agreeable. So:

President Obama could end this truly appalling "conversation" about the Mosque in Manhattan if he would simply say, "It's about capitalism and property rights." Instead, he and the professional leftists continue speaking of "religious freedom." That building was for sale, and evidently, those people bought it. They ought to be allowed to build whatever they want on the site.

Of course, you'll never catch Obama defending capitalism and property rights. But it's unfortunate, because those rights are a natural fit with civil rights, including religious rights.

Plus, isn't buying land and building a mosque a better way of handling infidels than flying planes into their buildings? If anything, I see this mosque in Manhattan as the ultimate sign of America's victory in the ten-year war that began with 9/11. I mean, look: they're playing by our rules now!

(That's as agreeable as I get, folks)

Freedom Link Dump

2010-08-15T13:26:00.000-04:00

I feel a streak coming on here, so I'm just going to do it all in one post. Yes, I know this is mostly for myself, but I like having a post like this once in a while. Indulge me. In short, I prefer liberty to equality. And if asked why: because you can't have moral behavior under coercion.

The Mises Institute -- entirely open source, because Mises himself opposed the idea of "intellectual" property.

Lew Rockwell's site -- mostly Austrian in nature, Rockwell blogs libertarianly and frenetically.

The Libertarian Standard -- this one's new to me, but it looks promising, and sort of funny in the articles section.

The Cato Institute -- wonder if they'd hire a Ph.D. in English? Maybe as their education consultant?--I could work as a double agent, having infiltrated the academy without turning into a statist.

Thomas Sowell's Spot -- Sowell is good on everything as far as I'm concerned, but especially on education issues.

The Ayn Rand Institute -- Yes, there's a lot of bullshit here, but some good stuff too. Rand is best defending liberty, and pretty shaky when it comes to economics.

Marxists Internet Archive -- because truth only reveals itself as a whole picture. Seriously, there are a lot of great resources here.

Freedom Link

2010-08-15T00:10:00.000-04:00

"If you treat people, so far as government is concerned, alike, the result is necessarily inequality; you can have either freedom and inequality, or unfreedom and equality."

Obviously! I just discovered a freaking awesome archive of interviews with Ludwig Wittgenstein's equally brilliant cousin, F.A. Hayek. Click here if Glenn Beck is just too easy for you.

I strongly endorse, for my "postmodernist" friends, the James Buchanan interview, part II -- then click the link for "Subjectivism in economics." I never understood how postmodernists collectively neglected the foundational insights of Austrian economics regarding the subjective nature of valuation. [Until I read Iris Murdoch, last month, on the way in which postmodernism and Marxism "hold hands under the table;" but that's another story]

I also recommend, from that same interview, also in part II, the twenty minutes or so that you'll get if you click the link to "Socialist Calculation Debate." That's the whole argument, folks. In summary, the best intentions are daunted by the inestimable vastness of "the economy" itself: no one, and no committee of experts, can possibly run a centralized economy as efficiently as free markets can.

Last thing I'll recommend is Part II of the interview with Robert Bork, who was memorably railroaded by the senate judicial committee in the 80s. Click the link to "Social Justice."

Drunk Post

2010-08-13T21:15:00.000-04:00

I don't drink much, but tonight I bouight a 24 oz. Bud Ice, and now, two-thirds of the way through it, it tastes like college. So I thought I'd just type some stuff and post it and who gives a crap. It's been like forever since I was drunk, so let's not lose this opportunity.

First, I'm sick of not having campfires with close friends. It's only around campfires, it seems to me, that everybody knows to put aside their fucking stupid differences like religion and politics and whatever, and just be cool.

Second, but, since we're not around a campfire: I'm sick of halfassedly agreeing with my liberal friends just to make them think I'm reasonable. For example, I'm actually NOT a racist. I just sometimes say I am because you tell me "everybody is." But I'm not. And another thing: I'm sick of defending my motives, so I'm going to flip this shit: I'm starting to believe (really, I am--this isn't just rhetoric [I'll get to Rhetoric next]) that progressives/liberals don't so much want to help all the poor people of the world as be thought of as caring about all the poor people of the world. I think that because how else can I explain that nothing in history as far as I can tell gives any support to any liberal/progressive notion of economic theory. It's rotten eggs all the way down, and the poor people are the ones who continue getting scrwed by it. Fucking tell me that Obama has done anything for anybody who's poor except make sure that they stay that way.

Third, I think people give up too easily. Where's our tenacity, people?

Fourth, I honestly like Glenn Beck (that one's going to get me in trouble. Let me explain: I like Glenn Beck relatively. I mean, it's not like I can get anyone to read Karl Popper or Carl Menger or Eugen (pronounced oy-gen) Bohm-Bawerk or Ludwig Von Mises... or even Thomas Jefferson. So I'll settle for Glenn Beck, who does whole hour-long pieces on Calvin Coolidge. I firmly believe that nobody evil has the kind of energy it takes to do a three-hour radio program, a one-hour television show, and write bestsellers, and show-up at the 8/28 rally in Washington.

Fifth, I just forgot to finish the bottom third of this beer. Hold on.

Sixth, I think I'll always wonder whether I'm understood by my father, and whether I understand him, and I fear that understanding will come too late, as in a Henry James novel.

Seventh, I just finished the New Testament again last night, and I wasn't particularly moved, which kinda upsets me.

Eights, America works out if you have faith. That's true. I got a job and a new office and a baby and a wife who loves me, all in four years since the Holy Spirit smacked my head at a bowling alley in Indiana.

(9) It's not just about reading Plato, it's about understanding him. When I dissented from postmodernism, people kneejerkedly accused me of being "a Platonist." I didn't knwo what that meant then, but now I think I do., And I'm honored. Thank you.

10: Oh yeah, Rhetoric. You bitches know there's a difference between truth-seeking speech and Rhetoric. You can't say the only difference between 1940s America and 1940s Soviet Union or 1940s Germany was rhetoric. It was reality.

11: A train's going by, which happens about 9 times a day.

12) You can't buy liquor in a grocery store in Norht Carolikna. Only liquor stores sell liquore. And all liquore stores are owned by the state. I haven't bought any liquor since I moved here, liberals.

1113: I did a presentation on superstition and the number 13 and the Detroit Tigers in fourth or fifth grade. I pretty much plagiarized it from a book.

14: I just finished my beer, and the Soup is on E!

Education & Propaganda

2010-08-13T09:08:00.001-04:00

What's the difference between Education and Propaganda (or "Indoctrination?"). This is sort of a test question. I'm suspecting that some of my three readers will argue that it's always been a muddled and contingent difference, whereas my other reader might try to make a clear delineation. I know we've been over this with the difference between news & propaganda, but humor me.

Another Observation re: American Culture

2010-08-13T08:54:00.001-04:00

This is a little uncomfortable, but another thing I've noticed is that every dufus-foil to be found in a television commercial is either a husband to a more refined wife, or a white person to a more refined black person. Of course--especially with race--these commercials could never be done the other way around. Not since about 1960.

And I know this is sociology 101, but why does every black person on TV have to be wearing a khaki-colored Nautica jacket over a Ralph Lauren golf shirt?

Observation on Language

2010-08-13T07:50:00.001-04:00

I've noticed over the past year or so a change in linguistic trend--a trend led by late-teen girls, but now spreading:

Whereas in earlier times people generally started appropriate sentences, "I think...," and somewhat less frequently, "I believe...," the same genre of people are now beginning their sentences by saying, "I feel like...."

It first popped into my head to write about this yesterday as I was watching Chloe and Kourtney Kardashian talk about something on their stupid show. But I've noticed it many times before.

The obvious interpretation is that we've finally entered an era where irrationality and "heart" are valued more highly than rationality and mind. I'm talking to you, Liberals.

Writing Style

2010-08-11T09:04:00.000-04:00

A lawyer friend asks, "I wonder if our jobs influence our writing styles?"

I reply,

Oh, I think absolutely. I've developed, since halfway through graduate school, a circumlocutory style that usually produces the effect of mystery on my readers. I'm conscious of this, and in conversations with trusted (i.e., non-academic) friends, embarrassed by it -- but it's that style that allowed me to get through graduate school without speaking what I believed to be outright lies: if I could be all-over-the-place enough, without being grammatically incorrect, my readers would be mystified. And if, on top of that, I quote sources that they have always felt ashamed not to have read, like Plotinus's Enneads or something by Santayana or Simone Weil -- you know, something they would've read if they hadn't read all 37 of Foucault's books -- then they would usually let me go sort of figuring I knew what I was talking about.

Get Religion!

2010-08-09T13:44:00.001-04:00

One of my good friends just started a blog about comedy. I wouldn't be surprised if the site "takes off," but I'm not convinced that more laughs are what Americans need right now. Last week we may have hit a national low when President Obama ~~fiddled while the empire burned~~ appeared on The View to joke about Snooki. I'm certain that a greater percentage of Americans know the meaning of the phrase "Gym-Tan-Laundry" than can name even one of the authors of the Federalist Papers. The "news" channels feature lead stories about sharks spotted off Chatham Beach and scatting cartoon kittens. A vast, vast majority of Americans speak only English. Almost none of them have read the Bible, though apparently all of them have read all eight Harry Potter books and all three Dan Brown and Stieg Larsson books.

In a recent sermon ("Religion"), the minister at my Unitarian Universalist Church, after joking that religion is nefariously difficult to define (he told the one about the little girl whose teacher asks, "What are you drawing?" "God," the girl says. "But no one knows what God looks like," the teacher says. "They will in a minute," the girl quips.), offered his own definition of religion:

Religion is an intentional effort to engage with the intrinsic, insolvable, ineffable paradoxes in human experience.

Honestly: are we all, we Americans--not we academics--are we all doing that? Might we? Should we? This criticism isn't aimed, as most of my criticisms are, at academics. However obscure or off-the-mark I think their scholarship is, most academics are engaging the mysteries of experience in an intentional way. But are we calling the rest of America to join us, or are we lowering ourselves to their level?

I have nothing against comedy, especially among those who are little-r "religious," like most all of my academic friends. But America generally, it seems to me, would do well to rediscover its seriousness, and I think academics might be in a position to lead the way.

And the "religious" are not off the hook either, regardless of whether they cherish Melville or the Bible or Levinas or The Upanishads or Emerson or Schopenhauer overmuch. The minister concluded,

Religion's most common error is mistaking the pointer for that which is being pointed to. It's a bit like falling in love with a photograph rather than the one who is pictured. Or a little like going to a museum and paying attention to the frames rather than appreciating the art... so for example when certain religious people forget that their sacred texts are ways of trying to point to a life within, and instead start to think of their texts as what really matters, they are mistaking a pointer for that to which it points--a mere means for the real deal.

Centralized Communications

2010-08-09T12:59:00.001-04:00

All of the people including Glenn Beck and to his "right" (yes, there are plenty, including the Michigan Militia and Alex Jones, etc.) are convinced that America is just one step away from autocratic dictatorship. The final step, they prophecy, will be for the federal government to "seize the airwaves."

I wouldn't have worried much about that, given Glenn Beck's large presence in the media, but the more I read about Net Neutrality (sorry, Wrangler), the more I'm starting to fear that the conspiracy-freaks might be right. I wish we could have a clearer, more direct, conversation about what's at stake here, including specific examples of how corporations are currently (supposedly) blocking access to certain products or information. I know that generally, liberals are for Net Neutrality, and conservatives oppose it, but I'm not sure that a sizable minority on either side could give good reasons for their positions.

Best I can tell, people on the left tend to believe that the government will protect citizens' interests by ensuring that there will be no "unequal access" to information or resources on the net. People on the right want to (continue to) trust the market to distribute resources according to demand. My question for those on the left is: doesn't that sound good only as long as "your team" is in charge of running whatever FCC-style department is in charge of regulating the airwaves? Do you really trust a conservative to enforce equal-access laws the way that you want to see them take shape?

But honestly--in genuine earnestness--I may not understand what's going on here. And I'd like to.

Maybe here's a framing question: how is the internet fundamentally different than the television airwaves? I may believe that there's too much "liberal" spin on news channels in America, but I don't want the government to step in to try to balance that (see for example: NPR).

New Efforts to Pierce the Veil of Mystery

2010-08-09T12:28:00.000-04:00

A few years ago, I wrote a poem:

Engineering
Inside the Great Pyramid, a narrowing corridor
Approaches an antechamber
Uphill making more than one great step before
Encountering a floating girdle stone
And a blocking stone
Lowered into place before time
To protect the king’s chamber
And the coffer in which he is buried.
The corridor is narrower than human shoulders.
Formerly, the ascending passageway pointed at Sirius
But the position of stars has changed since the king was buried.
The final blocking limestone at the end of the
Corridor too narrow for human shoulders
Reveals two eroding copper handles.
I may be confusing some of the essential facts,
But nonetheless, I wonder why,
If the corridor is too narrow for human shoulders,
There is a floating girdle stone
And a blocking
Antechamber nonsense copper eroding handles
To protect the king in case you made it through
The corridor too narrow for human shoulders
There is a heavy limestone
With eroding copper handles
Observed (only) by a robot named Upuaut
Whose shoulders were narrow enough to pass
But not strong enough to lift the final blocking limestone
By its eroding copper handles,
And this is where things stand.

Anyway, I was hoping to publish it one day. Now it looks like I'm going to be too late!

Fragmentary paragraph, in the works...

2010-08-09T09:43:00.000-04:00

Scholars in psychology and philosophy have been zeroing in on such evocative [mystical] language over the past decade, and some researchers have been quick to point out that there is an important reason for the struggle to overcome the limitations of language: on the other side of that divide, if we are to believe the mystics, lies an experience of unity-with-others that confirms a metaphysical view of “Oneness.” Further, and more importantly, there is a necessary ethical consequence to such a metaphysical perspective—a consequence that Melville approached most directly in his description of the monkey-rope in chapter 72 of Moby-Dick: Ishmael says, “So strongly and metaphysically did I conceive of my situation then, that while earnestly watching [Queequeg’s] motions, I seemed distinctly to perceive that my own individuality was now merged in a joint stock company of two” (320). This is a difficult and important philosophical point, especially in an era where the work of Emmanuel Levinas, which emphasizes the primacy of Ethics (or the escape from metaphysics), is held in high esteem.[1] In contrast to Levinas, who argues that Ethics must not be a consequence but a given, Melville, alongside countless mystics, philosophers, and theologians, seems to have believed that the ethical practice would fall into place if the proper metaphysical perspective could be attained. In a recent article published in the Journal of Religious Ethics, Daniel Zelinski summarized this point by borrowing from Meister Eckhart: “the Golden Rule is not a rule at all, but a reward which one is given.”[2] So this intention to pull readers across the linguistic divide into a mystical awareness is not without important ethical and political consequences: bringing about a state of consciousness where one intuits his really-existing metaphysical connection to others may very probably have been felt as an urgent end for Melville as the specter of Civil War loomed. If the American political experiment required an exceptional kind of individual consciousness in its citizens, Melville’s literary mysticism can be understood as participating in the effort--often reserved for religion--of transforming lives. “For a mystic,” Matthew Bagger has written recently, “paradox does not mark the limit of human cognition; rather, paradox opens out onto a plane of exceptional cognition.”[3]

[1] See Emmanuel Levinas, Ethics and Infinity (Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press, 1982), 45-52.

[2] Zelinski, Daniel. “From Prudence to Morality: A Case for the Morality of Some Forms of Nondualistic Mysticism,” Journal of Religious Ethics 35.2 (Jun. 2007), 299.

[3] Bagger, Matthew C. The Uses of Paradox: Religion, Self-Transformation, and the Absurd. (New York: Columbia University Press, 2007), 9.

Confessions (and Accusations)

2010-08-08T09:36:00.000-04:00

The moral precept that I struggle most with is the command that I feel deep in my conscience to not worry about what others are doing.

Fifteen years ago, I never worried what others were doing. I was easy-going, tolerant of different behaviors (if a bit aloof), non-judgmental, and, conversely, generally self-satisfied, content, and well... happy.

Then when I was 18, a freshman in an introductory college composition course, luck of the draw put me into JW's class. Although she was in her early fifties, she had recently finished her Ph.D. in rhetoric and composition from a mid-level Midwestern university. She introduced us to Foucault in the second week of class. In the first class she asked us to list all of the synonyms we could think of for penis, and then for vagina, to prove that, because there are more synonyms for vagina, we were obviously living in a patriarchal society. I had contributed something like eleven synonyms for vagina during that exercise. One assignment called for us to "do a semiotic analysis of a personal space." Trusting as I was, I decided to do just what the professor said, so I went home and looked around my room.

I noted that I was making the most of my small personal space, jotted down a few other observations that were apparently uninteresting to my professor, and then inadvertently gave her the red-meat she was looking for: "The posters of the bikini-clad women taped to my walls," I began, "feature good looking women making eye-contact with the camera. I suppose it produces the illusion that they're looking at me, and I like--"

My professor was "horrified," and called me into her office, to explain to me that my bedroom's decor was... sexist. I got a B in the class, even though my writing was very clearly technically better than some of my friends who earned A's. Not incidentally, she asked me with a smile whether she might use my essay as an example in an article she was working on. [The article was never published, except as a conference paper as part of the proceedings--she used me as an example of a student who needed enlightening, more or less.]

Since then, I've struggled with judging others. I tend to be indirect about it, but chances are, if I've spent any time with you, I'm dissatisfied with some aspect of your personal behavior. Indeed, I wouldn't mind seeing you behave a little more like me. Furthermore, since that ambush my freshman year, I'm less likely to be satisfied with my own situation in life, and I frequently catch myself comparing my own situation (material, spiritual, etc.) to others'.

Although I keep my criticisms of others to myself--and try to keep my whining about comparative well-being to myself--I am not a better person for these traits. I can affect an open-minded persona, of course (I fooled my dissertation committee), but I have become a tyrant inside, and the worst kind: one who lacks self-esteem.

Ironically, paradoxically, the prelapserian me, the Edenic me who hadn't been through the rigors of freshman composition class, would have simply taken all of this in stride--would even have confidently assumed that everyone felt similarly, and would have made the most of it--might even have shrugged it all off. But I picked-up on and internalized the skills of the critical/judgmental thinking executed-on me freshmen year, and so my reaction now, immoral and uncouth as I know it sounds, is to blame my fallen state on JW and her judgmental pedagogy. The lonely dried up bitch.

Antidote.

"The false god punishes, the true god slays."

2010-08-06T10:19:00.000-04:00

My new favorite book is called Metaphysics as a Guide to Morals; it was published in 1992 by Iris Murdoch. Oh, the headaches I could've saved myself if someone had assigned this book to me at the outset of ~~indoctrination~~ graduate school! Here are some excerpts [NOTE: Murdoch uses the term "structuralism" to indicate what we might refer to as "post-structuralism" or "postmodernism"]:

[Derrida's] Structuralism poses as a neutral quasi-scientific theory. Marxism was a theory of history which used historical evidence established by traditional methods to support its world-view. An aspect of structuralism is to regard history as fabulation, and 'the past' as a meaning-construct belonging to the present. It is, and admittedly, rhetoric versus reason. Of course we cannot see the past, so we must be though of as inventing it. This fake choice blots out the conception of seeking carefully for some truthful conception of the past. Marxism and (Derrida's) structuralism can join forces however in their rejection of God and religion and their hostility to 'bourgeois' views and values, seen as solidifying a view of the world which new revolutionary forces must destroy. Happily, since I wrote the above, the Zeitgeist, assisted by very many courageous individuals, has discredited and is demolishing Marxism. One of the first things which liberated people want to know is the truth about their past.
Of course there is much novelty, scholarship, brilliance, to be seen in the structuralist compound. What is objectionable is the damage done to other modes of thinking and to literature by the presentation of this fanciful metaphysic as a fundamental system. Philosophy, anthropology, history, literature, have different procedures and methods of verification. It is only when the idea of truth as relation to separate reality is removed that they can seem in this odd hallucinatory light to be similar. With the idea of truth the idea of value also vanishes. Here the deep affinity, the holding hands under the table, between structuralism and Marxism becomes intelligible.
...it is a merit of structuralism to indicate to us, with so much energy and so much learning, that the concept of the individual which we have inherited from centuries of thinkers cannot any longer be taken for granted but must be defended.
...in the time to come, which we are not told but might gloomily prophecy, the majority of people will make contact only with the childishly simple machinery, as the great machines which explore the depths of what will then be thought of as human reality will only be understood by brilliant and highly trained experts. Most people, unable to read, will be watching television. Television, the dictator's best friend, already erodes our ability to read. What is, and not implausibly, envisaged here is an apocalyptic change in human consciousness, involving vast social changes and the disappearance of old local ideas of individuals and virtues. A loss of sovereignty.
What is important is that we now take in conceptions of religion without God, and of meditation as religious exercise. There is, just as there used (with the old God) to be, a place of wisdom and calm to which we can remove ourselves. We can make our own rites and images, we can preserve the concept of holiness. The veil of Maya is not a single mysterious screen which can suddenly be whisked away by magic. We need the Platonic picture here. We are moving through a continuum within which we are aware of truth and falsehood, illusion and reality, good and evil. We are continuously striving and learning, discovering and discarding images. Here we are not forced to choose between a 'religious life' and a 'secular life,' or between being a 'goodie' and being a cheerful egoist! The whole matter is far more complex and more detailed. Our business is with the continual activity of our own minds and souls and with our possibilities of being truthful and good. Incidentally, and philosophically, we may see here the necessity of the concept of consciousness.
Learning is moral progress because it is an asceticism, it diminishes our egoism and enlarges our conception of truth, it provides deeper, subtler and wiser visions of the world. What should be taught in schools: to attend and get things right.
We must indeed preserve and cherish a strong truth-bearing everyday language, not marred or corrupted by technical discourse or scientific codes; and thereby promote the clarified objective knowledge of man and society of which we are in need as citizens, and as moral agents.

What Happened to Education.

2010-08-05T21:35:00.001-04:00

I wonder how long American universities can continue doing what they're doing without the American public wising up. I'm thinking about writing a book. It's not that there's anything wrong with forming a culturally-insular institution that enforces certain ways of thinking and speaking; it's just that pretending to not be such an institution is cowardly at best, and altogether demonic at worst.

Conservative freak-show/radio talk show voice Michael Medved reports, via Townhall.com (one of my conservative sources) that university officials at Augusta State are threatening to expel a graduate student who expressed the opinion that homosexuality is immoral behavior.

Way to go, postmodernism. If this wasn't your intention, it was a contingency you should've been on guard against. Convince everyone there's no grand narratives... but then allow only one grand narrative? Come on.

Immigration Policy

2010-08-05T17:24:00.000-04:00

I've got a link (click here) to a pretty stunning memo written and released by the Union workers of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement). It's a vote of no-confidence in the director of ICE, and if we had a responsible mainstream journalism in this country that wasn't carrying water for Obama, this would be front page news on every paper in the country.

It's only two pages long, so I won't bother summarizing it. Suffice it to say that it paints a surprising picture of just how bad things have gotten. No wait, I can't resist regurgitating just one of the bullet points:

While ICE reports internally that more than 90 percent of ICE detainees are first encountered by ICE in jails after they are arrested by local police for criminal charges, ICE senior leadership misrepresents this information publicly in order to portray ICE detainees as being non-criminal in nature to support the [Obama] Administration's position on amnesty and relaxed security at ICE detention facilities.

Knowing when to Assent

2010-08-04T08:53:00.000-04:00

I love when people have the courage to deliver a sermon without planning it. It happens too seldom. While I was on vacation, I found on a beach at sunset myself listening to my sister-in-law--a 27-year old who has traveled around much of the world and who is getting certified to be a Yoga instructor--preach about how to make things right. She said something like this:

It's not about what the religion is called, or even about whether you call God "God" or "Allah," or whether you learn about God through the Bible or Yoga or meditation; people need to stop worrying about how other people do it. We all need to realize that there are many paths, and that they all may lead to that holy end. Too many people want to divide-off into "us" and "them," and say that others are doing it wrong, and advocate for their way.

Then, undermining her passion and making a mockery out of her speech, I said,

Or do "we" need to accept even those who divide themselves off, and accept even those who claim the Bible is the only way, and accept that we are only a meaningful "we" if there is no "they?"

But looking back on it, remembering how I and my sister-in-law and a friend of hers and my wife and daughter and mother-in-law and step-father-in-law--how we all were just sitting there drinking beer with our toes in the sand, getting chilly in the summer as the sun set behind us and the waves grew tired in front of us... I wish I had said nothing, or even nodded in quiet agreement.

What is an American? What is a Jew?

2010-07-16T15:37:00.000-04:00

One of my favorite parts of every semester in my American Literature survey is when we address the question, "What is an American?" I don't push much of a hard line on any of the competing definitions, but privately, I sometimes can admit to myself that we're losing (if "we" have not lost already: my troubled use of the collective pronoun "we" as exhibit A) what was exceptional about America. When faction flourishes, collective identity becomes impossible. In America, this question and its consequences have long been part of the national discourse.

Now it looks like Judaism is undergoing a similar struggle for identity. What does it mean to be Jewish? And just as important: who gets to say? The article in the New York Times today was, predictably, very much against the current effort underway from within Israel to stabilize and authorize Jewish identity. But then, there aren't very many observant Orthodox Jews writing for the Times, I suspect.

I guess I just love the honesty that this discussion forces. We have handled it poorly in America, especially within academia, I think. Rather than admit that "diversity" leads to dissolution of identity, we have hawked the line about diversity as if it were a panacea, ignoring the problems that result. However the issue turns out within Judaism, I give credit to the rabbinate for raising the stakes so high, and so publicly. They very well may alienate 85% of the now-Jewish world, but at least they'll know what it means to be Jewish. But then, I'm not altogether sure that such a result is really worthwhile--?

Is it "racist" to say that your mother has to be Jewish for you to qualify? What if America passed legislation to the same effect? And finally, does it matter whether we have clear identities, or not?

What Democracy Produces

2010-07-16T10:57:00.001-04:00

If you aren't paying close and careful attention to the senate race in South Carolina between Jim DeMint and underdog-wonder Alvin Greene, you're missing one of the great comedies of our generation. Let me emphasize: this is really happening. Greene has been cleared of any charges--Democrats in particular were miffed by Greene's win in the primary, because he did not have the approval of party leaders. He raised the $10,000+ by himself, and there is no evidence of tampering.

Please take the time to listen to the latest interview featuring Greene, which aired on Charlotte's WBT News-Talk radio (1110 AM) this morning. Click this link and then search for "Alvin Greene." Or, if you click today, you'll probably just see the interviews and be able to listen from Keith Larson's main page. It's a genius interview, if you ask me; and although I give Larson points for making fun of Greene without Greene knowing it (or does he?), I want to emphasize again: this is really happening. Make sure to listen to the 7.12.10 interview.

Tech-Question

2010-07-15T19:44:00.000-04:00

I like the direction these guys are thinking--I'm not sure about Rudolph Steiner, but I love the idea of "sacred education"--but I'm much more interested, for now, in the technology. Does anyone know how to have a three-way video chat, and how to record it? [NOTE: if you click on this video and open it at YouTube, you'll see the third guy, missing from my frame for some reason as an "embed" on this blog.]

Interestingly enough, this is one of the few posts on this blog that is totally devoid of spiritual or sacred aims. Weird.

Observation

2010-07-15T13:29:00.001-04:00

I think it's ironic, or at least unfortunate, that the head of the NAACP's name is "Ben Jealous."

Any Questions?

2010-07-14T08:31:00.000-04:00

How we doing? Is anyone confused, or unclear, about anything?

If there are no questions, then, we'll proceed. Here's a story by an anti-Levinasian if there ever was one, Daniil Kharms. He was a Russian writer during the Stalinist period. He died of starvation in state custody after being arrested on suspicion of anti-Soviet activities. Here's what he says:

When I see a man, I want to smack him in the face. It's so much pleasure to pound on a man's face.

I sit in my room doing nothing.

Then--someone's come over to see me; he's knocking on my door. I say, "Come in!" He comes in and says, "Greetings! It's great that I've caught you at home." And that's when I knock in his face, and then I let my boot fly into his crotch, too. My guest falls over from the terrible pain. And I give him a heel to the eyes! Like, don't be whoring around when you're not invited!

Or else, there's also another way: I offer my guest to take a cup of tea with me. The guest accepts, sits down at the table, drinks his tea and starts telling me a story. I make it seems like I'm listening to him with fascination--I nod my head, sigh, make my eyes wide with surprise, and laugh. The guest, flattered by my attentions, gets more and more animated.

I calmly pour myself a whole cup of boiling water and throw the boiling water in the guest's face. My guest springs to his feet grasping his face. Then I tell him, "There is no more benevolence in my soul. Get out!" And I push my guest out the door.

Pascal's Bowling Alley Conversion

2010-07-06T22:05:00.000-04:00

For Pascal, it happened between 10:30 pm and 12:30 am on the night of November 23, 1654. Thereafter, he kept a memoir of his experience, sewed into the inside of whatever coat was his main standby. What I love is that what Pascal wrote about his experience that night is not very considerable, and he never mentioned it to anyone; all we have is the text of what a servant discovered on the inside of his coat when he died -- commentary about the experience, but certainly not the experience itself:

The year of grace 1654
Monday, 23 November, feast of Saint Clement, Pope and Martyr, and of others in the Martyrology.
Eve of Saint Chrysogonus, Martyr and others.
From about half past ten in the evening until half past midnight.

Fire
'God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob,' not of philosophers and scholars.
Certainty, certainty, heartfelt, joy, peace.
God of Jesus Christ.
God of Jesus Christ.
My God and your God.
'Thy God shall be my God.'
The world forgotten, and everything except God.
He can only be found by the ways taught in the Gospels.
Greatness of the human soul.
'O righteous Father, the world had not known thee, but I have known thee.'
Joy, joy, joy, tears of joy.
I have cut myself off from him.
They have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters.
'My God wilt thou forsake me?'
Let me not be cut off from him for ever!
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.'
Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ.
I have cut myself off from him, shunned him, denied him, crucified him.
Let me never be cut off from him!
He can only be kept by the ways taught in the Gospel.
Sweet and total renunciation.
Total submission to Jesus Christ and my director.
Everlasting joy in return for one day's effort on earth.
I will not forget thy word. Amen.

Strain, and see--

2010-06-30T09:18:00.001-04:00

It's about time for summer vacation. I'm going to be in and out of my place for the next month or so, so don't expect much posting -- let's all meet back here in late August.

When you know that you have become this perfect work, when you are self-gathered in the purity of your being, nothing now remaining that can shatter that inner unity, nothing from without clinging to the authentic man, when you find yourself wholly true to your essential nature, wholly that only veritable Light which is not measured by space, not narrowed to any circumscribed form nor again diffused as a thing void of term, but ever unmeasurable as something greater than all measure and more than all quantity -- when you perceive that you have grown to this, you are now become very vision: now call up all your confidence, strike forward yet a step -- you need a guide no longer -- strain, and see. --Plotinus, The Enneads, 1.6, "Beauty"

Inconsistency, Truth, Rhetoric, Democracy

2010-06-29T15:07:00.001-04:00

Today during a long car drive, I listened to Rush Limbaugh as Gretchen and Iris slept in the backseat. Limbaugh was analyzing the Elena Kagan confirmation hearing. His take was that Kagan sounded just like Alito and Roberts--that is, sounded like an "originalist," who revered the Constitution and the Law... as opposed to the typical idols of the Left, equality and social justice. Limbaugh's explanation? Kagan (via Obama) knows that, to get confirmed, she needs to say certain things--to sound a certain way. And then, after she is confirmed, she can let her true colors show.

Do we all agree that A) this is troubling, and B) that this is what Rhetoricians & Sophists teach us to do?

If you want to govern in a way that is unpopular, then run on a platform that is popular, and then govern on another platform altogether. It seems to be the way--of politicians on both sides--these days. Republicans saying they want smaller government, then increasing spending at record rates. Democrats running on an anti-war platform, then installing dozens of czars, taking over major industries, tapping wires, creating civilian hit-lists, not ending torture, and ramping up Colonialist aggression.

Has it always been this way? Could it be otherwise? Could anyone ever simply sit before the Senate and say, "I believe that the 'negative constraints' of the Law put into place by the Founders are no longer sufficient, and will do everything I can to bring about social justice and economic equality. I will favor women and minorities, because white men have historically had an advantage, and I believe the courts are powerful enough to bring about balance, and even vengeance."

So ya'll sophists don't think this is a problem, right?--running one way, acting another? Doesn't it make a mockery out of democracy?

Now I understand why I've been practicing my sharpshooting on Call of Duty so obsessively for the past couple years... hope it translates into reality

2010-06-29T09:57:00.001-04:00

So now, despite the fact that I'm unwilling to get involved, I find observing this intellectual struggle between Paul Krugman and Niall Ferguson very entertaining. Listen to Ferguson's latest interview, in which he argues that "it's all on the line for America."

I honestly don't know, but I really hope the empire doesn't collapse in my lifetime or my daughter's... when hoarding gunpowder and eating squirrels becomes the norm, I just don't know what my role will be.

[Fortunately, yesterday the number 3:10 recurred in my life a few times (miles driven, the cost of a purchase, etc.), and so at night, I opened my Bible, which was bookmarked at the beginning of Revelation, and I read to 3:10, sort of looking to see what my verse would be. Here's what it said: "Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come upon the whole world to test those who live on the earth."]

So, whew!

"Talk Not to me of Blasphemy, Man"

2010-06-28T09:03:00.000-04:00

I wonder if I should shut this venue down again, at least for a while. I became conscious this weekend of just how compromised my perspective has become since becoming a father. You really should have trusted me before--I was a reliable and decent person, whose seeking was an earnest effort to make the world better for all, and not just myself. Sift through the archives, friends. I was a prophet then, a bona fide soothsayer. I had your interests in my heart.

Now, after this...

...I don't give two cents about "Ethics" or "Justice." If keeping all of Africa impoverished means my daughter can have a better life, then fine. Or, conversely, if bolstering Africa with aid makes my daughter's life better, then fine. But don't talk to me of Justice, man. I'm a rogue nation. I might even be lying right now, right to your Face.

Don't ever elect me to public office. That's all I'm saying.

My Perennial Complaint, Refigured

2010-06-27T21:55:00.000-04:00

When I try to explain the necessity of fiction to my students, I often ask them to imagine trying to explain to a five-year old what it's like to fall in love. They often struggle, awkwardly comparing it to the love of parents, or to the way they feel about a favorite stuffed animal. Once, a good student, a girl, said, "I'd tell the child that it's like when you look in the cookie jar with a friend and see that there's only one cookie left, and you are willing to let the other person have it." I've always thought that that was a pretty good approximation, and of course, it proves my point about storytelling.

Now imagine if after hearing that story, the 5-year old was given an assignment to explain what romantic love was to everyone else in his class.

It's my contention that most academics are like that 5-year old, and that they fall into one of two camps: those obedient five-year olds who do their best to explain something in which they have limited or no personal experience, or, worse, like the bratty five year old who declares brazenly that romantic love doesn't exist at all: "Love is a social construct, and..."

And of course, Love in my analogy is like Tr-th, or G-d, or the mystical experience, or the Ultimate Reality, or whatever.

And what happens is that the good-faith academics who are trying to explain the Great Mystery, not having had any experience in it themselves, hollowly employ the terminology that they've heard from their own teachers. They will speak of cookies and cookie jars as if those were not figures of speech, but actualities. And this is why the history of philosophy is so clotted with minor, secondary, explanatory works of very little help or importance, and this (I think) has been the problem with much of literary criticism since that genre became institutionalized.

Plato's forms, Parmenides's One & Many, Jesus's mustard seeds, Buddha's Self -- all of these are figures used to help a willing mind "unteach" itself. The use of paradox is prevalent in every major religious tradition precisely because it brings us to our wit's end.

But, seduced by the exoticism of the language employed by these and other sages, legions of academics (and monks before them) have crowded library shelves with commentary, criticism, and derivative theory. Ask someone what Love is, and they will tell you that they know someone famous who once said that Love is like when there's only one cookie left in the jar, and...

And maybe it has to be that way. What could they do, really? They could not fall in love with you just to teach you what love is. They could grin and smile knowingly, confident that the experience would find everyone some day, but they wouldn't get tenure for that. And of course, they could deny that love exists, not having experienced it themselves, and convinced (theoretically) that, even if they had experienced love for themselves, they would not be able to communicate it to others; and so they might say, "There is no such thing as love."

And honestly, there'd be no harm in that.

More on Mysticism

2010-06-22T10:07:00.000-04:00

Pascal, from the Pensées 1.130:

If he exalts himself, I humble him.
If he humbles himself, I exalt him.
And I go on contradicting him
Until he understands
That he is a monster that passes all understanding.

Carl Jung, from The Red Book (Liber Novus), [liber primus fol.i(v)/ii(r)]:

Believe me: It is no teaching and no instruction that I give you. On what basis should I presume to teach you? I give you news of the way of this man, but not of your own way. My path is not your path, therefore I cannot teach you. The way is within us, but not in Gods, nor in teachings, nor in laws. Within us is the way, the truth, and the life.

Jordan Paper, "Ethnohermeneutics II: West," from his book, The Mystic Experience: a Descriptive and Comparative Analysis:

The foremost mystic of the Hellenistic world, [Plotinus] relates to the Religions of the Book in this regard as the Upanishads do to Hinduism. Plotinus was a professional philosopher who based his teachings on his own "Union" experiences, which his disciple and biographer, Porphyry, stated he had four times; Porphyry himself had the experience once... For Plotinus, the mystic experience was utterly ineffable: "Thus The One is in truth beyond all statement" (Enneads V.3.13). The experience cannot but be discussed from the standpoint of what is not; that is, by negation.

From E.M. Cioran's book Tears and Saints:

Mysticism is an eruption of the absolute into history. Like music, it is the crowning of culture, its ultimate justification.

From The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali:

Thereafter, one is undisturbed by the dualities.

From William James's Varieties of Religious Experience:

In Hinduism, in Neoplatonism, in Sufism, in Christian mysticism, in Whitmanism, we find the same recurring note, so that there is about mystical utterances an eternal unanimity which ought to make a critic stop and think, and which brings it about that the mystical classics have, as has been said, neither birthday nor native land. Perpetually telling of the unity of man with God, their speech antedates languages, and they do not grow old.

Han Shan, quoted in Peter Kingsley's book on Parmenides, Reality:

As one coming suddently out of darkness, I perceived the full meaning of the doctrine of immutability and said: "Now I can believe that fundamentally all things neither come nor go." I got up from my meditation bed, prostrated myself before the Buddha shrine and did not have the perception of anything in motion. I lifted the blind and stood in front of the stone steps. Suddenly the wind blew through the tress in the courtyard, and the air was filled with flying leaves which, however, looked motionless. I said to myself: "This is the whirlwind that will destroy Mount Sumeru and which is permanently still. When I went to the back yard to make water, the urine seemed not to be running. I said, "That is why the river pours but does not flow." Thereafter, all my doubts about birth and death vanished.

Jimi Hendrix, speaking of his guitar as a metaphor for Tr-th:

Sometimes you want to give up the guitar, you'll hate the guitar. But if you stick with it, you're gonna be rewarded.

Jesus, in the Gospel of Thomas (saying #2)

Let him who seeks continue seeking until he finds. When he finds, he will become troubled. When he becomes troubled, he will be astonished, and he will rule over the all.

From Jacob Boehme's Six Theosophic Points (1620):

...and the eternal Light cannot be laid hold of by anything, unless that thing fall into death, and give its essence voluntarily to the fire of Nature, and pass with its essential will out of itself into the Light; and abandon itself wholly to the Light; and desire to will or to do nothing, but commit its will to the Light, that the Light may be its will.

From Salinger's Franny & Zooey:

...I'll tell you a terrible secret--Are you listening to me? There isn't anyone out there who isn't Seymour's Fat Lady. That includes your Professor Tupper, buddy. And all his goddam cousins by the dozens. There isn't anyone anywhere that isn't Seymour's Fat Lady. Don't you know that? Don't you know that goddam secret yet? And don't you know--listen to me, now--don't you know who that Fat Lady really is?... Ah, buddy. Ah, buddy. It's Christ himself. Christ Himself, buddy.

From The Chandogya Upanishad

As the rivers flowing east and west
Merge in the sea and become one with it,
Forgetting they were ever separate rivers,
So do all creatures lose their separateness
When they merge at last into pure Being.
There is nothing that does not come from him.
Of everything he is the inmost Self.
He is the truth; he is the Self supreme.
You are that, Shvetaketu, you are that.

From Simone Weil's Gravity and Grace:

We hate the people who try to make us form the connexions we do not want to form.

Re: Jewish Mysticism

2010-06-22T09:38:00.000-04:00

"In Jewish mysticism, it is not always understood that union with God is but a temporary experience. Hence, there are warnings against allowing oneself to be dissolved into nothingness due to an assumption that returning to the state of a separate existence is not a subsequent step. But clearly in the above passage, it is accepted that at least some do come back to their former separate being."

That's an excerpt from a chapter titled "Ethnohermeneutics II: West," from a book called The Mystic Experience: A Descriptive and Comparative Analysis, by Jeshua ben Yosef (Jordan Paper), 2004.

And the passage referred to as "above" comes from A disciple of the Great Maggid, Levi Isaac of Berdicheve, who wrote in Kedushat ha-Levi:

When the Zaddik cleaves to the nought, and is [then] annihilated, then alone he worships the Creator from the aspect of all the Zaddikim, since no division of the attributes is discernable there at all.... There is a Zaddik who cleaves to the nought and nevertheless returns afterward to his essence. (qtd. in Paper)

Maybe this explains Levinas's reluctance to talk about religious experience? The author goes on to say, "In the main, the contemporary Jewish attitude toward mysticism, let alone the mystic experience, is to ignore if not deny its relevance within Judaism." Seems odd to me, given the nature of the stories in the Talmud, which practically all involve religious experience (Moses, Abraham, Noah, certainly). Even this seems like an insufficient reason to ignore the testimony of those who claim to have mystical experiences. Certainly most religious traditions have warnings: my Kundalini Yoga DVD comes with a warning that says, basically, "Careful: you might not be ready for this," and mainstream Christianity can hardly be said to encourage mysticism -- indeed, Philip K. Dick wrote his best books understanding that admitting to mystical experiences might land one in the nut-house.

Anyway, hmph.

A Repost, For a Laugh

2010-06-21T11:02:00.000-04:00

The following was originally posted on a now-defunct blog, A Voyage Thither, on April 27th, 2006. The original included three funny pictures: 1) of Emmanuel Lewis, 2) of a cartoon fish from Little Nemo, and 3) of the yellowish cover of Ethics and Infinity, photoshopped to read, Swimming and Wetness.

Swimming and Wetness: A Parody

A Conversation between Emmanuel Lewis and Nemo
(Begging patience from my uninitiated readers)

Nemo: How does one begin swimming?
Emmanuel Lewis: Swimming is the result of an original trauma -- a scene of violence wherein the consciousness of wetness manifests itself as the result of separation from floating.

N.: What is ontology in the context of swimming, and does swimming require a direction?
E.L.: For me, the swum does not count as much as the swimming. The swimming is the fact that before the Great White, I do not simply study its teeth; I react to them. The swimming is a way of announcing the Other by assuming responsibility for him. Directional swimming closes the infinite and is, in that sense, against the ethical. One can swim -- depths are not ontological necessities -- but the confrontation with the Great White commands: "Thou shalt not swim."

N.: You would say of Moby Dick, all other things being equal, what Jaws said of Leviathan?
E.L.: There are many things for which I can still not pardon Leviathan -- his participation in Pacific-pack-swim primarily. I for my part analyze the modalities of swimming, focusing on its verbal sense. We tend to think of swimming in the form of a gerund: "Swimming is good exercise," but I return to its action-based definition -- the act of moving through water. It is not a matter of escaping from the pack, but rather of escaping from swimming.

N.: In The Pacific and its Depths, you speak much of the Great White. It is your most frequent theme. What does this phenomenology of the Great White consist in and what is its purpose?
E.L.: One confronts the Great White before ontology -- even before swimming. Thus the best way of approaching the Great White is not to see his giant, glimmering white teeth or his eyes rolled back in his head! When one observes the sharpness of the Great White's teeth, one is not in a social relationship with the Great White. The relation with the Great White can of course occur in swimming, but what is specifically the Great White does not take place in swimming.

N.: You speak ocassionally of knowledge as an illumination of the possessed, of the thing owned.
E.L.: Or possessable. Down to the remotest clams.

N.: By distinction the escape from swimming is going to be a dispossessing?
E.L.: What is needed is a way of being wet that does not require swimming. The most audacious and distant swimming does not put us into a "school" with other fish; it does not take the place of moving together; it is still and always a wetness.

The One and the Other

2010-06-20T11:25:00.001-04:00

I thought two or three of you might be interested: I just finished reading an article on Levinas and the problem of mystical experience. It sort of brings together what I've been saying with what "you" have been saying -- and shows that I'm right, of course. Ha.

The article was titled, "Reducing the One to the Other: Kant, Levinas, and the Problem of Religious Experience," by Anthony J. Steinbock (published in Levinas Studies: An Annual Review, Vol. 4). While admitting that on most points Kant and Levinas are far apart, Steinbock writes,

There is a troubling point that connects these profoundly different thinkers: the ambiguous place of religious experience and its relation to the sphere of ethics. In fact, in addition to reducing the religious to the ethical, they both disavow the very kind of experience that could bring clarity to the issue of religious experience, namely, mystical experiencing.

This is what I've been trying to say for a couple of years now. "Your" philosophy, however postmodern and anti-philosophical it tries to be, is not accommodating my personal experience, and as a result, I do not find what you're saying persuasive. It's not that I think that the Face of the Other is not a source for realizing divinity -- only that it's not the only source. Steinbock differentiates, as I do, between what he calls "ecclesiastical faith" and revelatory (or "pure") faith. Because the former may be regarded as an object, and subjected to philosophy's ways of knowing, we mystics do not object to criticism of historical religion. But personal/revelatory/experiential religious experience must remain mysterious to those who have not themselves undergone the experience. And in light of this mystery, the philosopher (Levinas, Kant, etc.) must not arbitrarily limit the ways in which I experience the divine.

Anyway, if you've been one to write-off mystical experience, and you're into Levinas, give the article a once-over for me.