Erro, errare, erravi, erratus

This will not be the best-connected post in the history of blog.

I have an awful lot of tags. I felt bad about this until I realized that I had an awful lot of things I talked about. I consider eclecticism no more a sin then asceticism, and so, will carry on ballooning the wealth of tags at my disposal.

At some point I would like to re-do the style sheet for this page, and that may well be today. I like this initial style, but everyone does have it, and over-familiarity (as well you all know) breeds despite.

I understand more fully now than ever before in my life the scourge of poverty. It's not bad because some people have plenty and some live in want. That's a good objective measure for poverty, but I think JK Rowling says it best.

Probably the very best thing my earnings have given me, though, is absence of worry. I have not forgotten what it feels like to worry whether you'll have enough money to pay the bills. Not to have to think about that any more is the biggest luxury in the world.

I think one could extend that even further for true poverty. If you want to talk about the great tragedy of being poor (whose depths I have not nearly plumbed, and hope to avoid), I suspect that it is, above all, that of wasted potential. Surviving does not permit for thought beyond oneself and loved ones. Living lets you think about the plight of the world. When I worry about my job in a few weeks, and about what I shall eat and where I shall sleep (and yes, I am trying to keep Christ's words in front of me. What I wear is a matter of some indifference to me - food is rather a more important consideration), I cannot divide myself away from my immediate circle. Me, Penelope, the Barkeep, Sugarbutt, the Alchemist, the Hero and a few others I can consider and work with/for...everyone else seems to fall by the wayside. I wonder if, in Africa and Southeast Asia, in South America, if the social problems stem from that narrowness of circle, the refusal to open up to those outside, because of the need to survive.

It's not fully developed, I know, and me talking about poverty is Solomon bemoaning penury to a Nigerian slum-dweller. I will not swear, but I would that I could, if not redress the balance, than at least find a method for every person to live, truly live, rather than just survive. I think that life in Christ must be a part of that, but even Christ fed his people. When did Christ take an offering? Christ gave an offering, was an offering.

Now I have visions of being a pastor, of distributing bread, and meat, and water to all who come and ask, every Sunday, before worship. A glorious hope.

So. I have wandered a bit, as well I should from time to time. I'll be in touch.

Peace.

Unsettled

We should all be unsettled every once in a while. We should read something that throws us for a loop. If not, why bother? Why assault the world?
And I quote:

The most that religion can accomplish is to provide a crutch for the weak or lazy-minded to absolve guilt or to negate inquiry, and to serve as justification for the exercise of baser instincts like aggression, territoriality, ethnic cleansing, bigotry, or sociopathic perversions.

I think that of the many flaws here, the one that jumps out most is the complete misunderstanding of a) absolution and b) Christ. Has our author (about whose anonymity I should be angrier, I think), ever read a gospel? Any gospel, I don't care which. I do not find my Christian walk a justification for the exercise of ANY of those things - in fact, I find in the words of the Savior condemnation for them all.
And further:

Christians absolve themselves of guilt by proclaiming that their God was a man in mortal form who died for the "sins of humanity." This is all well and good, but what exactly are the sins of humanity?

Christianity does not examine what the sins are, choosing to ignore them. But having had Christ die to have these vaguely defined sins forgiven, Christians have continued to wage war on both humanity and nature for two thousand years. Christianity brilliantly fabricated a belief system to forgive all transgressions thereby absolving the human conscience of blame for tribalistic expansion. The genocide of the American Indian was justified and rationalized because these were unbelievers who had sinned by not believing in a Middle Eastern thunder god.

Our author has clearly never met a Catholic. Yes. Absolutely. I find myself examining (and confessing) my own sins on a daily basis, including and especially my sins against my planet, and my fellow Earthlings. I bring me to mind an episode of South Park when everyone claims responsibility for the actions of a few.
My real problem: I am a Christian humanist. I believe in the positive power of mankind. I believe that we can make a difference, to one another and to the world. We can only do that, however, when we recognize our hunger for the infinite. The author accuses religion of failure, because we try to describe the infinite in terms of the finite. Yet, she/he/it hopes that we will tap into that very same infinite for a religion of peace and harmony with life. We cannot escape the infinite - it will hunt us down. Better to claim the infinite as what it truly is - a Creator and giver of love, as unlike a man as can be while still being the font of love, than think of life, the tiniest mass of the tiniest mass of a single planet, as the be-all and end-all of the universe.
So, dear readers; love your planet - love your God. Love each other. The hour is coming when we will need each other as we need to breathe.

Cloudborn

Driving yesterday, I saw a cloud in the shape of the figure of an eighteenth century man - think the fim version of the Scarlet Pimpernel, or any French Revolution film, holding out his hand to a lady while dancing. The image was more vivid and lovely than I can describe to you.

Now, I've gone to school long enough to tell you that that's not really what was there. There was a nebula of water vapor attached to dust which was being struck by sunlight in a random pattern which happened to resemble this French fop to me. And, once more, I was made aware that this debate has gone on forever, between the phenomenal and the noumenal - in other words, that the scientific reality and the mental imagery are two different things. Of course, I favor the latter, being a poet and theologian. I want to say, and to believe, that I saw a man there because God wanted me to.

I think what struck me most particularly in this case was that from that angle, at that time, that shape existed. Just as, at this moment, from this angle, whatever the arrangement of atoms and particles on the screen, I am reading words. The underlying chaos of the universe doesn't, in my mind, preclude the reality of the either the phenomenal or the noumenal.

I regret that this point doesn't have as much point as some prior ones. It was tighter when I first saw it. I suppose I'll close with this: Next time you see a whale in the sky, or a star destroyer, or just a plain ol' Cowboy, let it make you feel. That, at least in part, is what life is about.

Oh, and a shout out to Penelope. Welcome to the blog. =)

mood: ring
album: WoW soundtrack

Postgap and ecclesiology

So it's been plenty long since last I posted. Thought this would end up being one thing - I failed, signally. Maybe now that it's not a class assignment I"ll actually work it from time to time.

Anyway, I just got into a good one with Sister Mary [who is peacing (peaceing? Blasted made-up words) for points Southwest tomorrow] and had one thought re: transubstantiation that I wanted to share with the vulgar.

"I think we're getting bogged down in what's dragging Sugarbutt through the mire, and maybe that's a mistake of my phrasing. What concerns me is less what is right, and more what is true. With transubstantiation, that's probably as true as anything. The difference between "it's a symbol" and "it's the physical thing" is less important to me than the truth that in the participation in the Eucharist, we are truly eating Christ's flesh, drinking Christ's blood. Any Protestant who tries to shy away from the reality of eating and drinking Christ by hiding behind "it's a symbol" is blaspheming, to my mind - the purpose of the symbol is to make the object truer than it could ever be in reality. From a scientific standpoint, though there's a lot of allowance I can make for miracles, it's tough for me to reconcile a physical transubstantiation. That said, I believe that, whatever the physical nature of the thing in my mouth, I am truly eating the flesh, drinking the blood of Christ.
Apply as needed - I think the church is, in truth, more united than people have ever known, could ever know. I think the words of Augustine echo with me as truly as those of Calvin. Right and wrong are, as you say the concepts of legality. It's possible to be wrong and untrue, but it's also possible to be wrong and true, by any measurable standard - see miracles."

So that's a chunk of recent thought. In coming weeks, perhaps, a theology of the physical, long-running enough now to be my problem of the year.

Reason concerning the being

See, now this I can get behind, as much as I can, in good conscience support any logos on the existence of God. Wasn't feeling the cosmological, but although I've heard them both before, I just feel the ontological more.

My one problem with Plantigna (sp? It's downstairs) is that the idea that if something is impossible in one universe, it must be impossible in all universes. You guys don't understand from universes, I think. You philosophers, me (that's in the vocative), have no problem with a universe which lacks gravity, electromagnetism, space-time, whatever, but propose for a fraction of a second a non-causal, illogical universe, and you all flip out. Philosophers, and (to a lesser degree) theologians, beware! Lest God should smite you for your hubris in setting up a false idol, called Logos.

This, of course, relates to Sugarbutt, who has decided that it is more important to have logic than to have God. I can't really fault that, as long as you realize that in some ways, you are merely replacing God with logic. Oh, that plus it makes you a godless heathen.

Class twice today...that's going to be darned exciting. Oh, well. Little nap 'ere that begins.

Argumenta

My head spinneth, having been moved by an unmoved mover. I read the Anselm because, you know, I was interested, and...why not?

It's interesting to me that the proposition seems to hang on the issue of things being impossible. This leads to this leads to this which can't be true - it's obviously impossible. We seem to set about saying that the root of all philosophy is in eliminating contradictions.

I'm not saying that contradictions are necessarily good, but I'm not saying they're necessarily bad, either.

"And yet, by heaven, I think my love as rare
As any she belied with false compare,"

or

"I hate and I love - why I cannot say.
But it is so, and I am in torment."

That's human life - there are contradictions, paradoxes, things that don't make sense. I understand the philosophical drive to combat contradiction and impossibility, but every once in a while, I suspect that a logical impossibility captures the essence of a thing much better than any book of sensical descriptions ever could.

Which may, of course, be why I believe in God. God is not a good explanation for the contradictions, and He contradicts a good few things by his existence, but He does say: mystery is necessary and good. Theologize, but don't get so caught up in thinking about Me that you forget what you and I are up to. We have work to do, you see.

And I'm down with that.

Veritas non posse scire

So this is my elemental criticism of Martin, that he thinks it's possible to understand unknowable truth in logical terms. I was reading, there, thinking that he might endeavor next to explain Shakespeare or Coleridge in logical terms. It's worth our while, certainly, to try and interpret poetry, and religious experience. I would be beyond foolish to deny it.

But he accuses mystics of attempting to explain the ineffable, and calls their definitions and distinctions internally inconsistent, if not paradoxical and contradictory

My skills at simile fail me entirely! It's...it's explaining purple to the blind, explicating the clarinet to the deaf! Brain surgery!

The reality we're endeavoring to discuss is clearly not the reality with which we deal on a daily basis. There is no reason why it should necessarily play by our rules, by any stretch of the imagination. There's no reason why it shouldn't, either, which is his purpose in his negative principle of credulity, but just because our language and thought are presented with a universe we can't explain is no reason to stop trying.

My favorite accusation, and I use that word with care, is when he goes after mystics for saying something can't be explained, and then trying so to explain.

He's missing, of course, the human drive to try. Just because something is indefinable doesn't absolve us of the responsibility to make the attempt. Those of us blessed with religious experience and with liberal arts educations should endeavor to give every account that we can, until reason breaks down and faith alone remains.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't always be trying to reason further, but a world entirely run on logos ends with the darkest visions of Huxley, Orwell, Bradbury and Plato (if you don't think Republic is Dystopian literature, you need to take a careful re-examination of your life).
You need mythos, and philos, and eros, and all those messy human desires, emotions and stories for mankind to maintain its humanity.

Bah! Silly people with your desire for a fully explicable universe!